Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202418157)

Decision
Case ID	202418157
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 June 2026

Background

1. The resident complained about an interruption to her hot water and delays in replacing her boiler. The landlord replaced the boiler and acknowledged that failures in its processes led to delays in the work being completed. It apologised and paid £395 in compensation.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A boiler replacement and interruption to the heating and hot water supply.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a boiler replacement and interruption to the heating and hot water supply.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a boiler replacement and interruption to the heating and hot water supply

4. The landlord apologised for the temporary interruption to the hot water supply. It replaced the boiler and radiators, but failures in its processes meant there was a delay in doing so. It apologised and paid compensation to the resident, which was an appropriate remedy in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. Errors in the landlord’s complaint handling meant it did not comply with the process or timescales set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord’s response was delayed significantly at stage 2. These issues constituted maladministration.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 for complaint handling failures. This includes the £25 already paid to the resident. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The resident must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 July 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that, following an issue with the boiler, she had been left without hot water and central heating.
29 April 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that the resident was without hot water while it ordered a part for the boiler, and that the service was restored on 20 April 2024. It apologised and offered compensation to the resident.
3 May 2024	The resident escalated her complaint, saying the temporary loss of hot water had been for no reason and had to make several calls to get someone to attend. She also said she had heard nothing further about her boiler being replaced (this had been agreed when the landlord’s contractor attended on 12 April 2024).
Referral to the Ombudsman – 6 August 2024	The resident contacted us because she had not received a response to her escalation request and also chased her complaint with the landlord.
20 August 2024	The landlord gave a further stage 1 response. It said that although the contractor had confirmed in April 2024 that a new boiler was required, it had mistakenly not been authorised and therefore the work was not scheduled. The landlord apologised, offered compensation and said it would try to resolve the matter urgently.
30 August 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to say there had been no response to her escalation request (the landlord had provided a further stage 1 response, rather than replying at stage 2). She also contacted us, and we asked the landlord to provide a stage 2 response.
27 November 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It said the boiler and radiators had been replaced, but apologised for service failures in the process that meant the work took a long time to complete. It offered £395 in compensation.
11 December 2024	The resident contacted us to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She said she wanted the landlord to box in or paint new pipework that had been installed with the boiler.

 

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 landlord’s handling of a boiler replacement and interruption to the heating and hot water supply
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

6. The resident told us that, while the boiler and radiators had been replaced, she wanted the new pipework to be boxed in or painted. This issue was raised after the end of the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints that the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident should raise this matter directly with the landlord.

What we have investigated

7. On 11 April 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that her boiler was not working, leaving her without hot water and central heating. The hot water service was restored on 20 April 2024. The resident told the landlord she had been without hot water unnecessarily, but the landlord said the service interruption was because it had ordered, and was waiting for, parts for the immersion heater. It acknowledged that the resident had been without hot water, apologised and offered £40 compensation for the loss of service (calculated at £5 per day). This was a reasonable remedy to the loss of hot water in the circumstances.
8. Although the hot water service was restored, the landlord determined at the initial repair appointment on 12 April 2024 that the resident’s boiler needed to be replaced. On 19 April 2024, it provided the resident with a heater because she did not have central heating. However, it was only after the resident chased the matter some months later that the landlord discovered the work was not scheduled and so no progress had been made. The evidence shows that there was some confusion, even within the landlord’s different departments, about whether the work had been approved and was ongoing, and there were references to gaps in its records. It acknowledged in an internal email that the resident had been “messed around” by a contractor and this had delayed the work.
9. It would no doubt have been frustrating for the resident to be told, in August 2024 and 4 months after her initial report, that the work was not scheduled. It then took the landlord another 2 months to replace the boiler and radiators. Its responsive repairs policy states that complex repairs should usually be completed within 90 days. In this case, the repair took twice that long, and some follow-on work was not completed until January 2025. The evidence shows that the delays were, at least in part, due to the landlord’s processes rather than being unavoidable.
10. The landlord acknowledged these failures in its service, apologised to the resident for distress and inconvenience, and offered compensation for the lack of communication and overall delay in completing the work. It offered £80 in compensation for the initial delay with the major works referral. It further explained that it would normally have expected to complete the work within 3 months, and that it had calculated its additional delay compensation of £200 based on the additional 4 months taken, at £50 per month. The landlord also offered £50 of compensation for lack of communication during September and October 2024.
11. The delay in completing the work and the lack of clear communication caused additional inconvenience to the resident. The landlord attempted to mitigate the loss of central heating by providing a temporary heater, and much of the delay was over the warmer summer months which limited the adverse effect. The landlord’s compensation policy does not specify amounts of discretionary compensation but says it will refer to our remedies guidance. The acknowledgement of service failure, an apology and compensation amounted to an appropriate remedy in accordance with our compensation and remedies guidance. The landlord’s records show that the resident accepted this outcome and the compensation was paid.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

12. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response times are in line with the Code.
13. The resident made her initial complaint on 14 April 2024. The landlord responded on 29 April 2024. It did not provide us with a copy of this response and so we have not seen it in full. The resident emailed the landlord asking to escalate the complaint on 3 May 2024, but there is no evidence that the landlord did this or provided a stage 2 response.
14. Having not received a response, the resident contacted us and chased the landlord. To comply with the Code, the landlord should have responded at stage 2 within 20 working days. Instead, it provided a further stage 1 response on 20 August 2024, 75 working days after the resident asked to escalate the complaint.
15. The resident contacted the landlord on 30 August 2024 to say she had still not received a response at the second complaint stage. This email was not logged by the landlord until 14 working days later. It gave its stage 2 response on 27 November 2024 after we asked it to do so.
16. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint, and its use of a second stage 1 response before its eventual stage 2 reply, was not in compliance with the two-stage complaint process required by the Code. Furthermore, the stage 2 response came 145 working days after the escalation request, far longer than the 20 working days required.
17. The landlord’s complaint handling failures caused additional inconvenience for the resident, who had to chase it for responses as well as contacting us. The delay in responding also impacted on its handling of the main problem, as the landlord did not identify the issues with the boiler approval until it investigated the complaint. This might have been identified sooner had the landlord escalated the complaint when the resident asked it to.
18. The landlord acknowledged that its service in relation to complaint handling was “not good enough on this occasion”. It did not, however, reference the specific errors in its complaint handling process. The landlord’s compensation policy does not specify compensation amounts regarding complaint handling. When considered against our compensation guidance, the offer of £25 for delay in initial contact was not a sufficient remedy for such a significant failure in the process, and we have made an order for the landlord to pay additional compensation.

 

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. There were problems with the landlord’s records for its handling of the main issue and its complaint handling. It acknowledged some gaps in its notes. The landlord should ensure that its records are kept up-to-date and are detailed enough that issues can be addressed without unnecessary delay.

Communication

20. The resident had to chase the landlord for replies on several occasions, and there were long delays it responding to the complaint. The landlord should ensure that communication with residents is timely and in line with its policies, to avoid further distress and inconvenience when dealing with complaints.