Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202339152)

Background

1. The resident lives with her partner and 4 children in a 3 bedroom house. The resident has Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS) and mental health vulnerabilities and one of her children has additional vulnerabilities. The property kitchen has 3 doorways, one to the pantry, one to the hallway, and one leading to an outbuilding. The outbuilding is not insulated or heated and has a back door leading to the garden. The first evidenced time the resident reported missing kitchen doors and increase in electricity bills was on 8 November 2023. The landlord surveyed and raised works to replace the doors, which it completed in August 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of missing kitchen doors and the associated increase to her electricity bills.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of missing kitchen doors and the associated increase to her electricity bills.
4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Missing kitchen doors

5. The landlord unreasonably delayed completing this repair. It acknowledged one element of its delay, however we found it delayed further beyond its final response. It has provided no evidence of it raising the works or ordering replacement doors until 4 months after it knew it needed to. It also did not respond to the resident’s concerns about inefficient heating during December 2023 which was inappropriate given the household’s vulnerability. As such, we have found the compensation it offered during its complaints process to be insufficient. Its explanation of how it calculated its contribution towards excess energy costs does not match with the amount it offered.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord appropriately responded to this complaint within the timeframes in its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (our Code).

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The resident said the 3 kitchen doors were missing since December 2018. She said she had raised this issue with the landlord multiple times, and it promised to replace them. We have not seen evidence to support this. The landlord said it had no record of her raising this issue before November 2023. We have found no record in its repair logs from 2018 to 2024 of it removing the doors or of the doors being missing.
8. The resident said a survey before it fitted an air source heat pump in 2022 also recommended the landlord fit the doors. The emails we have seen following this survey recommended other work but did not mention the doors. As we have no evidence the landlord was made aware of this repair sooner, we will investigate from the first evidenced report on 8 November 2023.
9. The landlord accepted responsibility for this repair after the resident’s report and initially responded promptly. It carried out an initial survey on 14 November 2023, then arranged a further visit on 23 November 2023 to assess the back door placement. A day later it advised the resident in its stage 1 response of the surveyor’s recommendations to replace the doors with new doors and alter the associated fittings. It said it would complete all the works on 21 and 22 December 2023. This was reasonable and showed clear communication with the resident.
10. However, the landlord then inappropriately did not complete the repair within the 28 day routine repair timescale in its complaints policy. It acknowledged in its final response it sent a wrongly skilled contractor in December 2023 which meant it did not complete the works. It also did not follow up this work until after the resident escalated her complaint in February 2024, 2 months later. The landlord showed poor coordination of this repair which contributed to its delay and the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
11. After the resident’s escalation, the landlord arranged a retrofit survey on 28 February 2024 to assess the thermal loss further. This survey report recommended the landlord replace the doors. It also concluded the missing doors were likely contributing to her high energy costs. It was duplication for the landlord to survey again as it already knew it needed to replace the doors. However, we found this was a reasonable step as it gained further information about the overall energy loss in the property and contributed to a informed response. This was also not a major contributing factor in its overall delay.
12. On the 18 March the landlord ordered the replacement doors from an external contractor. This is the first evidence of it placing an order despite it knowing it had to do this after the first survey in November. This was an unreasonable 4 month delay.
13. In its final response the landlord committed to completing the works within 12 weeks. The landlord further delayed completing the repair until 5 August 2024. Unreasonably, this was 8 months outside of its routine repair timescale, and one month after the timeframe it set out in its final response. We cannot see evidence the landlord chased the contractor about the progress of this work until the completion date which was unreasonable. Its further delay in completing these works shows the landlord did not learn from its earlier delay. This delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she had to live with missing doors and inefficient heating for longer than she needed to over winter.
14. The landlord showed instances of poor communication. For instance, it did not communicate with the resident about the repair from late December 2023 to February 2024 after it sent the wrongly skilled contractor, or during the delay in its final works in Summer 2024. This poor communication exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience. This was unreasonable. It’s important for landlords to keep a resident updated especially around complex repairs when there are delays. Proper communication allows a landlord to manage resident expectations. In this instance, poor communication contributed to the resident’s frustrations and inconvenience.
15. The landlord also did not respond to her email on 11 December 2023 where she expressed her concern about the missing doors meaning her heating was inefficient and expensive during the cold winter.The resident has Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS). While we cannot say for sure whether potential excess cold would have exacerbated this, the landlord should have assessed whether she was living with excess cold. It should then have considered whether it could mitigate any impact on her while its works were ongoing.The landlord did helpfully refer the resident to its energy advice team in February 2024 who advised her on the correct tariff to switch to and looked at other energy saving measures. However, it is unreasonable the landlord did not promptly respond to the resident’s continued concern given this is a vulnerable household.
16. The landlord showed instances of poor record keeping. For example, there is no record of its follow up visit on 23 November 2023 or evidence of it arranging any of the works it promises in its stage 1 response despite it reporting a contractor did attend. It’s important that a landlord keeps accurate records because it allows it to demonstrate the actions it took if called into question. It also allows it to keep on top of ongoing issues and respond in appropriate timeframes.
17. In its final response the landlord acknowledged sending the wrong contractor in December 2023, as well as its poor communication, and for not following up the works. It offered the resident £100 in compensation. While this is a step towards putting things right, it is not enough to remedy the further delays and communication issues we have identified. To take these into account, we have ordered the landlord to increase the compensation to £400, an additional payment of £300. This is within the range for maladministration in our Remedies Guidance and accounts for the additional distress and inconvenience the landlord caused the resident through its further delays.
18. The landlord offered the resident £600 to contributed towards additional electricity costs. The landlord said it calculated this as £100 per month from November 2023 until it fitted the new doors. This calculation was inaccurate. It only included the 6 months until its final response in April 2024, not until the end of the 12 weeks it allowed itself to complete the repair. It should have included an additional 4 months up until the start of August 2024 or reviewed this upon work completion. The landlord delayed this with a further month. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay an additional £400, raising this to £1000 for electricity costs.

19. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and stage 2 within 20 working days after the resident’s escalation. It also allowed the landlord to request an extension at both stages.
20. At this time the landlord’s policy was not in line with our Code as it did not mention acknowledging the resident’s escalation. Its possible escalation at stage 2 was also shorter than that allowed in our Code. Its new complaints policy in April 2024 brought it in line with our Code. Regardless, the landlord responded within the timeframes within both its complaints policy and our Code.
21. The landlord also responded to all elements of the resident’s complaint, which was appropriate. While we have identified an error in the electricity cost calculation this had been assessed as part of the substantive issue above.

Learning

22. We saw instances of poor contractor oversight from the landlord. The landlord should consider how it can be proactive asking for updates from external contractors. This will help it ensure the correct works are completed within the timeframes promised.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. We saw many instances of incomplete or unclear records. The landlord should make sure to keep complete records of its investigations and repairs, including feedback from contractors. This will help it evidence its actions in potential complaints and follow up on its commitments.

Communication

24. The landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents and be proactive during complex repairs as we saw gaps in its communication with the resident during the key periods of the complaint.