Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Bromford Housing Group Limited (202322494)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322494

Bromford Housing Group Limited

8 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association. The tenancy began on 11 July 2005. The property is a 2-bedroom mid terraced house.
  2. The landlord’s internal records show the resident contacted it through his neighbourhood coach and reported deterioration of his kitchen components and requested a new kitchen in June 2023.
  3. The landlord refused the request on 14th June 2023. It explained to the resident that it did not replace kitchens on a scheme but on an individual basis. It stated the kitchen was rated as good in 2018 and had been given a further 15-year lifespan.
  4. The resident raised a formal stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 23 August 2023 and requested his kitchen to be replaced. The landlords’ internal records show the landlord acknowledged it on 23 August 2023, and sent its formal stage 1 written response on 7 September 2023 in which it said as follows:
    1. It did not replace kitchens on a scheme or area but on an individual basis.
    2. The kitchen had been rated as good in July 2018 and had been given a 15-year lifespan. And so wouldn’t be due for a replacement based on that evaluation.
    3. He should continue to raise any repairs necessary to his home including the kitchen through the repair portal or calling customer service.
    4. It did not uphold his complaint.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the outcome and escalated his complaint on 8 September. He said his neighbour had their kitchen replaced and the landlord discriminated against him. He also reported a flooring repair.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 September 2023. It said it understood the complaint to be about kitchen replacement and discrimination against the resident by not providing a new kitchen. While it was satisfied with its explanation provided in its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the kitchen may have deteriorated since the 2018 inspection. It said it normally arranged inspection every 5 years. It apologised it had not inspected the kitchen and agreed to arrange an inspection.
  7. It recognised a failure for a telephone call back related to the kitchen replacement on 1 September 2023. It apologised for this. It stated that it would not consider compensation for discrimination as the reason for the refusal was based on its inspection outcome in 2018. However, it offered a total of £50 compensation for its failures to return a call to the resident and to ensure it assessed the kitchen.
  8. The resident in correspondence with the landlord accepted the compensation payment of £50 on 21 September 2023, and told the landlord of his intention to escalate his complaint to the Service. On the same day, the landlord conducted an inspection as a result of which it agreed to replace the kitchen.
  9. In referring his complaint to us the resident said he wanted a new kitchen and he felt he was badly treated by the landlord as his request for a new kitchen had been refused without the landlord looking at it. The landlord replaced the kitchen in September 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord noted that in his escalation request from 8 September 2023 the resident reported issue with the flooring. It is unclear of whether this was related to the kitchen. We have not seen evidence of this issue going through or completing the landlord’s complaint process. In line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme this will not form part of this investigation as the landlord was not provided with a fair opportunity to investigate this before our investigation. If the resident wants to pursue this further he should initially escalate it with the landlord and follow its internal process.
  2. The resident also stated to us and the landlord that he felt the landlord had discriminated against him because his neighbour had their kitchen replaced and he did not. While we do not have the required expertise to establish whether there was any breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, we can look into whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns appropriately and in line with its policy and procedure.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen. The resident raised his complaint in August 2023 following the landlord’s refusal from June 2023 to inspect and replace the kitchen at the property. He said that the kitchen had deteriorated. At stage 1 of its process on 7 September 2023, the landlord failed to acknowledge any failures and explained that it relied on the inspection completed in 2018 which had identified that the kitchen was in good condition and that at the time the kitchen had been given 15 years lifespan. While the landlord’s response was not unreasonable, it failed to acknowledge that there were 5 years passed since the previous inspection and the resident had reported deterioration confirmed by his neighbourhood coach.
  4. The landlord acknowledged its failures at stage 2 and agreed to inspect the kitchen. The evidence shows that the landlord conducted an inspection on 2 October 2023 which resulted in replacement of the kitchen on the 26 September 2024. While this was the outcome the resident was seeking, there were delays in the landlord arranging the inspection (5 months from the resident’s initial request in June 2023).
  5.  In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged failures in communication (the missed returned call) and the delays in arranging an inspection. It also acknowledged that it failed to apply its stock condition policy which states that it should review components every 5 years. It apologised to the resident and offered him £50 compensation for its failures.
  6. The landlord demonstrated that following its stage 2 response it took appropriate action to respond to the resident request for kitchen replacement. Additionally, the landlord considered the resident’s concerns about discrimination and explained why it believed it did not discriminate against him. This was a reasonable step to take as it provide a response this aspect of his complaint. While these were all appropriate steps, the compensation offered during its complaint process was not sufficient for the delays and the inconvenience the resident experienced having to chase the inspection. We have ordered further compensation in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new kitchen.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination pay the resident an additional £100 (to the £50 compensation already offered and paid during its complaint process) for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures to inspect the kitchen within a timely manner.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 28 calendar days. 

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conducts internal policy awareness training to ensure all staff understand the landlord’s own inspect and replacement policies (e.g. frequency, responsibility, record keeping) and the importance of routine inspections.