Bromford Housing Group Limited (202318624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318624

Bromford Housing Group Limited

31 July 2024

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints about:
1. Repairs to her kitchen.
2. Repairs to her bathroom.
3. Its online repair portal.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The landlord wrote to the resident in March 2023 in response to a complaint she had made about problems with her kitchen. The landlord acknowledged her concern that a leak into the kitchen had caused damp and mould problems. It explained what it was doing to inspect and remedy the problems, and gave an appointment date later in March. A copy of the original complaint has not been provided for this investigation, and there is no evidence of the resident escalating the complaint.
In mid-July 2023 the resident made a new complaint. The landlord’s records state she raised concerns about poor-quality or incomplete repairs in her bathroom, along with damp and mould. The landlord sent its first complaint response on 28 July. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns, and confirmed the details of work it was arranging to replace damaged flooring, renew a bath panel, and do a mould wash. However, it explained that it believed the works underway in the bathroom had been attended to in line with its repair timescales, and there was no service failure.
The resident approached the Ombudsman in August 2023. She explained that the bathroom repairs remained unresolved and leaks, damp, and mould problems were getting worse. The Service asked the landlord in early November to escalate her complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident in November 2023 in response to her escalated complaint. It explained that some of the planned bathroom work had been declined by the resident, and therefore not proceeded. It had completed the mould wash, and scheduled new appointments for the other work, as well as new repairs to address damp and mould. It asked the resident to confirm she wanted to escalate her complaint.
The resident disputed that she had declined any work, and explained how stressful she was finding the ongoing repair issues and the landlord’s handling of them. She also noted the landlord’s repair plans did not include damage to her kitchen after leaks into it from the bathroom, and complained that information about her current and past repairs was not showing in its online repair portal. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint because of the repair delays and lack of action on the kitchen damage.
The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 16 November 2023. Its internal documents state it understood the complaint to be about the bathroom repairs, damp and mould problems, kitchen repairs, and the repairs portal.
The landlord arranged a damp and mould survey of the property by external contractors on 25 November 2023. It confirmed mould problems in the bathroom and recommended multiple remedial and redecoration actions.
The landlord sent its final complaint response on 11 December 2023. It explained the survey results and recommendations, and confirmed the wide range of works it had already scheduled for the bathroom to remedy the mould and its causes, resolve the other repair issues, and redecorate afterwards. It also responded to the issues the resident had reported about the repairs portal. It apologised for the delays the resident had experienced, acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused, and offered compensation of £1350 for the 18 months it said the overall work had taken.
The resident accepted the landlord’s compensation offer, but also asked it to waive the rent arrears she had at the time, and pointed out the landlord had not addressed the kitchen damage. The landlord agreed to waive the £925 arrears, but did not respond further about the kitchen issues.
In an email to the resident on 21 February 2024 the landlord provided an update on the repairs which it said it would be attending the following day to address. The full details were not specified, but they included remediation works and redecoration of affected areas. It also confirmed that the attending operatives would inspect the kitchen with a view to resolving any leak damage, and then “push for an urgent turn around on completing these works.”
After initially withdrawing her complaint, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate because she said the landlord had not done what it had said it would in its complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

In her complaints to the landlord and Ombudsman the resident has explained her concerns about the health impacts from some of the repair issues she has experienced, such as water leaks from the bathroom to the kitchen.
The Ombudsman considers general distress and inconvenience experienced by tenants following a landlord’s service failure, but any concerns about actual physical or mental injury are outside the Service’s remit. Such matters are more appropriately addressed by insurers or the courts as a personal injury claim. The resident should seek appropriate advice if her concerns in this regard remain.
The evidence shows that new repair issues arose following the landlord’s final complaint response in December 2023. This included concerns the resident raised with the Ombudsman about poor communication and updates from the landlord’s operatives and contractors. This investigation centres on the repair issues reported and complained about by the resident in 2023, including any repairs the landlord promised in its final complaint response. Any distinctly new repair or related communication issues that arose after the end of the complaints process would need to be raised as specific new complaints with the landlord before the Ombudsman could potentially investigate them.

Bathroom repairs

The landlord’s note of the resident’s first complaint about bathroom repairs centred on her general dissatisfaction with its handling of ‘numerous repairs’. It refers to delays and poor communication. It does not mention any specific repair jobs, but notes the resident said she had been told the toilet was in the wrong location and had been the source of many of the leaks she had experienced.
The landlord’s repair records show 12 different repair jobs raised for the resident’s home between January and June 2023. Most of them related to issues in the bathroom (including leaks from the toilet cistern). It is not apparent from the complaint which of these repair jobs had caused the resident to complain, or if it was all of them.
The evidence shows the landlord’s complaint handler discussed the resident’s concerns with her. The resident confirmed this in an email on 26 July 2023, in which she explained her concerns about the bathroom’s age and condition, but accepted the landlord’s explanation that it was not scheduled for replacement for several years. She said she was “grateful for the repairs that are booked in as anything will be better than what it is now.” No record of the discussion has been provided. However, the landlord issued its complaint response 2 days later. It listed the scheduled repairs as replacing bathroom flooring, installing a new bath panel and “boxing in”, and doing a mould wash.
Accordingly, in the absence of other evidence, it appears these 3 repair jobs were the ones discussed and agreed between the landlord and resident as outstanding. Of those, 2 of them are shown in the records as being received or raised by the landlord on 6 June 2023. The third job, the mould wash, was raised on 19 July.
The landlord’s repair policy sets out timescales in which it will respond to repair reports. Unless the issue is an emergency, the policy states repair appointments will be scheduled “As required by the customer and availability of appropriate resources.” That policy is not specific enough for this investigation to robustly assess the landlord’s timeliness. Many social landlords often use a common target of 28 calendar days to attend to what would be considered routine appointments. In the absence of a clear timeframe in the landlord’s policy, 28 days is used in this investigation as a guide to what is a reasonable response time.
The landlord’s repair records do not state when the jobs for the bathroom flooring or the bath panel were completed. However, the landlord’s complaint response on 28 July 2023 states that these two jobs would be done on 10 and 11 August. It said in its response that these repairs were within its service level agreements and there was no service failure. The August dates meant 65 days would have passed since the jobs were raised. Repairs can and often do exceed their target timescales for legitimate reasons. However, in this case the scale of the delay, and in the absence of clear evidence explaining the time taken, the landlord’s conclusion about its service was not reasonable.
The mould wash was raised as a job on 19 July 2023, so its scheduled 10 August appointment was in a reasonable timeframe.
The resident first brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2023. Her complaint was not about the landlord’s complaint response. She explained further problems with the condition of the bathroom and her frustration at the landlord’s efforts to resolve them. Amongst other things she referred to leaks, damp and mould, damaged fixtures, and inconclusive or wasted repair visits. The Service passed her concerns to the landlord and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint.
In response the landlord initially told the resident its records stated she had declined the planned work on the bathroom flooring and bath panel as she was waiting for the bathroom to be renovated. The mould wash had been completed and there were no outstanding repair jobs. The repair records do not state why these jobs had been cancelled, or provide any details about them.
The resident adamantly disputed that she had refused the work. Without further evidence it is not possible for this investigation to conclude what happened, except that there appears to have potentially been miscommunication somewhere between the resident, the landlord, and its operatives or contractors. In the circumstances, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for the confusion and rescheduled the work.
The landlord’s records show one further repair job during the period in question, for a leaking toilet pan. That job shows as completed, although not when. Based on the evidence seen in this investigation, it is not apparent which repair issues led the resident to escalate her complaint.
In her response to the landlord’s update the resident clarified that her continued dissatisfaction related to the lack of repairs to her kitchen following the leaks, that it had taken too long to take action about the leaks, damp and mould, and that the landlord had displayed an overall lack of care. However, as in the previous complaint and correspondence, no specific examples were provided to illustrate where she believed the landlord had failed. Without such examples, the level to which this investigation can assess the landlord’s actions is limited.
In response to the resident’s clarification the landlord commissioned a damp and mould inspection, and then raised a range of works to address what the inspection recommended. Prior to the resident’s reports in mid-2023 the landlord’s repair records show the previous report of a bathroom mould issue was in July 2022, which the landlord attended to. In mid-2023 the resident’s reports led to the landlord arranging a mould wash, and when she explained the damp and mould problems were worsening in her escalated complaint the landlord commissioned a survey. There are no clear records of the landlord receiving a report of this scale of the problem prior to the complaint, so its actions in response were proportionate and reasonable.
In its final complaint response the landlord explained the actions it had taken or arranged to finalise repairs to the bathroom and address the damp survey recommendations. It acknowledged that its efforts had taken too long, and a wide range of other repair and complaint handling issues for which it agreed it had not provided an appropriate level of service. It apologised, and offered £2275 compensation (including the rent arrears waiver).
The amount of compensation offered was significant, and well in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaints involving serious and repeated failings. Given the time the repair work had taken, and the wide range of repair failings the landlord had acknowledged, the level of compensation was appropriate. The other remedies described by the landlord, including committing to resolving the outstanding work, were also reasonable and pragmatic. The resident initially explained that she was satisfied with what the landlord had offered and the repair work it planned to do.
However, the resident subsequently told the landlord, and the Service, that the work referred to in the landlord’s final complaint response had either not been fully completed, or some of it not done to the level or standard agreed. In response to our enquiries the landlord has explained that all the scheduled repair work was complete, and gave the dates of completion. Without relevant evidence it is not possible, or in the Ombudsman’s remit, for this investigation to go further to determine whether the repair work was of an appropriate quality, or its effectiveness. Accordingly, the landlord appears to have completed the work it agreed to do, and the remedies it provided in light of its service failings were reasonable and proportionate.
Nonetheless, if the resident experiences further bathroom repair problems, either new ones or related to the repairs discussed here, it is open to her to raise a new complaint with the landlord. If she does so, she should make clear reference to the particular repairs or issues are the cause of her concern so that the landlord, and any potential future Ombudsman investigation, can focus on the most relevant issues.

Kitchen repairs

The evidence shows the resident had cause to raise a complaint with the landlord about kitchen repairs early in 2023. That complaint had involved a leak, and damp and mould. The landlord explained the actions it was taking. No evidence of an escalation of the complaint at the time has been seen, so it appears the matter was resolved at that time.
When the resident escalated her complaint in November 2023, she included as one of her primary concerns damage her kitchen had sustained from a leak, or leaks. The repair records show leak issues from the bathroom into the kitchen in June, and refer to other bathroom leaks in May and July which appear to have also potentially affected the kitchen. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident referred to the kitchen damage requiring replastering and repainting. It appears therefore that the damage was noticeable, but of a partially decorative nature.
The landlord did not address the kitchen complaint at all in its final complaint response, despite the resident referring specifically to it in multiple emails while discussing her escalated complaint. The landlord did not respond to it even after she raised its omission immediately on receiving the complaint response. The evidence shows the landlord was aware the matter formed part of the complaint, because its internal complaint records note the resident was seeking resolution of the kitchen damage as an outcome, and another complaint note states the landlord had not been aware of the need for any works. There is no evidence of the landlord seeking to discuss and clarify the matter. Its omission was a significant failing.
From early 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s requests to inspect and rectify the kitchen damage. She has told the Service that they addressed the damage in the specific area affected by leaks, albeit not to a standard she would have preferred. The evidence also shows a further leak into the kitchen in February, followed by a new leak immediately after the landlord repaired it.
Overall, the landlord received two formal complaints in 2023 about kitchen leak damage (in March and November). There are multiple leaks noted in the repair records from the end of 2022 and through 2023, and the resident experienced at least 2 more in early 2024. Many of the records refer to the leaks going into the kitchen. By any general standard the number of leak reports was high, and something which a landlord would be keen to investigate to determine whether there was an underlying cause. By not considering this issue in its final complaint response the landlord missed an opportunity to investigate the matter. It appears to have now at least rectified some of the surface level effects from the leaks, but there is nothing indicating it has investigated why they were and are occurring.
In her correspondence with the landlord and in her complaint the resident explained her concerns that the water was at times suspected to be waste water, and a potential health risk. She also explained that her own health could potentially have been impacted by that, along with members of her family. In that context the importance of the landlord not only resolving the immediate effects of the leak but also why they were happening so frequently was even greater.

Tenant repairs portal

The resident reported to the landlord, and then complained that its online repairs portal was not displaying information about her current or previous repair history. This had an impact because appointment messages she received did not contain specific details about the intended repairs, and she could not then find the relevant information on the portal. The evidence shows the landlord discussing the issue with her by email several times at the end of 2023 and in 2024, and it responded to the matter in its final complaint response.
In its responses the landlord explained how IT upgrades and changes it had made could have affected what information the resident could see. It gave instructions for resolving the issue. The resident has told the Service that problems with the portal continue, and she still cannot find all of the relevant information despite the landlord’s efforts.
The landlord clearly responded to the resident’s reports of problems, and her complaint. It provided what appear to be relevant explanations and guidance. In the context of what this investigation can consider the landlord’s actions appear appropriate and reasonable. Nonetheless, given that she continues to experience problems with the system a recommendation has been made below.

Determination (decision)

In line with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of bathroom repairs.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about kitchen repairs.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in regard to the resident’s complaint about the online repair portal.

Reasons

There were significant delays by the landlord in resolving the bathroom repairs, both before and after the resident’s complaints. In response the landlord undertook a range of actions to investigate damp and mould problems and conduct repairs and other remedial action. In its response to the complaint it acknowledged its poor service and provided reasonable compensation and other remedies.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint about kitchen repairs, which meant that a clear picture of their scale and nature was not available against which to assess its actions. It subsequently undertook repair work after the end of the complaints process, but there is no evidence of it acknowledging the unusual level of leaks into the kitchen reported by the resident, and it is not apparent if the repairs it did addressed everything they should have.
The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of problems with the online repair portal appropriately and reasonably. The resident’s report that the problems continue shows the need for further work to investigate the issue. A recommendation has been made to do that.

Orders

In light of the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s complaint about the kitchen repairs, and the unclear current leak and repair situation in the kitchen, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange a meeting with the resident by a senior officer to explore the history of leaks into the kitchen and survey its condition, in order to identify any unresolved repair issues from leaks or elsewhere. Depending on the survey outcome, the landlord must create a follow up action plan and prompt timeframe to address its findings. This order relates specifically to repairs (not renewal), and any related redecoration the landlord may decide is appropriate to agree to. Evidence of this meeting, survey outcome, and any resulting action plan must be provided to the Service within 8 weeks of this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £250 within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

Given the resident’s explanation that she continues to experience problems with the online repair portal despite the landlord’s guidance, the landlord should work with her directly to actually witness and understand what she experiences. It should then take whatever steps are necessary to explain and resolve any outstanding issues with it.