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 (202316787)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316787

Bromford Housing Group Limited

6 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the signing of the tenancy agreement.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident signed an assured non-shorthold tenancy agreement on 22 May 2023. The property was a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has said the tenancy was a joint tenancy. The Ombudsman understands that the second applicant was the resident’s carer. The resident nor his carer ever moved into the property.
  2. The resident’s carer called the landlord on 25 May 2023. He said that the property had been signed under duress, and that it was not financially viable. He said the contract was not valid and that they would not move in. The resident then emailed, confirming that the property was not financially viable. He asked for the landlord to void the contract. He offered to pay one week rent as goodwill. He advised this would allow them to “resolve our mistake in accepting the contract”.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 May 2023. He said that he was not able to bid on Homesearch, a choice-based lettings system. He said that he felt discriminated against. He said that the landlord asked him to sign the tenancy quickly and that he was unable to process decisions quickly, due to his disability. The landlord responded on the same day. It said that it had followed its procedure for the application of tenancy. It said that it discussed disabilities with the resident, but the resident nor the carer made the landlord aware of the need for any adaptations. The landlord said the resident raised whether the tenancy could be a sole tenancy, and it advised the applicants that it could not. It said that it could possibly look at changing this in the future. The landlord said that both applicants then signed 4 documents, accepting the tenancy as a joint tenancy.
  4. On 28 May 2023, the resident disputed the landlord’s claim that it followed the process. He said that the landlord included his personal independence payment in the financial checks, which it should not have done. He also said that no one asked if he understood the contract. He said he was experiencing “meltdown” during the meeting, and that he was unable to process the information. On 30 May 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He asked the landlord to void the tenancy.
  5. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 12 June 2023. It said that the application came through from Homesearch as a joint tenancy. It advised it had followed the process for a new application. It said it had a phone call with the resident, a meeting at his home, and a sign-up meeting. It advised that it saw no signs the resident was in “meltdown” and that the carer did not intervene. The landlord said the resident could give notice to end the tenancy, via a signed letter. Alternatively, it offered that it could give notice to the residents, end the tenancy and consider a part refund. It said this was an offer of goodwill, and not an admission of fault.
  6. The resident continued to dispute the tenancy. He escalated the complaint on 19 June 2023. He said that he had always been a sole applicant, but that Homesearch amended this to joint application. This was so he could bid on 2-bedroom homes, which he needed so his carers could stay when necessary. He stated Homesearch amended the application to a joint application without his consent. He disputed that the landlord discussed matters with him on the phone, as he did not communicate via phone. He said that the landlord may have spoken with his carer, but not him. He said his finances were independent to his carers. The resident raised concerns about staff members actions, stating that two members of staff had a secret conversation during sign up. He said the landlord did not provide paper documents. He reiterated that he was in meltdown at the sign-up meeting and that the landlord never offered him a break to consider the tenancy.
  7. The landlord responded on 20 July 2023. It said that it handled the stage 1 complaint correctly and reiterated that it followed its process during the sign-up. It also said that the resident initially said the sign up had been a mistake. This was different to later allegations. It confirmed the tenancy had now ended, but that the landlord would not be able to void or delete it.
  8. The resident is still unhappy with the landlord’s actions and has asked the Ombudsman to consider these.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

  1. The resident has made allegations of discrimination due to his disability. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether there was discrimination. The Ombudsman also cannot make any determination on whether an adjustment is reasonable. This would likely need to go through the courts as a legal challenge. However, we can consider whether the landlord considered any reasonable adjustment requests, and what actions it took in relation to this.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the signing of the tenancy agreement.

  1. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that Homesearch told the landlord that the application was a joint application. Although the resident has said that this was incorrect information, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord was aware of this until after the applicants signed the tenancy agreement. The resident would need to contact Homesearch on any data error that they may have made. On this basis, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted appropriately in considering the tenancy to be a joint application.
  2. The landlord said that it spoke with both the resident and the carer by telephone. We note that the resident said he was not part of this call. We have not had access to this call, and we are therefore unable to determine whether the landlord or resident’s account is correct. However, we note that there were two further contacts, in the form of a home visit and a sign-up meeting, where the resident and his carer were present. We therefore do not consider that it is essential to make a finding on whether the landlord or resident’s account of the telephone call is correct.
  3. The landlord said that it discussed the resident’s disability on this call. The resident has later said that his carer would not have been able to divulge all the resident’s circumstances due to the complex nature of these. We accept that the resident’s carer may not have been able to share all the resident’s circumstances. However, we also consider that the landlord can only act on information it has available. We would expect a carer or the resident to raise any reasonable adjustments in advance of them being needed.
  4. While the Ombudsman considers that the resident and the carer were responsible for raising any reasonable adjustments, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s notes on the disability discussions are vague. It is good practice to ensure that the landlord records a disability, where it may affect a resident’s understanding of a process, in detail. Further we consider that it is best practice for the landlord to specifically ask if there are any reasonable adjustments needed and ensure these are recorded and acted on if appropriate.
  5. The resident has raised concerns that the income and expenditure was incorrect as it included his carers financial details. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the resident or his carer raised concerns with the income and expenditure at the time the landlord carried it out. We recognise that the resident’s disability may have impacted his understanding of the process, however it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that his carer would have raised concerns if needed.
  6. The resident also raised that the landlord should not have used his personal independence payment in the calculation. The landlord did not provide us with the income and expenditure. The landlord has not provided a policy in relation to what income it will include in an affordability calculation. Based on the surplus figures the landlord provided after the income and expenditure, it is unlikely that removing personal independence payments would have meant the property was unaffordable. The Ombudsman has not seen any definitive evidence that the landlord cannot use personal independence payments in an income and expenditure. However, we would have expected the landlord to address the residents concerns and outline its position. The landlord did not do this. Whilst we consider the landlord could have responded better, we do not consider that this affected the overall application.
  7. The resident has raised concerns about how the landlord conducted the meeting with him. He said that he was in meltdown and that he was unable to process the information. The Ombudsman is unable to determine what specifically happened at the meeting. However, we would consider it reasonable that if neither the resident nor the carer raised concerns at the time, that the landlord could not have known that the resident was in meltdown. The resident states that the landlord placed pressure on him and that he was unable to take the information in. The landlord said that it explained things clearly and concisely. While we cannot determine which account is correct, we would again have expected the resident’s carer to raise concerns at the time they arose. There is no evidence to support that the landlord should have reasonably known that the resident did not understand what he was signing.
  8. Once the resident had signed the tenancy, it would be a legally binding contract. When the resident requested the landlord void the contract, it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse this request. It was also reasonable for the landlord to request notice to quit the property. The landlord made an offer for it to serve notice to quit to the resident and consider a partial refund. It is encouraging that the landlord recognised the difficult circumstances and considered options to support the resident.
  9. There were three contact points with the carer and the resident before they signed the tenancy. We have seen no evidence that either applicant requested a reasonable adjustment. Based on the evidence, the landlord was thorough during the sign-up process and correctly followed its procedures. We recognise that this matter has been distressing for the resident, and that there are complex circumstances. However, based on the evidence, we consider there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the signing of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling procedure says it will respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The landlord took 9 working days, which was within the timescales.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling procedure states that it will respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. The landlord took 23 working days which is slightly out with the timescales.
  3. Although the response was outside of the timescales, the delay was negligible and did not have a material impact on the complaints response. As such there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the signing of the tenancy agreement.
    2. Complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord consider whether it is accurately recording any disabilities and how this may impact a resident. It is also recommended that the landlord ensure they ask residents if reasonable adjustments are needed, at the earliest opportunity.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord consider whether its policies and procedures for doing income and expenditures, clearly say which benefits will be included. If they do not, we recommend that landlord update these, to ensure transparency for all residents.