From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Bromford Housing Group Limited (202316639)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316639

Bromford Housing Group Limited

30 April 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his reports of roof leaks and the associated works.
  2. In addition, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which started in August 2020. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The resident lives in a first floor flat which is part of a sheltered housing scheme. We understand that there is a main roof over each individual block of flats and connecting flat roofs between the blocks.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint (‘complaint A’) in, or around, January 2022. We have not seen a copy of this. However, in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the complaint related to outstanding repairs to a flat roof which had leaked into communal areas. It also said the resident had referenced a roof leak into other flats that had first been reported in August 2021. The resident recently confirmed with us that this accurately reflected his complaint.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response is dated 7 February 2022. The landlord apologised for the unacceptable delays relating to the roof repairs. It said works had now been referred to its contractor and would be closely monitored.
  4. On 18 May 2022 the resident confirmed a roof survey had been completed and temporary works carried out to the flat roof. The resident said his main complaint was about how the landlord allocated roofing works.
  5. On 27 May 2022 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He referenced other residents who had experienced repeated flooding. In response, the landlord said it was unable to discuss other residents’ cases but confirmed the roof would be replaced. It is not evident that there was any further communication between the parties until August 2023.
  6. On 5 August 2023 the resident said his complaint was about works not having been completed to his roof. He raised concerns regarding the landlord’s works schedule in relation to the weather forecast. He asked the landlord to stop works.
  7. In response, the landlord raised a new complaint (‘complaint B’). It issued its stage 1 response on 22 August 2023. In summary, it said the resident’s complaint was based on works that had not yet started and that they would begin on 29 August 2023. We understand works were subsequently completed to the main roof area relating to the resident’s flat by 5 September 2023. 
  8. The resident complained he had not given the landlord permission to close his initial complaint, complaint A. In response to this, the landlord raised a third complaint (‘complaint C’) and issued its stage 1 response on 11 September 2023. In summary, the landlord said:
    1. Its CEO had noted the complaint and asked that the resident’s complaint was investigated.
    2. The landlord had told the resident he could withdraw the new complaint, and progress the complaint using the original complaint number, to avoid confusion.
    3. The original stage 2 escalation request related to other residents and, as such, had not been progressed.
    4. The last contact from the resident was over 12 months ago. Issues raised at the time had been answered and roof works agreed. Therefore, the landlord had raised a new complaint regarding the upcoming roof replacement to the resident’s flat.
  9. On 12 September 2023 the resident reported water ingress into his flat. The landlord said it believed this was due to water coming through a section of the flat roof. It carried out a temporary repair and said all flat roofs in the block would be upgraded.
  10. On 3 October 2023 the resident raised a further complaint (‘complaint D’). He said he had repeatedly asked when the flat roof would be fixed, referenced the recent leak into his flat and delays progressing works. The resident also referred to his initial complaint, complaint A, regarding his concerns about the flat roof leaking into communal areas. In response, the landlord carried out temporary repairs in relation to the flat roof leak into the resident’s property.
  11. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 17 October 2023. In summary, it said the flat roof adjoining the resident’s property had holes in it which had resulted in a small amount of water entering his property. It confirmed temporary repairs had been completed until such time that the flat roof sections could be fully replaced.
  12. On 31 October 2023 the resident escalated complaint D to stage 2. He said that attempting to fix a problem and/or fixing something in the future was not fixing it. He referenced the overall time taken to progress works to the flat roof which, he said, formed part of the whole roof refurbishment proposed following the survey in 2022.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 November 2023. In summary, it said it had fully investigated matters but had not fully addressed the resident’s questions. It also acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication with the resident. The landlord explained a new procurement process had been completed and said it planned to start works to the flat roof the following Spring. Meanwhile, it said it was identifying areas of the flat roof it needed to make watertight.
  14. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for a lack of communication and £50 for distress and inconvenience.

Events post completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

  1. On 10 March 2024 the resident reported further water ingress into his flat. On 12 March 2024 he reported a further roof leak into the communal area. On 7 May 2024 the resident advised of additional water ingress into his flat. On 4 June 2024 the resident reported a leak into his kitchen.
  2. The resident sought our assistance. He referred to repeated flooding and referenced the landlord’s lack of action. He said that following the roof survey in 2022 the landlord had proposed a 4-month roof replacement project which included both the main roof and flat roofs. He said works, overall, had taken 3 years to complete. The resident referenced the associated disruption during this time and said his complaint related to the roof works as a whole. In addition, he referenced his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his complaint.
  3. The resident recently confirmed that he has not experienced any leaks since around June 2024. To resolve matters, he requested increased compensation and compensation for all affected residents. In addition, he asked the landlord to demonstrate it had learnt from his complaint to help prevent similar issues in future.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. This investigation focuses on events from February 2022 until November 2023. This time period commences with the landlord’s initial stage 1 complaint response up until completion of its internal complaints process. Events referenced within this report that pre or post-date this time period are included to provide context or background information where it is considered reasonable to do so.
  2. The resident raised concerns throughout his complaint regarding the impact of the leaks on other residents. However, in the absence of authorisation from other residents, this investigation will focus only on the landlord’s response to the resident, its handling of his concerns, and whether its approach to his complaint was fair and reasonable.

Policies and procedures

  1. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (Section 11), the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including the roof. This is reflected in the landlord’s “Repairing and Maintaining” policy which sets out the landlord’s repair response times:
    1. Immediate 2 hours – a defect which may lead to injury or property damage if left e.g. a flood, structural damage from impact.
    2. Emergency same day – repairs that pose a risk or significant impact to the safety and/or welfare of the customer and/or property.
    3. Emergency next day – repairs that pose a reduced risk or inconvenience to the customer if left unattended for more than 2 days.
    4. Appointed repair – any other repair where there is no risk or harm or significant inconvenience or impact on the customer (as required by the customer and availability of appropriate resources).
    5. Unappointed repair – where a fixed appointment is unnecessary due to the nature of the works, such as works to a communal area (timescale established on risk and inconvenience).
    6. Planned or cyclical – repairs that can be delivered more effectively through a planned or cyclical programme (timescale dictated by the nature of work and investment plan).
  2. The landlord’s Complaints policy says it aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It will issue a response at stage 2 within 20 working days. It says the landlord will manage a resident’s expectations, only disclose information as necessary, and conduct investigations impartially.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation policy says discretionary awards will be made at the landlord’s discretion on a case-by-case basis. The policy says the landlord will consult our published Remedies Guidance when considering awards.
  4. Our Complaint Handling Code states that when a complaint is logged at stage 1 or escalated to stage 2, landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking and if any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification.

Roof leaks

  1. When investigating a complaint, we apply our Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response for complaint A on 7 February 2022. The complaint related to outstanding flat roof repairs and leaks into communal areas and flats. The landlord acknowledged there had been unacceptable delays further to reports of leaks that it had received in August 2021. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delays. Nevertheless, the landlord should have had a process in place to ensure that where follow up work was needed, the resident was not left to chase outstanding activity.
  3. On 18 May 2022 the resident said a roof survey and temporary works to the flat roof had been carried out. The landlord confirmed this. We would expect the landlord to have provided us with a copy of the survey, schedule of works, and associated communications with the resident to show how it planned to fully resolve issues and associated timescales.
  4. At times, it is unclear from the evidence provided to us exactly when temporary roof works took place. As such, we have used our discretion where it is considered fair and reasonable to do so based on the information available to us. The landlord is reminded that the onus is on it to provide documentary evidence to show that it took prompt and effective action in accordance with the timescales outlined in its Repairing and Maintaining policy.
  5. On 7 June 2022, 19 June 2022, and 6 July 2022 the resident followed up with the landlord for an update regarding his complaint about roof works. On 23 June 2023 and 6 July 2022, the landlord said it would update him as soon as it could. There is, however, no evidence of contact the landlord then made with the resident until 23 November 2022 following the resident’s further contact. The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with timely updates was unreasonable and contributed to his time and trouble pursuing matters. As such, it was appropriate the landlord acknowledged that there had been communication failings in its stage 2 complaint response dated 16 November 2023. However, when considering the time period, we would expect it to have done so earlier.
  6. There is no evidence of contact between the landlord and the resident between November 2022 and August 2023 other than the landlord’s reference to a proposed visit on 18 May 2023 with no recorded outcome. This raises a further concern regarding the landlord’s communication with the resident and its record keeping. We would expect the landlord to have contacted the resident during this period to keep him updated and to explain the reasons for any delays where relevant.
  7. On 5 August 2023 the resident complained about the time to complete works to his roof. In response, the landlord said it understood the resident’s apprehension due to works not having started yet. It was appropriate the landlord acknowledged that there had been an impact on the resident.
  8. The landlord said the situation had been difficult due to additional asbestos works required to the roof. It told the resident it had made changes to try and prevent similar issues that occurred with roof works to other properties. The landlord was transparent in its approach and offered the resident reassurance in this respect. However, the landlord may have offered the resident greater reassurance if it had explained the changes it referenced.
  9. On 21 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to stop its plan of roof works. He referenced the weather forecast which showed rain. In response, the landlord confirmed it would continue to work from its contractor’s schedule. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the landlord’s approach was reasonable. It was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff concerning the work it needed to do and when. 
  10. The landlord completed the main roof works to the resident’s property by 5 September 2023. The resident first raised his concerns about the main roof leak and flat roof leaks in, or around, January 2022. He told us that the landlord had advised him of a 4-month plan following the survey in 2022. We have not seen reference to a 4-month plan in the evidence provided to us. However, events to fully resolve matters were clearly protracted. In addition, evidence indicates a failure on the landlord’s part to keep the resident appropriately updated during this time which caused him inconvenience and time and trouble.
  11. On 12 September 2023 the resident experienced issues with water ingress into his flat via the flat roof. The landlord carried out a temporary repair which was appropriate. On 4 October 2023 it noted internally that it had agreed to replace the flat roof at the same time as the main roof. It referenced delays that had occurred due to procurement issues. While frustrating, these delays were beyond the landlord’s control, and it was appropriate that it explained this to the resident when it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 November 2023.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it said it planned to start work to the flat roofs the following Spring and explained its timescales. The landlord was open with the resident which was appropriate. It said it would complete a digital scan of the flat roof to highlight any areas it needed to make watertight in the meantime. It was appropriate that it took mitigating interim steps given the extended timescales of the works, and its actions offered reassurance in this respect. It subsequently completed works to the flat roof in February/March 2024.
  13. At stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it offered the resident compensation. The amount offered comprised of £50 for a lack of communication and £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused. However, when considering the circumstances of the case, the time period involved, the level of contact initiated by the resident and our published Remedies Guidance, the compensation offered was inadequate.
  14. In accordance with our Remedies Guidance, while there was no permanent impact on the resident, there was a failure which adversely affected him. The landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right. However, it failed to adequately address the detriment the resident experienced with regards to any distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays getting matters fully resolved.
  15. In addition, we have observed some unprofessional language from the landlord contained within its response to the resident dated 28 August 2023 regarding his communication. While the remarks appear to be an isolated incident, the landlord is reminded that all comments should remain professional, in line with its expected working practices and in accordance with our Complaints Handling Code for acting within professional standards.
  16. Overall, we have found maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of roof leaks and the associated works. An order has been made below for £300 to reflect the overall detriment to the resident and the time and trouble he experienced pursuing repairs. This order replaces the landlord’s offer of £100.

Complaints handling

  1. We have not seen a copy of the resident’s initial stage 1 complaint, complaint A, made in, or around, January 2022. As such, we are unable to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with the timescales outlined in its Complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code. We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail of events.
  2. In addition, the stage 1 complaint response provided to us is dated 7 February 2022. It references having received the resident’s complaint on 7 February 2022 and issuing an acknowledgement the same day. It is reasonable to consider that it would take the landlord longer than this to complete a full and detailed investigation. In addition, the resident advised us that he submitted his complaint a number of weeks earlier. As such, in the absence of any other information, the dates referenced in the landlord’s initial stage 1 complaint response were not accurate and would have caused confusion for the resident.
  3. On 18 May 2022 the resident advised the landlord that his main concern related to its allocation of roofing works. In addition, he raised concerns about the impact on other residents who, he said, had experienced repeat flooding. In particular, he said “my initial complaint was to get this job done asap to prevent further distress to the tenants”. In response, the landlord said it had fed back his suggestions on how to improve the allocation of works. It also said it was unable to comment on matters relating to other residents and asked the resident what exactly it should open as a complaint. On 19 May 2022 it wrote to the resident and listed what it was investigating to confirm it was not missing anything. Overall, the landlord’s approach at this point was reasonable.
  4. In the above response, the landlord said it understood the resident had agreed for his complaint to be closed. Based on the evidence available, it is unclear how the landlord reached this conclusion. In response, the resident asked the landlord not to close his complaint until remedial repairs were carried out. The landlord ought to have clarified with the resident the information it had received which led to its decision making and whether it would keep the complaint open as requested.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 27 May 2022. He said his dissatisfaction also related to other tenants’ flats and their roofs. The landlord reiterated to the resident that it could not discuss other tenants’ cases. This was an appropriate response. In addition, the landlord explained what information the resident needed to provide in order to escalate his complaint and it asked him what outcome he sought. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code.
  6. On 23 November 2022 further to the resident querying what was happening with his complaints, the landlord noted that a lot of further events had now occurred. It said that, as such, things could have been missed. The landlord recommended the resident raised a new complaint in relation to anything he felt it had not answered. While the landlord’s approach demonstrated a willingness to progress with further investigations for the resident, we would expect it to maintain a full record of any complaints and the outcomes at each stage. In accordance with our Complaint Handling Code, this must include the original complaint, and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties, and any relevant supporting documentation. As such, the landlord’s approach that “things could have been missed” raises a concern regarding its record keeping. 
  7. On 5 August 2023 the resident asked the landlord to refer his complaint to this Service or to tell him how to do so. In response, the landlord provided our contact details, which was appropriate.
  8. On 5 August 2023 the landlord suggested to the resident that he raised a new complaint, complaint B, regarding the works specifically to his roof due to the time that had passed since his initial complaint in early 2022. The resident’s frustration with the landlord’s approach is acknowledged. However, when considering his stage 2 escalation request related to other residents’ cases, as well as the time period involved, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
  9. In addition, the landlord told the resident it could close the new complaint and transfer all notes onto his initial complaint, to avoid duplication. The landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principle, ‘put things right’ in this respect.
  10. On 22 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response for complaint B regarding roof works to the resident’s property. It concluded that his complaint was based on works that had not yet started. As such, the complaint was not upheld. However, the resident had previously told the landlord that his complaint related to delays starting works to his roof. The landlord had acknowledged this in its response dated 9 August 2023 when it reassured the resident that works would be completed as quickly as possible. As such, the landlord failed to demonstrate a full understanding of the resident’s complaint which was unreasonable.
  11. The landlord is reminded of its Complaints policy and our Complaint handling Code whereby it will conduct investigations in an impartial manner. It was a shortcoming therefore that the same member of staff who liaised with the resident regarding the closure of his initial complaint issued the stage 1 complaint response in relation to this matter on 11 September 2023.
  12. The resident raised another complaint on 3 October 2023, complaint D, further to a leak into his flat. The landlord responded within 10 working days in accordance with its Complaints policy. The landlord offered the resident reassurance that temporary repairs had been completed until the whole flat roof sections could be replaced. This was a reasonable approach.
  13. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 31 October 2023. In response, the landlord acknowledged his complaint on 7 November 2023. It then updated him on 14 November 2023 to apologise for delays due to unprecedented levels of staff absence. The landlord was transparent in this respect and appropriately attempted to manage the resident’s expectations regarding delays responding to his complaint.
  14. In its stage 2 complaint response, dated 23 November 2023, the landlord acknowledged it had not fully answered the resident’s complaint. It said that while it had addressed the immediate source of the leak and repaired the damage, there had been a lack of communication regarding the ongoing process and the resident’s concerns about a recurrence of the leak. The landlord’s acknowledgement of its failings was a welcome approach. However, we would expect to have then seen evidence of its learnings to prevent similar issues in future. This is in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principle, “learn from outcomes”.
  15. In summary, at times the landlord demonstrated good practice in its complaint handling. It clarified its understanding of the resident’s initial complaint. When matters became unclear, it asked him to confirm the basis of his stage 2 escalation request and the outcome he sought. It appropriately explained that it could not respond to complaints relating to other residents. When the resident complained the landlord had closed his initial complaint and set up a new one, the landlord explained what it could do to put things right. In addition, the landlord was proactive in updating the resident about delays responding to his complaint due to staff absence.
  16. However, at times the landlord failed to effectively manage the resident’s expectations. This resulted in the resident following up with the landlord for information on multiple occasions. In addition, at times, there was a failure to fully understand the resident’s complaint and respond accordingly. As such, we have found service failure.
  17. An order for compensation of £75 is made below in accordance with our published Remedies Guidance. The order made acknowledges that while the handling of the complaint may not have significantly affected the overall outcome, the resident experienced frustration, inconvenience and time and trouble progressing matters.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of roof leaks and the associated works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this investigation report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this investigation.
    2. Pay compensation of £375, comprising:
      1. £300 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in its response to his reports of roof leaks and associated works
      2. £75 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of the associated complaint
    3. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100.
  2. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided to us within 4 weeks of the date of this report.