Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202326422)

Decision
Case ID	202326422
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	17 April 2026

Background

In August 2023 the resident queried an increase in his service charges. He raised a complaint after remaining dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation. He also raised concerns that a communal security gate, for which he paid a maintenance charge, had not operated effectively for 3 years.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns regarding an increase in service charges.
2. Request for a clear explanation of the service charges.
3. Reports of repairs to a security gate.
4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The complaint regarding the increase in service charges is outside of our jurisdiction.
2. Service failure in thelandlord’s response to the resident’s request for a clear explanation of the service charges.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s response for repairs to a security gate.
4. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Explanation of service charges

The landlord responded to the resident’s requests for information and explanations of the charges in a reasonable way. However, it failed to always communicate in a timely manner or take the time to fully understand the resident’s complaint. Further, its offer of compensation was not proportionate in recognising the impact on the resident.

Repairs to a security gate

The landlord initially acted in line with its repair responsibilities and policy timescales. However, when the resident reported the gate was broken on a second occasion, it failed to respond within a reasonable time, and not until after the landlord’s final complaint response. In addition, the stage 2 complaint response did not address the failure or offer an apology or any redress.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy or the Code. However, its apology and redress were consistent with our compensation guidance and was proportionate in recognising the impact on the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 18 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £175 made up as follows: £75 (inclusive of the £25 previously awarded) for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its response to his request for a clear explanation of the service charges £100 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its repairs to the security gate This must be paid directly to the resident and the landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 18 May 2024
3	Inspection order The resident told us the communal security gate remains broken. If a recent inspection or plan of works has been identified with regards to the security gate, the landlord must provide the outcome of the inspection or plan of works to the resident and us. If an inspection has not been completed, the landlord must arrange one and take all reasonable steps to ensure it is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. The landlord must ensure the surveyor: inspects the security gate and produces a written report with photographs The report must set out: a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue the likely timescales to commence and complete the work The landlord must provide us and the resident with a copy of the report, any remedial work required, and a timescale for the work to be completed.	No later than 18 May 2024

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £350 offered in the complaint responses for its complaint handling. We have made a finding of reasonable redress on the basis the landlord pays this compensation.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about his service charges. He said he was dissatisfied with both the increase and lack of information explaining how the charges were calculated. He also reported that a communal security gate, funded through the service charge, was not working and had been out of service for approximately 3 years.
16 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said the service charges had decreased compared to the previous year and confirmed it had repaired the security gate. It said the resident had not previously reported the broken gate and encouraged him to report any future issues promptly.
21 November 2023	The resident escalated the complaint. He said the landlord had not provided a sufficient explanation for the service charges. He said the charges had tripled and he wanted a detailed breakdown to explain what the service charges covered and how it related to his property.
27 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It: acknowledged the numerous attempts made by the resident to obtain a breakdown of the service charges and provided a breakdown with a detailed explanation. said the broken gate was reported on 12 September 2023 and repairs were completed on 26 September 2023 apologised for service failures and offered a total of £375 compensation, which comprised of £25 for a communication failure and £350 for complaint handling failures
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us he wanted to challenge the service charge amount and required a breakdown to show the actual costs for his property. He sought a reduction in the service charges, a refund of amounts already paid, and for repairs to be completed to the security gate.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The increase in service charges
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We do not investigate complaints about the level or increase of rent and service charges. Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge are best suited to be considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident may wish to visit the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) website (www.lease-advice.org) for advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

Complaint	Request for a clear explanation of the service charge calculation
Finding	Service failure

We cannot investigate complaints regarding the level of service charges or the increase in service charges. Therefore, this report will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
In August 2023 the landlord issued its annual service charge review, which included an explanation of the estimated service charges for the year ahead. The resident contacted the landlord for clarification about the management fee and reserve fund on 31 August 2023. On 11 September 2023 the resident spent time and effort chasing the landlord for a response. Although the landlord does not have a published timescale for replying to emails, it was evident the resident considered the matter urgent.
On 12 September 2023 the landlord confirmed what the management fees and reserve funds covered. The resident remained dissatisfied and continued to raise queries during October 2023. On 2 November 2023 the landlord provided a clearer explanation of the service charges and information about his statutory rights and obligations. This showed it took steps to clarify the charges to resolve the matter for the resident.
However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to also explain that it was unable to provide an exact figure for the resident’s service charge usage. This is because it calculated and apportioned service charges across homes receiving a service, rather than by individual property usage. The landlord could have explained how this approach is consistent with the lease agreement. The lease states the resident is required to contribute a fair proportion, assessed by the landlord, towards the repairing, maintaining, and managing of communal facilities. This explanation may have helped the resident to understand the service charge calculation.
The landlord’s formal complaint response did not include information about escalation options for the resident’s continued concerns about the service charges. In particular, it did not advise the resident that he could refer such matters to the First Tier Property Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT). The FTT can determine liability for service charges and administration charges, including who must pay them and how much they should pay. The landlord should have provided this information, as it may have assisted the resident in resolving his concerns sooner.
In summary, the landlord provided an adequate explanation of the service charges and the resident’s statutory rights. However, it did not always respond promptly to requests for clarification or clearly explain how the service charges were apportioned in line with the lease. In addition, it failed to signpost the resident to the FTT within its formal complaint response.
The landlord’s complaint response identified a failure in communicating with the resident, it apologised and offered £25compensation.Its compensation policy states it will award discretionary compensation for poor service, in line with our compensation guidance.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response for a clear explanation of the service charge calculation. While it acknowledged a failure and offered compensation, we consider the amount was not proportionate to the failings identified. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £75 compensation to the resident. This reflects the distress and inconvenience caused where the landlord made an offer of compensation. However, it did not adequately reflect the impact on the resident or the extent of the service failure.

Complaint	Repairs to a security gate
Finding	Service failure

On 31 August 2023 the resident reported the communal security gate was broken and not operating. The landlord’s repair policy confirms it is responsible for communal areas and will complete complex or specialist repairs within 90-days. A contractor inspected the gate on 25 September 2023 and completed the repair the following day. This was in line with the landlord’s 90-day repair timescale.
The landlord said it would complete a post-inspection of the gate following repair works. Although a date was not provided, internal emails and the stage 2 complaint response confirmed the inspection took place and the gate was operating sufficiently. This showed the landlord took steps to ensure the issue had been resolved.
On 26 February 2024 the resident reported the security gate was broken again. He said the gate was consistently breaking and he did not see any benefit in the gate remaining in situ. There is no evidence the landlord acted upon the report at that time. Further, the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 27 March 2024, did not acknowledge the gate was broken. This resulted in a missed opportunity for the landlord to investigate the reported repair and address the resident’s concerns through the complaints process. This is likely to have caused the resident further frustration.
Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, it was evident the landlord was aware of recurring issues with the security gate. It said the gate had been repaired and the motor replaced, but it was reported as broken again 36 hours later. More recently, on 13 April 2026, the resident told us the gate remained broken and a neighbour had installed a locking bolt. This is not a reasonable resolution. As such, we have ordered the landlord to inspect the gate and complete any necessary repairs, or to consider an alternative solution.
Our spotlight report on repairs (2019) states where repairs repeatedly fail, landlords must have systems in place that brings this to their attention and consider a different approach or full replacement. Decisions about when to repair or maintain are the landlords to make but we would expect a repeated pattern of failures to be recorded, and appropriate steps taken.
In summary, while the landlord initially responded appropriately to the repair, it did not act when the gate failed for a second time. The lack of response resulted in avoidable time and trouble for the resident. Further, it is likely to have caused the resident frustration when the stage 2 response did not acknowledge the gate had broken for a second time.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we have found service failure. The landlord’s compensation policy states it offers compensation for poor service but does not indicate an amount. Therefore, in line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100. This amount reflects the likely frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to him by the landlord’s response to his reports of a broken security gate.

Complaint	Complaint Handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint on 10 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged it the next day. It provided its stage 1 response on 16 October 2023, 6 working days later. This was in line with its policy.
The resident escalated his complaint on 21 November 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge it or provide a response until we requested it do so on 8 March 2024. It provided its complaint response on 27 March 2024, 89 days after the initial escalation request. The resident should not have had to ask us to intervene to get a response to his complaint. The delay was unreasonable and not in line with its policy.
It is evident the resident chased the stage 2 complaint response on several occasions. The landlord’s failure to respond in a timely manner did not demonstrate a commitment to work with him or provide a resolution to the complaint.
The landlord identified failures in its complaint handling. It apologised and awarded £350 compensation, which was in line with its compensation policy. Furthermore, it identified that it needed additional complaint handling staff and was undertaking an active recruitment process. Its offer was higher than what we would have awarded for a finding of maladministration, therefore a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate. We have made this finding on the basis the landlord pays the £350 compensation.

Learning

General learning

The landlord may find it beneficial to read our insight report on service charges (December 2023).

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the complaint process lacked customer focus and took too long.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It missed opportunities to confirm the resident’s reasons for his continued dissatisfaction and engage with him. The landlord should consider how this occurred to prevent a recurrence in the future.