Bromford Housing Association Limited (202112906)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112906

Bromford Housing Association Limited

19 July 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the plastering and kitchen units in the resident’s property and his concerns about subsidence.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the repairs and the resident’s decant (temporary move) following its final response to his complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the resident’s decant following its stage two complaint response in January 2022 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that; the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale;
  3. In this case, it is noted that several further repairs were identified following the landlord’s final response to the complaint in January 2022 and the resident was subsequently decanted (temporarily moved) from the property whilst works went ahead. The resident has raised concerns that these works were not identified at an earlier date and is dissatisfied about the way in which the decant was handled. This is not something that this Service can adjudicate on  at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and fully respond to this aspect before the Ombudsman becomes involved. As such, this investigation will not consider events following the landlord’s stage two complaint response to the initial complaint on 11 January 2022. The resident will need to contact the landlord and may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord to resolve his ongoing concerns. He may then approach the Ombudsman for further investigation if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to the new complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a bungalow.
  2. In April 2021, the resident reported various cracks in multiple rooms within his property. He raised concerns about possible subsidence and noted that there had historically been an ongoing leak until his wet-room had been replaced which he believed had affected his kitchen units. An inspection was carried out in May 2021; follow-on works to renew the plaster around the property and renew the plinth to a kitchen base unit were required. The floorboards under the cooker were checked as the resident had reported that the floorboards were rotten due to the historic leak but when inspected they were found to be structurally sound. The resident called the landlord for an update on the repair in June 2021 and was informed that the materials had been ordered but that it did not have a date for the repair yet.
  3. The resident raised a complaint in July 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and the length of time the repairs to his kitchen units and plastering was taking to complete. He added that he did not feel that the property was habitable due to the extensive works required. He asked that the works were completed as soon as possible. The resident continued to pursue the repairs throughout July 2021 and also reported damp and mould in various rooms in his property.
  4. Following this there was an inspection and a surveyor attended in August 2021. The work to the kitchen units and plastering were booked in for late August 2021 and a mould treatment was arranged for September 2021. The resident also mentioned mould issues related to his kitchen ceiling which had not been previously inspected; a further surveyor visit was arranged for September 2021. The records indicate that the resident asked for the works to be put on hold until the further survey was completed. The resident also raised concerns around this time that the issues in his property were structural and the cracks were possibly caused by subsidence. The surveyor identified no leaks that would be contributing to the mould on the resident’s ceiling. The landlord received a second opinion on the cracks within the property and did not believe the issues to be caused by subsidence. The landlord arranged for the works to be completed in October 2021, however, the evidence shows that the resident had asked for these to be cancelled.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord explained that since the resident had moved into the property, he had raised three repairs for leaks, however, on each occasion no leak was found. In 2020, a surveyor had recommended a full wet-room replacement due to the general condition and age of the bathroom. It noted that the resident had advised that the current cracks throughout the property were due to a historic leak but explained that no leak had been identified. It explained that three surveyors had attended and were confident that there were no leaks and no structural issues within the property. It had attempted to book in the recommended works but the resident had advised that he did not wish to proceed. It confirmed that it did not believe there to be subsidence and said that the resident could provide an independent surveyor’s report if he believed this to be the case. The landlord acknowledged that there had been poor communication and it had failed to return calls on numerous occasions. It acknowledged that there had been delays in its handling of the complaint which should not have happened. It also acknowledged that it could have provided the resident with its decision regarding the repairs at an earlier stage and apologised for its lack of clear communication. It offered £300 compensation to the resident for its poor communication and complaint handling by way of apology.
  6. Following the complaint, a further survey was completed in January 2022 which identified issues with the resident’s roof. Work was arranged to alter the pipework that ran from the resident’s boiler onto the roof. The surveyor did not find evidence of subsidence but found that substantial works were required, including to roof tiles which were damaged and concrete missing externally below a window as well as the works previously identified. The resident was decanted in March 2022 whilst the required works were completed.
  7. The resident referred his complaint to this Service as he remained dissatisfied with the poor communication from the landlord and the lack of progress regarding the required works. He also noted that further works had been identified related to his roof and was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his decant into temporary accommodation whilst the works were being carried out. He felt that the newly identified works should have been discovered sooner.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out who is responsible for various types of repairs. The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the internal structure of the property including the walls, floors and ceilings as well as plasterwork. It is also responsible for repairs needed to kitchens. The resident is responsible for the internal decorations of the property and filling minor cracks in internal walls. The resident is also responsible for maintaining the property to a reasonable standard of cleanliness and hygiene
  2. The repairs policy also sets out the landlord’s timescales for different types of repairs. Emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours. All other repairs will be appointed and would be arranged for a time and date suitable for the resident and subject to the availability of appropriate resources. In some cases, inspections may be required and a second appointment may be required. Residents would be responsible for allowing repairs to their property and the landlord should work with the resident to understand any issues they have with the repair if they refuse the works.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the landlord has a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. at stage two, if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. if there is likely to be any delays, the landlord should contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new complaint response timescale.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the plastering and kitchen units in the resident’s property and his concerns about subsidence.

  1. In this case, it is not disputed that there was poor communication by the landlord and the resident had needed to seek updates on regular occasions. The landlord has acknowledged its failure to respond to calls from the resident and had apologised for any inconvenience caused. Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident has found the situation distressing, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord ultimately took reasonable steps to meet its obligations to him and to undertake multiple inspections and surveys of the property to identify whether further works were required which fell within its remit to complete. There was poor communication by the landlord, which led to delays and constituted a failure in service, but the landlord subsequently took the opportunity of the formal complaints process to fully investigate the reports, formally confirm its position, and offer redress to the resident by way of apology and compensation.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy is not specific in relation to the length of time repairs should take but landlord’s should usually aim to complete repairs within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. It is industry best practice for routine repairs to be completed within one month although some complex repairs such as those which require specialist materials or equipment may take longer. In this case, there has been delay in completing the works to the resident’s plastering and kitchen until from April 2021. However, this was initially due to a lack of materials in June and July 2021 which the landlord explained to the resident, although it is noted that he needed to chase for this update. Following this it was recommended that a survey was completed as the resident had raised concerns about the proposed works. Following the surveyors visit, the delay was in part due to the resident asking for works to be put on hold or cancelled. The evidence show that the landlord took reasonable steps to inspect and survey the property on a number of occasions in response to the resident’s concerns about the proposed works which was an appropriate response. It is noted that the landlord attempted to arrange the works following a further surveyor visit in September 2021 but the resident had asked for the works to be cancelled in October 2021.
  3. There was a lack of communication from the landlord following this which is likely to have been inconvenient for the resident as there was a lack of progress regarding the repair issues. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed its position regarding the repairs at an earlier stage in order to manage the resident’s expectations. It was appropriate for the landlord to invite the resident to provide an independent surveyors report as it had already inspected the property on a number of occasions and had found no evidence of subsidence.
  4. Whilst it is acknowledged that further works were identified following the end of the complaints process which is likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident, the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors who determined that no further works were required and there were no leaks or evidence of subsidence at the time of their visits. The Ombudsman cannot comment on precisely what repairs would be appropriate as there is no documentary evidence to suggest that a leak had been identified and the landlord was entitled to rely on reports from the surveyor when deciding what work to undertake. There is no evidence to suggest that the further repair works identified in January 2022 could have reasonably been identified at an earlier stage, as such, the landlord had not been made aware of these issues and there were limited steps it could take to resolve these issues sooner.
  5. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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.
  6. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by £300 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by both its poor communication and poor complaint handling (which will be addressed below). The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) which states that amounts between £250-£700 are proportionate where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord but where there may be no permanent impact on the resident. Examples could include a resident repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that resident or failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
  7. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. This compensation figure is also considered proportionate in view of the landlord’s complaint handling failings addressed below. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. In this case, the resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 1 July 2021. The landlord did not issue its stage one complaint response until 27 August 2021, which was 31 working days outside of its policy timescales at this stage. The landlord apologised for the delay within the response and explained that the staff member who had been handling the complaint had left the business.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident initially asked to escalate his complaint on 8 September 2021, however the records indicate that the resident was asked to postpone his escalation by the landlord as it needed to identify whether structural works were required. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have escalated the resident’s complaint at this stage as this would not have prevented the landlord from inspecting the property or continuing to attempt to resolve the complaint. The resident has advised that he attempted to escalate his complaint again on 27 September 2021. The Ombudsman has not been provided with documentary evidence to support this. Following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 3 November 2021, asking it to respond within 20 working days. This was not actioned and the Ombudsman sent a further email on 4 January 2022. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 11 January 2022, which was a significant time following the resident’s initial request to escalate in September 2021 and the Ombudsman’s initial request in November 2021.
  3. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to acknowledge that it had not handled the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. It apologised to the resident for its failure to confirm its final position regarding the repairs at an earlier date. The landlord’s overall offer of £300 compensation for its poor communication and complaint handling is considered proportionate in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as detailed above. Amounts in this range are also considered proportionate where there have been significant failures to follow complaint procedures or escalate a complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of repairs to the plastering and kitchen units in the resident’s property and his concerns about subsidence. which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this complaint satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the associated complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should write to both the resident and the Ombudsman to confirm its position regarding whether further compensation will be paid in view of the events which occurred following January 2022. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response, he may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord and may approach the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied following the landlord’s final complaint response
  2. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £300 as previously agreed if it has not already done so as the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress was found on this basis.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs policy and includes expected timescales for the completion of routine repairs and major works for both compliance purposes and to ensure that residents expectations are managed in relation to how long a repair should take.
  4. It is recommended that the landlord ensures that it has a system in place for handling complaints when staff are absent to ensure that complaints are handled within policy timescales. It should also ensure that residents are regularly updated on the progress of their complaint and provided with expected response timescales where there are likely to be delays.