Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202331084)

Decision
Case ID	202331084
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bromford Flagship Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026

 

Background

1. The resident is registered blind and lives in a bungalow. He was unhappy about the landlord’s communication when dealing with repairs and asked his housing officer to attend appointments with operatives.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
   2. Complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments.
   2. Complaint handling.

 

Summary of reasons

Reasonable adjustments

4. The landlord showed a clear awareness of the resident’s disability, took reasonable steps to progress the repairs, and adapted its communication methods to meet his needs. It considered his request for a housing officer to attend repair appointments and gave a clear, reasonable explanation for why it could not provide this adjustment.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord issued its formal responses when it said it would, keeping the resident informed of a delay at stage 1 and managing expectations.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 August 2023	The resident complained that the landlord did not consider reasonable adjustments for his blindness for repairs and felt staff were taking advantage of his disability. He requested that an advocate be present for all future appointments to ensure works were completed properly.
13 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said the resident’s housing officer would become his single point of contact and attend during the scheduled 16 October repairs.
16 October 2023	The resident escalated the complaint. He said operatives arrived without warning. He added the landlord’s approach to scheduling appointments caused stress. He wanted a housing officer present at all repairs.
14 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it did not hold any information which supported the need for a housing officer to be present for all repair visits but would review the resident’s support needs. It noted he declined a booked home visit to do this. It investigated concerns about its operatives entering the resident’s home without introduction, which its operatives denied, but it apologised if it occurred.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord failed to make reasonable adjustments, including providing audio and ensuring operatives called ahead. As an outcome he wanted a member of staff to attend repair appointments and compensation for distress and inconvenience.

 

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	Reasonable adjustments
Finding	No maladministration

What we’ve not considered

6. The resident told us he felt discriminated against due to his vulnerability and that the landlord failed to make reasonable adjustments. The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010 – this can only be done by the courts. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.
7. Landlords may be able to show they have properly considered the Equality Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected. They should ensure that they provide the opportunity for residents to challenge the decisions that affect them through the internal complaints process.

What we’ve considered

8. The resident complained operatives failed to call him before appointments and that his housing officer did not attend repair visits, which he said he needed because of his disability. In response, the landlord said its operatives denied not calling ahead. It also explained that it refused his request for a housing officer to attend repairs because housing officers manage tenancies and do not attend repair visits.
9. When the resident requested reasonable adjustments, the landlord had a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to consider the request on an evidence‑based basis. This required it to identify whether the resident would face a substantial disadvantage without the adjustment, consider effectiveness and practicality, and explore proportionate alternatives where a requested adjustment is not feasible.
10. A request for a housing officer to attend repair visits amounted to a request for an auxiliary service. The landlord therefore needed to explore how the resident’s disability affected his ability to manage appointments and whether staff attendance was a reasonable and proportionate adjustment, and whether it could provide support in a different, workable form.
11. The landlord’s policy said adjustments would be agreed individually and aimed to ensure residents were not disadvantaged when accessing services. From September 2022 the landlord had already adjusted its communication by calling ahead, updating the resident about any changes, and later providing audio versions of letters.
12. In August 2023, the resident asked for an advocate to be present during repair visits and raised concerns that repairs had been outstanding. The landlord inspected the property on 11 September 2023 and scheduled works for 16 October 2023. It confirmed the housing officer would act as his point of contact and would attend that repair appointment. The evidence indicates the resident later cancelled this 16 October appointment.
13. The landlord recognised his wish for advocacy support but noted this was not always practical because different staff might need to contact him. Nonetheless, it did attempt to identify alternatives. It arranged the housing officer’s home visit on 24 October 2023 to discuss support options and agree practical measures for repairs, but the resident declined. This showed the landlord was open to working together on practical adjustments short of having a housing officer attend every contractor visit.
14. After repeated cancellations and concerns about the resident’s wellbeing, the landlord made several safeguarding referrals from October 2023, which was a proportionate response. It continued to try to progress the repairs, reorganise appointments, and arrange visits, but access was not granted. In its final response, the landlord set out clear reasons for refusing the specific request, noting the limits of the housing officer role, staffing capacity, and indicating the operational constraints of providing a chaperone type service.
15. The wording in the landlord’s final response, that it did not “hold any information” supporting staff attendance was inaccurate, given its awareness of the resident’s disability. However, the substantive decision was based on operational boundaries and proportionality. It attempted to explore support options through the planned 24 October 2023 visit and remained open to discussing support with the resident which it attempted on further occasions in 2024.
16. The resident’s frustration with reported past contractor behaviour was understandable, and his request for support during visits reflected his experience. However, the evidence showed the landlord communicated in line with his agreed adjustments, attempted repeatedly to engage, and made efforts in 2024 to reassess support needs and rebook repairs the works. The resident’s level of engagement limited the landlord’s ability to implement tailored adjustments.
17. Taken together, the landlord assessed the reasonable adjustment request, provided clear and relevant reasons for refusing a housing officer’s attendance at all repair appointments, explored alternatives, and adapted communication to meet the resident’s needs in line with its policy. Although some phrasing in its final response was poorly worded, the landlord acted proportionately, attempted to support the resident and took reasonable steps to progress repairs.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

18. The landlord has a 2‑stage complaints process. A complaint is any expression of dissatisfaction about its service or actions. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days, with a response then issued within 10 working days. Stage 2 reviews aim to be completed within 20 working days. These timescales meet the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
19. The landlord promptly acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 16 August 2023. On 6 September 2023, it contacted the resident to explain it could not meet the original response deadline and required an additional 10 working days.
20. This extension was in line with its complaints policy and the Code, which permits a stage 1 extension of up to 10 working days when the delay is explained in writing. The landlord therefore managed the resident’s expectations appropriately. It issued its stage 1 response on 13 September 2023, within the revised timescale and arranged to send an audio recording of the response on compact disc (CD).
21. After the resident escalated the complaint on 16 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged the escalation in good time and issued its final response on 14 November 2023. This was in line with its 20 working-day policy timescale.
22. In line with the resident’s communication adjustment, the landlord telephoned him on 15 November 2023 to deliver the stage 2 outcome. It also arranged to send an audio recording of this response on CD. However, delivery issues meant the resident did not receive the CD until a month later. This was an avoidable delay, and a learning point has been made below. Nevertheless, the landlord handled the complaint satisfactorily and provided audio CD recordings of its formal responses.

 

Learning

23. The landlord generally adhered to the agreed reasonable adjustments and communicated them consistently, exploring alternatives when it could not meet the resident’s specific request. Aside from some poorly worded phrasing, its overall approach was proportionate and evidence-based.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. In this case, the landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory.

Communication

25. For the most part, the landlord’s communication was good. However, it needs a more robust process for issuing correspondence in alternative formats such as audio recordings. This will help ensure residents receive information promptly, in a format they can understand, and prevent avoidable delays.