Bromford Housing Group Limited (202400932)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400932

Bromford Housing Group Limited

12 June 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of subsidence and the associated repairs.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. The resident’s request for it to install a driveway.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a bungalow owned by the landlord. The landlord told this Service it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the household. The resident informed us that she has several mental and physical health conditions.
A representative of the resident has been partially dealing with the complaint. For ease, this report refers to “the resident” throughout.
The resident complained to the landlord on 22 September 2022. She said a tree was causing her property to subside. She described gaps around the windows, cracking throughout her home and low temperatures. She said she had been living with these issues for 5 years and despite the landlord attending, matters were unresolved.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 October 2022. It acknowledged its system showed a history of jobs raised for cracks in 2018, 2019, and 2022. It said it would arrange for a member of staff to take photos and appoint a surveyor to assess the issues. It agreed to update the resident monthly.
In November 2022, the resident asked the landlord several times to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. She said it was forcing her to live with holes in the wall and she could not afford to heat the property. She explained the situation impacted her mental and physical health.
The landlord responded on 29 December 2022. It explained its surveyor attended on 29 November 2022 and reported that it could not feel any large roots going towards the property. The resident was troubled that the surveyor looked for surface roots and did not consider deeper root spread. It asked the landlord if it had obtained a report from a qualified structural engineer.
The landlord appointed an external senior surveyor on 26 June 2023. Following an inspection and site investigations, it wrote to the landlord in October 2023 with several recommendations. In February 2024, a different external surveyor attended and set out its advice which included tree removal.
The landlord issued a revised stage 1 response on 22 July 2024. It said it would remove the tree week commencing 22 July 2024 and repairs to the property would begin after a further period of monitoring. The resident asked it to respond at stage 2 on 31 July 2024.
Following intervention from this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 March 2025. It addressed the resident’s complaint about subsidence. At our request, it also responded to her concerns about damp and mould and her request for the installation of a driveway. It acknowledged delays addressing subsidence from 2018 to 2024. It also identified failings in its complaints handling and communication. It offered £300 for the delays and £120 for the shortcomings in its communication and complaint handling, resulting in a compensation offer of £420.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred her complaint to this Service. To resolve the complaint, she wants it to complete the outstanding repairs to her home and ensure the property is warm.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said the way the landlord managed the issues caused significant stress and impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with her. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
The resident complained that she reported cracking and had been living in a subsiding property since at least 2017. Years have passed since then and remediation work has not yet concluded. It is the Ombudsman’s role to decide how to consider and investigate complaints subject to the Scheme and the evidence presented. We acknowledge that in this case, substantial time has passed without a final resolution.
The resident made a formal complaint in September 2022. The Scheme expects a resident to bring a complaint to the attention of the landlord within 12 months of the matter arising. However, we recognise that an inspection report from 2020 suggested a period of monitoring, and it is not unusual in subsidence cases for this to happen over 12 to 18 months. As such, we find it fair and reasonable to focus our investigation on events from March 2020 onwards. Any mention of events prior to this is for context only.
This Service may only investigate matters which have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, as per paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. After it issued its final complaint response, the resident expressed other concerns, such as the conduct of its operatives. It is open for her to contact it directly and make a separate complaint about matters that occurred post-stage 2. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to consider additional concerns through its formal complaint procedure.
When the resident moved into this property, her tenancy agreement was with another housing association before a merger took place with her current landlord. She said her previous landlord agreed to install a driveway due to her health problems. We cannot assess the actions of her previous landlord within this determination; however, we can consider how her current landlord handled her request.

Subsidence and the associated repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete complex repairs or specialist works within 90 days.
The Ombudsman recognises that investigations and repairs concerning suspected subsidence can be complex and will often incur delays while the landlord and experts involved decide the best way to proceed. This is why it must manage investigations effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify the cause of ground movement as soon as possible.
In this case, neither party disputes that the landlord completed significant crack repairs around 2018 to 2019, including crack stitching. Further to this, the landlord provided a report to this Service from an engineering firm from 2020. It identified that trees caused significant ground shrinkage over the dry summer, resulting in subsidence. It observed that movement appeared to be ongoing. It recommended that the landlord removes all trees, shrubs, and hedgerows within 10 meters of the property and monitors the cracks for at least 12 months. In the interim, it suggested temporary cosmetic repairs, with a view to permanent repairs once the movement had stabilised. This report demonstrates that the landlord was on notice that ongoing ground movement affected the property in 2020.
The landlord has not evidenced that it explored removing the vegetation following receipt of this report or what actions it took between this report and the resident’s further report of cracking in September 2022. This is a failing in its record keeping and management of the issue.
Within its stage 1 letter dated 5 October 2022, the landlord said the repair history shows reports of cracking in 2018, 2019 and 2022. It said the resident told it that an operative took photos of the cracks to report to a manager, and she had heard nothing since. Its records demonstrate the complaint handler escalated this to various staff, including the head of service delivery. At this stage, it apologised for the previous miscommunication and said it had learnt from her experience and would improve its future service, including monthly updates. We find the landlord’s service did not improve following this, as described further within this report.
Within an email from the landlord to the resident dated 29 December 2022, it said a tree surveyor (later referred to as a “landscaping manager” at stage 2) attended in November 2022 and “could not feel any large roots going towards the property close to the surface of the grass” and that parking on the grass to the front of the property “could potentially be causing just as much damage as the roots of a tree”. The landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection report to this Service.
The landlord ought to be aware that subsidence caused by vegetation occurs when roots extract moisture from the soil beneath a building, causing the soil to shrink, thus impacting the foundations. It has not demonstrated why the lack of tree roots on the surface was relevant or how this impacted its decision making. We find the comments made within the email of 29 December 2022 to be dismissive of the resident’s concerns and lacking empathy, particularly as an expert identified ground movement in 2020.
The evidence available indicates that the landlord did not take meaningful action after the resident complained until 23 June 2023, when it appointed an external senior surveyor to assess the current position with the property. This was an avoidable delay of 39 weeks from the date of the complaint, and approximately 172 weeks after the previous expert report in 2020. These timescales are significantly outside of the response times set out in its repairs policy.
Within the inspection report from June 2023, the senior surveyor identified that subsidence could be occurring. They recommended the landlord:
1. Conduct trial hole investigations to the side of the building to establish construction and condition of the foundations and soil.
2. Conduct a CCTV drainage survey.
3. Review the results once received to identify the cause of the movement.
The landlord has not explained why it took around 2 and a half months to do the site investigations. Considering the history of this case, it would have been reasonable to act with a greater sense of urgency to progress the matter.
Site investigations took place on 13 September 2023. The surveyor reported their findings to the landlord on 25 October 2023. While there was a delay receiving the report, we accept it took time to analyse the soil and root samples obtained and prepare a report. We deem the delay here to be unavoidable.
The surveyor reported that subsidence caused damage to the side of the property due to clay shrinkage exacerbated by the presence of roots. However, the roots identified in the trial hole were dead, and so they recommended that the landlord appoint an arboriculturist to report on tree management works. It also set up crack monitoring points. The landlord evidenced that it monitored the cracks monthly from September 2023 to January 2024. This was an appropriate course of action.
The landlord submitted a report to this Service following a property inspection with its surveyor and an external building consultant in February 2024. Within this report, it indicates the landlord sought advice from an arboriculturist following the previous site investigations. They said the arboriculturist told it that pollarding the tree in question could lead to additional root growth, not less. We note it has not provided full evidence of its communications with the arboriculturist.
Within the report from February 2024, the expert advised that the movement was progressive, and the damage was ongoing. It recommended contacting the owner of the tree (the local authority) to seek its removal and to monitor the building on a 3-monthly basis for 12 to 18 months to see if the movement had stabilised.
The landlord evidenced that it corresponded with the local authority about the removal of the tree between February 2024 and June 2024. The information provided demonstrates it was proactive in chasing the local authority for a response. Furthermore, it acted reasonably by offering to remove the tree at its own cost to progress matters. The local authority provided consent on 6 June 2024. The landlord acted swiftly following this by arranging for a tree specialist to check the tree for nesting birds on 7 June 2024, before it was removed towards the end of July 2024. There was a short delay removing the tree; however, this was due to the external contractor rather than the landlord.
The Ombudsman finds it would be fair and reasonable for a landlord to manage a resident’s expectations when dealing with a complex situation that could potentially last for a significant period. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to give the resident an overview of the next steps – i.e., identifying the cause of ground movement, removing/restricting the influencing factors, a period of monitoring to ensure the movement had stopped or reduced to an acceptable level – before arranging a program of repairs. There is no evidence it did so between September 2022 and June 2024. This is a failing.
We cannot conclude that the landlord pro-actively engaged with the resident throughout this case or updated her regularly. From the evidence available, it is clear she spent a significant amount of time chasing the landlord for updates and trying to drive matters forward. We determine that the communication failings significantly exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on a vulnerable resident. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
Within the stage 1 complaint update letter issued 22 July 2024, the landlord explained that once it removed the tree, further monitoring would take place. Once movement decreased, it would complete the remedial works. We appreciate the prospect of more monitoring dismayed the resident; however, this is the next step when dealing with subsidence. The landlord must ensure the property is stable before it can complete a lasting repair. An email from the surveyor states it monitored the cracks on 3 October 2024, 5 December 2024, and 10 April 2025. This was in line with the expert’s recommendations, so we conclude the landlord acted fairly at this stage. Moreover, records demonstrate it acted pragmatically by assessing the property to see if it could complete interim repairs.
Where a landlord admits failings, our role is to assess whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, we consider 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.
Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord recognised its communication fell short and it took a significant amount of time to address the issues. It apologised to the resident and offered £300 compensation for the delay handling her reports of subsidence from 2018 to 2024, comprised of £50 per year.
Our remedies guidance suggests compensation over £1,000 is appropriate for when there have been serious failings by a landlord and the failures accumulated over a significant period. We find the avoidable delays in managing the report of subsidence early on significantly delayed the time it took to remove the tree and ensure stabilisation of the property.
The correspondence between the parties shows that for years, the resident was worried about the stability of the property, the draughts from the cracks and gaps affecting the internal temperature, and the impact on her health. She expressed concern about the condition of the property and whether it was safe for her child. She described the door frame falling out, plaster falling off the walls, gaps around the windows, mould, and being unable to decorate due to the cracking. She repeatedly communicated her distress and worry to the landlord throughout this case. She felt it did not take her concerns seriously as despite several requests, it did not issue a stage 2 response in line with its policy or remedy the issues within a reasonable period.
This has impacted a vulnerable resident and her enjoyment of her home. The communication failings throughout caused further distress and it is clear she spent time and trouble pursuing a resolution. The compensation offered by the landlord did not go far enough to recognise the detriment caused when considering all the circumstances of the case. For these reasons, we find it fair and reasonable to order more redress in addition to further actions.
We recognise that until the landlord is satisfied the ground movement has ceased, it will not be able to complete an effective and lasting repair to the property. As such, we have not ordered it to remedy the issues within a specific timeframe. However, we expect it to use its best endeavours to action these as soon as possible.

Damp and mould

Following a resident’s report of damp and mould within a property, it is reasonable for a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
Our spotlight report on damp and mould states a landlord should have a zero-tolerance approach and must ensure its response to reports of the above are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
The landlord published a damp and mould policy in March 2024. We recognise the importance of having a defined policy when addressing reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s condensation, damp, and mould policy (2024) set out that following a report from a resident, its customer service centre will contact the resident to gain more information and set up a case. If it identifies an immediate repair, it will book this in. It will then arrange for a surveyor to attend the property and investigate the issue further. Once repairs are complete, it will post-inspect.
It is not clear from the evidence available when the resident initially reported damp and mould to the landlord. The repair history provided shows a record in 2019 where mould and structural movement is referenced. The resident mentioned damp in an email to the landlord in October 2022 and notes from a housing officer visit in February 2023 cite black mould. Further, an internal note from the landlord in June 2023 references damp and mould as part of an ongoing complaint.
The landlord has not evidenced its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould between 2022 and 2023, although it referenced an inspection report from 2023 within its stage 2 response. It has not provided a copy of said report to us. This has impacted our assessment of the landlord’s handling of the issues.
When deciding on how best to proceed when a resident raises a repair issue, it is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of appropriately qualified staff and contractors.
In October 2024, the landlord commissioned an external specialist to complete a thermal survey of the property. It identified several areas of heat loss internally and externally, particularly the outhouse and windows. It said the external door separating the outhouse and kitchen had been removed so there was no thermal separation between these spaces. The landlord demonstrated that it raised a major work referral for a new door to separate these areas. This was appropriate.
In February 2025, it arranged an inspection of the cavity wall and loft insulation. The report shows that no work was required to the cavity wall insulation, but it needed to top up the loft insulation, which the landlord subsequently tried to arrange with the resident. In March 2025 it made additional enquiries concerning the cavity wall insulation. Furthermore, it evidenced in April 2025 it requested replacement of the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans. It is unclear from the evidence available if the landlord has completed these works.
At stage 2, the landlord said it checked its system and there were no current cases which support ongoing investigations into damp and mould. We recognise it arranged for a damp and mould inspection in May 2025 which was in line with its policy. The surveyor reported that there were no visible signs of damp, mould, or condensation. This reflects the resident’s statement to this Service that mould usually impacts the property in the winter. As such, we recommend it contacts her during winter 2025 to discuss this further.
While the landlord has taken more recent action, it has not evidenced that it investigated the resident’s reports of damp and mould within a reasonable period or acted in line with its repairs policy between 2022 and 2023. There were also shortcomings in its record keeping which have impacted this investigation. Overall, this is a service failure.

Request for a driveway

The resident informed us that she needs a driveway due to her vulnerabilities. We have not seen evidence of what she told the landlord or whether she made a formal adaptation request.
At stage 2, the landlord informed the resident that it is not responsible for installing a dropped kerb and she would need to direct her request to the local authority. Following this, she would need to submit an alteration request for it to consider her request for a driveway. It further clarified it would be for her to install and fund.
The Ombudsman recognises social landlords have limited resources and should manage these responsibly, to the benefit of all their residents. However, when a resident makes a request for an adaptation due to a medical need, it must act in line with its adaptation policy. It has not provided a copy of the relevant policy to this Service, so we are unable to comment further on this.
In this case, the landlord failed to reference or signpost the resident to the relevant policy or procedure when responding to her. Furthermore, it is not clear whether it considered the request for a driveway as a medical adaptation or a request for an alteration. This was a shortcoming.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 response should be issued in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
The landlord has a 2–stage complaints policy. Its complaint handling timescales are in line with the Code.
The resident initially complained on 22 September 2022. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 October 2022, 9 working days later. She told it on 23, 25, and 29 November 2022 that she wanted to take her complaint further, yet it failed to escalate it. It issued a “stage 1 update” on 22 July 2024, 465 working days after her initial complaint. The landlord again failed to escalate the matter to stage 2 despite a further escalation request. Following intervention from this Service, it issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 March 2025 – 640 working days after the initial complaint. The Code serves to illustrate that the landlord kept this complaint open for an excessive period, far beyond the timescale set out in its policy.
It is evident the landlord failed to follow its complaint policy which resulted in a protracted process and a lack of clear, meaningful updates. The landlord showed an unwillingness to progress the complaint at stage 2 on several occasions. Most recently we note within an internal email from August 2024, it said, “I have had an email from the customer asking to escalate her complaint to stage 2. I am trying to stop the escalation.” This is a serious complaint handling failure and goes against our dispute resolution principles.
The landlord has a duty as a member to respond to complaints in line with the Code. Its failure to do so meant it missed opportunities to remedy the resident’s concerns, address and resolve the wider aspects of her complaint, show empathy, and improve the landlord/resident relationship. This had a significant impact as she kept chasing for responses and felt frustrated and ignored. It also prevented her from accessing this Service and contributed to delays resolving her concerns. Considering the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds the landlord failed to treat this complaint with the necessary attention, care, and importance it deserved.
Under our dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While it recognised failings, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its final response to improve its service provision.
At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident £60 compensation for the delays and lack of communication while the complaint was at stage 1. It also offered £60 for the delay in escalating to stage 2. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation in the region of £100 to £600 is reasonable where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident. While the landlord’s offer was within this range, we are minded that £120 was not proportionate in the circumstances to reflect the impact of the shortcomings identified.
Overall, we conclude there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It did not use the complaints procedure as an effective tool in resolving the resident’s concerns but instead compounded the detriment caused. Due to the cumulative failings in its complaint handling and the level of detriment experienced by the resident, we order compensation of £300. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £120.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to install a driveway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified within this report.
2. Write to the resident setting out its position regarding the stabilisation of the property. It must include a copy of the monitoring results and explain whether it deems the property to be stable or if it requires a further period of monitoring.
3. Pay the resident £2,000 compensation: This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £420 and comprises:
  1. £1,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the delays and poor communication concerning subsidence.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
  3. £50 for its handling of her request for driveway.
  4. £300 for its ineffective complaints handling.
4. Arrange an independent survey of the property to assess its condition and identify outstanding repairs which the landlord is responsible for. Within the survey, it must consider each repair the resident shared with the landlord in her communication dated 9 June 2025.
5. Write to the resident within 14 working days of receiving the independent report to set out the repairs it is responsible for and an action plan to complete them. It must include completion timescales for repairs it can arrange imminently. For repairs that depend on the ground movement ceasing, it must manage the resident’s expectations. It must share a copy of the letter with this Service.
6. Provide the resident with a link to its adaptation online form or email address for the team for her to make an adaptation request, if it has not yet done so.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities she may have, and reasonable adjustments required, updating its internal records accordingly. This is subject to any data protection considerations.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident in winter 2025 following her statement that mould returns each winter. If the mould returns before the landlord contacts the resident, she ought to contact it directly.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident about her concerns regarding another tree in the vicinity of the property.