Bromford Flagship Limited (202328690)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328690

Bromford Housing Group Limited

30 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of metal objects in the garden.
2. Concerns about the conduct of contractors.
3. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a 5-year fixed term assured shorthold tenancy of the property where she has lived since February 2021. The resident lives with her 3 children who are all aged under 11 years old. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
On 2 June 2023 the resident reported her son, aged 9, had fallen in the garden and cut his leg on a metal object, which was sticking out of the ground. The injury caused the son to have approximately 8 stitches in his leg. The resident reported she had found more metal objects since the incident. The landlord attended on 19 July 2023 to check the garden and found 1 metal object, which it removed.
On 24 November 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with the inspection in July 2023.
On 29 December 2023 the landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s complaint, which it formally acknowledged on 11 January 2024. The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 January 2024 to obtain a better understanding of her complaint which was:
1. The resident did not believe the operative who had inspected the garden in July 2023 had done so correctly. This was because she had found more metal objects in her garden, which included a metal pole sticking out of a wall.
2. She was unhappy with the conduct of operatives who had attended her property to complete internal repairs. She had left the operatives in the property on their own and they had been through her cupboards and helped themselves to coffee, without permission. They had also left urine on the toilet seats. The operatives had also left sharp objects, such as screws and wire cut offs, on the floor.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 25 January 2024. It apologised to the resident. It said the behaviour was unacceptable and not how it expected its staff and contractors to behave when in customer’s homes. It said it was unable to provide a response to the resident’s complaint at that time because it needed time to speak to the relevant teams to investigate both issues. It said it would update the resident when it had done this.
On 7 February 2024 the landlord sent an updated stage 1 response to the resident. It said:
1. It could not find any evidence the resident had raised the issue of metal in her garden before her report in June 2023. Following the resident’s report in June 2023 it had inspected the garden and found 1 metal object, which it had removed.
2. The resident had found more metal objects in the garden after the inspection and requested the landlord inspect the area again. The landlord said it would inspect the garden again on 14 February 2024 and would remove any metal found.
3. The landlord confirmed it had raised the resident’s concerns about the contractors’ behaviour during the repair visit in November 2023 with its contractor who would complete an investigation. It thanked the resident for bringing these issues to its attention and apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused. It said it would not be able to share the outcome of the investigation with the resident due to data protection of the colleagues involved.
4. In relation to her son’s injury. It explained its complaint policy did not cover requests for compensation for health issues. If the resident wished to pursue this, it recommended she consult a solicitor to consider a formal legal claim.
On 14 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint because she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 23 May 2024, which said:
1. It had completed another inspection of the garden on 14 February 2024 when it had found lots of metal objects. It had removed some of the objects but not all, some of which were buried beneath the surface.
2. It had discussed the resident’s case at an internal meeting and agreed that it needed to take urgent action. It agreed to appoint a contractor to dig up the garden, filter the ground, and lay new soil or turf.
3. The resident had contacted the landlord on 26 March 2024, following completion of the works, to say she was unhappy with what the contractor had done.
4. The landlord said it had asked the resident’s Neighbourhood Coach to visit to inspect the work but it could not evidence this visit had taken place.
5. The landlord said it would arrange for someone to inspect the works to assess the quality and if it needed to complete any further work. It hoped to confirm the date of the visit by 31 May 2024.
6. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in relation to the issues and concerns raised about the garden and the quality of works it had completed as a resolution. It apologised for the delays faced by the resident in its complaint handling. It offered compensation of £200 which it broke down as follows:
  1. £100 – for the failure to escalate the resident’s complaint (2 months)
  2. £50 – for the delays in providing the complaint response at stage 2
  3. £50 – for the delay in completing the works between June 2023 and July 2023
7. It said it would review the compensation offered following assessment of the garden and the completed works.
The resident told us she has continued to find metal objects in her garden, which she has reported to the landlord. She said she did not believe the landlord had learnt from her concerns about contractors leaving metal objects, such as screws, behind after repair works because she said it had happened again since her complaint. Although the landlord paid the compensation to the resident it did not inspect the works or her garden again, as it said it would do in its stage 2 complaint response. The resident is now seeking:
1. Compensation for the landlord’s failure to complete the actions it agreed in its stage 2 complaint response.
2. For the landlord to inspect the works it completed, inspect the garden, and remove any metal objects it finds.
3. The landlord to share the learning points from this case with its staff and contractors so that they are aware of the importance of clearing away mess or removing objects, such as screws, when it completes repairs at a property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In June 2023 the resident reported that her son had fallen and cut his leg on a piece of metal in her garden. This resulted in her son having to attend hospital and have stitches to the wound on his leg. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed 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 over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Metal objects in the garden

The tenancy agreement says that residents are responsible for garden maintenance and to keep all areas free from debris, dirt or rubbish. Under the landlord’s void procedure the garden should meet a minimum standard at the point the property is let. This minimum standard should include the removal of any objects that present a hazard.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) lists 29 common hazards, the impacts these hazards can have, and the potential causes. The protection against accidents section includes falling on level surfaces such as floors, yards and paths. Landlords need to make sure their homes are free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. It must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
It was reasonable of the landlord to send an engineer to inspect the garden and remove any metal objects because it was a hazard. The landlord attended on 19 July 2023 to address the issue with the garden.
We can see the resident attempted to raise her concerns about this visit by an email on 1 August 2023. The resident has told us a member of the landlord’s staff had given her the email address in earlier correspondence. However, on checking the evidence it appears there was a typing error in the resident’s email which meant the landlord did not receive it. Therefore, we cannot say there was a failure in the landlord not responding to this contact.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 24 November 2023. She said the landlord’s inspection in July 2023 was not sufficient because she had found more metal objects in the garden. The landlord asked the resident to provide photographs of the objects found which she said she would upload onto the portal on 4 December 2023. The resident did not upload the photographs and on 5 December 2023 the landlord informed her it would close the case and wait for the resident to call back after she had provided the requested information. It was reasonable for the landlord to have requested evidence of the metal objects so it could assess the situation. However, in the absence of the evidence and given that the landlord had not conducted a post work inspection, a child had previously been injured, it may have failed to follow its void policy, and there was a potential hazard under the HHSRS it should have inspected the garden.
On 7 February 2024 the landlord said it would inspect the garden again. The landlord attended on 14 February 2024. However, this was 82 calendar days from the resident’s 24 November 2023 notification. This was not reasonable.
We have not seen the inspection report from 14 February 2024. However, we have seen internal correspondence in which the landlord confirmed it removed some items of metal from the garden and found lots more pieces of different shapes and sizes. The landlord said it had checked the void forms which confirmed it had inspected the garden but it did not find anything of concern. Its findings showed it had not inspected the garden properly when the property was void and that it needed to complete further works to make the garden safe. The landlord updated the resident with its findings the following day and said it would be liaising with its Empty Homes Team to discuss next steps.
The landlord conducted an internal meeting on 20 February 2024 with various teams to discuss what action it needed to take. An internal email from the same date states the landlord needed to dig up the whole garden, filter out the soil, and then lay new soil or turf. The landlord started this work around the end of March 2024, which included the laying of a new patio.
On 23 April 2024 the resident reported her dissatisfaction with the work to the garden. She said the landlord employee whom she had been liaising with did not attend with the contractor to explain what needed to be done and he told her to project manage the job herself. She said the contractor had only turned over the soil in one section of the garden, not removed all the objects of metal, and the patio he had laid was wobbly and a trip hazard. She also said the landlord had not inspected the work following completion.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it was sorry the resident was unhappy with the works. It said it had written details of instructions to the contractor and had discussed the scope of works with the resident prior to it starting the works. Upon receiving the resident’s email it said it asked her Neighbourhood Coach to inspect the works but could not find any evidence this visit had taken place. It is good practice for landlord’s to outline the scope of works in writing to residents so that there are no misunderstandings on what work it will complete. It is also good practice for landlord’s to inspect works following completion. The post works inspection was especially important in this case to ensure there were no more hazards present in the garden. There is no evidence the landlord did either of these which was a missed opportunity. Had it done so, this would have managed the resident’s expectations and could have resolved the resident’s complaint sooner.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would arrange a further inspection to assess the works and decide if it needed to complete any further works. The resident has told us this inspection did not take place, despite her chasing the landlord again in September 2024 and October 2024.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers 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.
The landlord acted fairly by it apologising for the inconvenience caused to the resident due to the metal objects found in her garden and the conduct of its contractors. It showed learning from outcomes in its stage 2 complaint response by explaining it had shared its findings with its Empty Homes Team to highlight any future training needs and offer an opportunity to review existing policies and procedures for improvement.
The landlord showed its attempt to put things right by inspecting the garden in July 2023 and completing works in March 2024, and by offering the resident compensation of £50 for the delay in July 2023. However, it did not inspect the works following completion. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident because she could not be sure all the hazards had been removed from her garden, and she did not know if it was safe for her children to play in.
Although the landlord made some attempt to put things right the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. This leads us to a finding of maladministration. Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, a fairer level of compensation would be £500. This takes into consideration the resident did not have full use of her garden from when she first reported the issue in June 2023 up to at least 23 May 2024, which is when the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This amount appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in this case.

Conduct of contractors

We have not seen the landlord’s policy for management of contractors. However, when a resident raises an issue about the conduct of an employee or contractor of the landlord, we would expect the landlord to complete an investigation into the issues raised and provide the resident with an explanation of the actions it intends to take (subject to data protection requirements).
The landlord acknowledged the behaviour was unacceptable and not how it expected its staff and contractors to behave when in customer’s homes. It apologised and said it had referred the issue to its contractor to investigate. It explained it could not share the outcome of that investigation with the resident due to data protection of the colleagues involved.
We are satisfied that the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable. This is because the landlord agreed to investigate the resident’s concerns, which included speaking to the contractor and updated the resident on the action it would take.
There was therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of staff and contractors.
However, the resident has told us that this has happened again, where contractors have left rubbish and items behind following completion of works. We have therefore recommended the landlord revisit this issue again and assess whether any future training is required to ensure its staff and contractors understand the importance of clearing all rubbish and disused items away following completion of works in a residents home.

Complaint handling

The resident reported dissatisfaction with the landlord’s inspection in July 2023, on 24 November 2023. The landlord did not recognise this as a complaint until 29 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 January 2024, which was 31 working days later after the resident’s report. Although the landlord had explained there may be a delay in it contacting the resident to discuss her complaint, this was an unreasonable delay which the landlord failed to acknowledge within its complaint handling.
Further to this, the landlord said that it could not consider the injury to her son’s leg because its complaint policy did not cover issues of health. Whilst it was reasonable of the landlord to recommend the resident contact a solicitor to discuss a legal claim, the Complaint Policy states it may be appropriate in some circumstances, such as where there has been a personal injury, to refer the resident to its insurance team to progress a claim. There is no evidence that it did this, which was a failure.
At stage 2 of the complaint process the landlord acknowledged failings including its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint and delays in providing its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised and offered £150 compensation.
Due to the delays at both complaint stages, the failure to escalate the resident’s complaint, and failure to refer the resident to its insurance team, there was maladministration. This caused the resident inconvenience and delayed her progressing the complaint through the landlord’s internal complaint procedure so that she could bring it to this Service for investigation. To reflect this we have ordered the landlord to increase its compensation for its handling of the resident’s complaint to £250, which is in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s report of metal objects in her garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide the resident with a full written apology for the errors shown in this report. The apology must be made by a manager.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £700 which is made up of:
  1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of metal objects in the garden.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
4. Inspect the works completed in March 2024 and the resident’s garden.
5. Within 10 days of completing the inspection, it must write to the resident to confirm the outcome. The landlord must:
  1. Set out its findings and whether there are any hazards in the garden which it needs to remove.
  2. Confirm what work it will complete to remove such hazards.
  3. When it intends to start the works and how long the works will take.
Provide the resident with the contact details of its insurance team and information on how to submit an insurance claim.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider whether any future training is required to ensure its staff and contractors understand the importance of clearing all rubbish and disused items away following completion of works in a residents home.