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

Bromford Housing Group Limited (202326102)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326102

Bromford Housing Group Limited

11 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:
    1. Reports of subsidence.
    2. Repairs to an external retaining wall.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom terrace house. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. On 6 March 2019 and 25 February 2021 the landlord raised repairs for an external retaining boundary wall (the wall), which the resident reported needed repair. On 12 November 2021 she reported suspected subsidence affecting the property and the landlord raised an inspection. She made a stage 1 complaint on 13 January 2022, which was about:
    1. The wall needing to be repaired for over 10 years and now she had subsidence affecting the property.
    2. Surveyors not attending booked appointments.
    3. Poor customer service.
  3. The landlord called the resident on 19 January 2022 about her complaint. It inspected the wall that day and inspected the property on 26 January 2022. The following day it provided a verbal complaint response to her. The landlord decided it needed to refer the subsidence issue to its insurers on 31 January 2022 and raised a repair for the wall on 24 February 2022. Between 6 April 2022 and 27 June 2022 the resident emailed the landlord multiple times for an update on the repairs. During this period, in internal emails, the landlord also chased for updates. It discovered the quote for works it thought it had previously asked for had not been carried out. It said it needed to reinspect and advised the resident, on 29 June 2022, it was waiting for a structural report and quote. On 12 December 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to ask if any issues from her complaint were outstanding, and she replied that they all were.
  4. Between 20 December 2022 and 13 February 2023 the resident continued to ask the landlord for updates. On 13 March 2023 it received a report from its specialist surveying company which said subsidence was being caused by a tree on its land, and that it should remove this and allow the ground to settle. In an internal email the landlord said it removed the tree the following day. On 29 March 2023 it called the resident and said it would send her a letter about the subsidence, which it did on 5 May 2023. It offered to complete interim repairs. On the same day it received a report from its specialist surveying company about the wall and proposed repairs. The resident asked the landlord for more information about how it would monitor the property for movement on 12 May 2023. She also provided a list of repairs needed on 23 May 2023. It provided a written stage 1 response on 12 June 2023, in which it:
    1. Said it had detailed how it planned to complete repairs following the subsidence in its previous letter (of 5 May 2023).
    2. Confirmed the resident had provided a list of repairs needed.
    3. Explained that no further monitoring was needed as there would be no further movement as it had removed the tree.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 June 2023 and said she was not happy with its response. She said she had not heard from it regarding the repairs she had listed, it had not addressed other repairs needed to her garden, path and gate, and had not repaired the wall. She said she wanted to proceed to stage 2 of its complaints process. It replied on 3 July 2023 that it believed the repairs due to subsidence and to the wall had been completed and the resident said this was incorrect. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 7 July 2023. It provided its stage 2 response on 4 August 2023, in which it:
    1. Set out a comprehensive timeline of events and accepted there had been delays.
    2. Acknowledged it should have provided an initial written stage 1 response in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
    3. Confirmed it raised the first repair for subsidence on 12 November 2021 and that it should have completed this within a 90-day timeframe.
    4. Admitted it had not taken any action regarding the list of repairs the resident had provided due to an oversight and apologised for this. It said it would contact her the following week regarding this.
    5. Confirmed it had raised the issues in her front garden and to her path, although this was not part of her complaint.
    6. Explained its various delays in repairing the wall and accepted its communication about this had been poor and apologised. It said it would repair the wall in August 2023.
    7. Accepted its communication and complaint handling had been poor and apologised for this.
    8. Offered £1,275 compensation made up of £1,150 for poor communication and delays to the repairs, and £125 for complaint handling failings.
  6. On 11 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report there had not been any progress with the repairs. It raised the repairs, as per the resident’s list, on 23 August 2023, and further repairs on 31 August 2023. On 19 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to accept its compensation offer. She said her repairs had been booked in and repairs had started on the wall. The landlord recalled some of the repairs on 23 November 2023. The Ombudsman does not know the dates on which the repairs were completed.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of subsidence

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its repairs policy says it is also responsible for trees on its land. The policy categorises repairs as either emergency, routine or planned. It gives timeframes for emergency repairs from attend within 2 hours to attend by the following day. It does not give timeframes for routine or planned repairs. The policy says routine repairs will be attended based on availability of appointments and risk involved but does not set out any criteria.
  2. When the resident reported suspected subsidence on 12 November 2021, the landlord correctly raised an inspection, but the resident said it did not attend. The landlord said, within its stage 2 response, that this type of repair should have been completed within 90 days, although it is not clear how it decided upon this timeframe. While the landlord did inspect in January 2022, this was after the resident had needed to make her stage 1 complaint. The landlord decided the issue should be handled by its insurers and insurance department, which was reasonable considering the potential nature of the repairs required. However, it took no further actions, and provided no updates despite the resident chasing it, until 29 June 2022. By this time over 7 months had passed since the resident first reported the issue. This was an unreasonable delay, far in excess of the timeframe the landlord said it should have aimed for.
  3. There is evidence, within the landlord’s internal communication that it was confused about the status of the repairs. The landlord’s departments were operating in silos, with a lack of communication and a lack of ownership of the issue. This meant there was no progress, and it struggled to get updates for the resident. During this period there were landlord staff changes. The fact that the landlord asked the resident if any of her complaint issues were outstanding in December 2022 shows its lack of internal communication, poor record keeping, or both. This understandably further frustrated the resident, who had been waiting for over a year for repairs by that time.
  4. By the time the landlord received its specialist survey report in March 2023, 16 months had passed. The delay was unexplained and unacceptable. Positively, the landlord correctly took responsibility for, and acted promptly, in removing the tree found to be the cause of the subsidence. It also said it would write to the resident to provide an update but then failed to do this for over a month. Correctly it said it would complete repairs needed due to the subsidence and asked the resident to provide a list. It is not clear why the landlord did not inspect the property to identify the repairs needed, which would have been standard industry practice in the circumstances. Although the resident provided a list of repairs to the landlord, it took no action. It failed to raise the repairs until after its stage 2 response, 1 year and 9 months after the resident first reported subsidence, and despite her chasing it regularly for updates.
  5. The landlord’s records are minimal, and it is not possible to see which repairs were completed or when. No appointment dates, contractor notes, or outcomes have been provided, which is a further failure in knowledge and information management. The landlord has also failed to provide evidence to the Ombudsman to show whether the subsidence issue has been resolved.
  6. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted it had delayed. It said it had not met its repairs timeframe, and had not raised repairs due to an oversight, and accepted its communication had been poor throughout. It apologised for its failings and offered £1,150 compensation for these and those regarding the wall set out below. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  7. Overall, there was severe maladministration. The landlord failed to follow its policy or complete its repairing obligations within a reasonable timeframe. It left the resident for extended periods of time with no information and no timeframe for when the subsidence would be investigated, resolved, and repairs completed. At times the issue appears to have been lost within the landlord’s departments and through a lack of ownership and poor record keeping. This caused substantial distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this impact, an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to an external retaining wall

  1. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for repairing boundary walls. The records show the resident reported the wall needed to be repaired in 2019 and 2021. The landlord’s records do not say whether any repairs were carried out following these reports which was a failing. Within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted it should have completed repairs to the wall within 90 days from when the resident reported the issue but had not.
  2. While the landlord inspected the wall following the resident’s stage 1 complaint it had delayed for over a month before it raised a new repair. It took no action for over a year before it received a specialist report about the wall, with no explanation for the delay. Following the resident’s request to escalate her complaint the landlord incorrectly said it had repaired the wall in July 2023. This demonstrated a lack of record keeping or a failure to check the status of the repair before replying to the resident. This caused additional frustration and inconvenience to the resident, who was concerned that the wall might collapse.
  3. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord accepted it had delayed in repairing the wall and said its communication had been poor. It correctly apologised and offered compensation as set out above. It also said it would repair the wall in August 2023. However, it failed to do so and did not start repairs until September 2023, after the resident had chased it further.
  4. There was maladministration. While the landlord had inspected and raised repairs, it was slow to act. The resident was concerned the wall may have collapsed, and although she said the landlord had cordoned off the area, she was still concerned it was a health and safety risk. The landlord’s communication was poor, it did not provide updates, and did not reassure the resident that it was going to act. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation to the resident.

 

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it within its 5 working day complaints policy timeframe. It provided a response on 27 January 2022, after 10 working days in compliance with its policy. However, it failed to provide a written response as required under the Code. It did provide a written stage 1 response, or a second stage 1 response, on 12 June 2023. This was over a year after she made her complaint. The landlord’s policy did not include a second stage 1 response, and it is not clear why the complaint was kept open for so long without progress with the substantive complaint issues.
  2. Following the resident’s escalation request, the landlord acknowledged escalation and provided its stage 2 response outside of its 20-working day timeframe, and in breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Code. It correctly pointed out within its stage 2 response that it had initially provided a verbal response. It accepted this had not been in line with the Code in use at the time, apologised and offered £125 compensation.
  3. Due to the landlord’s initial verbal response, additional stage 1 response, and poor communication while investigating the complaint there was service failure. This caused additional time and trouble for the resident in trying to get the complaint resolved. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £75 additional compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of subsidence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to an external retaining wall.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,475 compensation made up of:
      1. £1,000 for the substantial distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the subsidence.
      2. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling repairs to the wall.
      3. £75 for the additional time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Provide evidence that it has completed all repairs related to the subsidence and completed repairs to the wall.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to produce a report to consider whether it should create a new policy on, or insert into its repairs policy, how it will handle subsidence repairs, with details on timeframes and ownership for repairs within the landlord.
  3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within the stated deadlines.