Bromford Housing Group Limited (202337217)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337217

Bromford Housing Group Limited

1 October 2024

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 the landlord’s response to:

1. Reports of defects in the property.
2. Concerns raised about the conduct of a member of staff.

2.             The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

3.             The resident moved into a newly built property in March 2023. She has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The property benefitted from a new build defect liability period until February 2024. During this time, the developer was responsible for repairing defects which would have been present when the property was built.

4.             In September 2023, the resident complained about repairs, specifically waste backing up in the downstairs toilet and a faulty locking mechanism on the front door.

5.             On 19 October 2023, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process, confirmed that the repairs had been raised with the developer, and apologised for the time it took to resolve the problems. The resident was still dissatisfied, as she felt that her questions about the repairs were unanswered, and no resolution was provided. She was also upset as she thought a staff member had told her neighbour about a complaint she had made about them. Consequently, she requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.

6.             In its stage 2 response on 27 October 2023, the landlord said that the developer’s contractor had confirmed a bend in the pipe was causing the toilet to back up. The landlord said it was actively pursuing the developer to complete the repairs. It apologised for the delays, acknowledged the frustration this caused, and offered £520 in compensation. This was made up of £120 for the delays in repairs (£20 per month), £200 for the lack of communication and delays, and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It found no supporting evidence to confirm that any information about the resident’s complaint was disclosed to her neighbour.

7.             The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to consider her complaint. She said the repairs were only completed this year, and her complaint regarding a staff member had not been thoroughly investigated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8.             The landlord investigated and responded to several issues as part of its complaints process. The resident has told us that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs to the downstairs toilet and the front door. As a result, our investigation has focused on those remaining issues.

9.             For ease of reading, the landlord’s handling of each repair is considered under a subheading.

Repairs to the downstairs toilet

10.        Under the development agreement, the defect liability period is defined as, ‘in relation to any unit the period 12 months commencing on the date that the final stage of each unit section has been constructed’. It states that any defects notified in writing before or during the defect liability period are made good as soon as reasonably practicable, having due regard to the nature and urgency of the defect.

11.        The landlord’s internal records indicate that once it is on notice, the developer has 28 days to book a repair.

12.        It is understandable that the resident was disappointed to find defects in her new property shortly after moving in, which would have affected her new home experience. As the works were to be scheduled and undertaken by the developer, a third party, the landlord’s involvement was limited. However, the landlord is responsible for ensuring that repairs are managed well and completed to a good standard as soon as reasonably practicable. This includes passing reports to the developer, ensuring that the developer promptly addresses reported repairs, and providing regular updates to the resident.

13.        In this case, the defect liability period ended on 29 February 2024. However, the toilet defect was reported on 25 April 2023. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to consult the developer over this issue.

14.        Following the initial report of the toilet backing up on 25 April 2023, the records show that the resident reported the same problem on at least 3 occasions between April and September 2023. We expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to drive a resolution, such as actively chasing the developer for updates or considering alternative solutions if the resolution takes longer. For example, consider completing the repair and recharging the developer. 

15.        The landlord has not shared detailed records of its communications with the developer, making it difficult to determine how diligently the repair was being pursued. The landlord should have provided detailed records of its actions, communications with all parties, and decision-making. Without this information, we cannot conclude that the landlord acted reasonably. This is a record-keeping failure.

16.        If the developer completed repairs, they did not provide a lasting resolution. The resident reported the issue again on 26 September, which the landlord raised as an emergency repair the same day. The landlord called the developer on 27 September 2023 to chase the repair. A lack of detailed records makes it unclear when or if the developer attended.

17.        The landlord’s initial response did not address the toilet repair issue adequately. It confirmed that on 16 October 2023, it communicated with the New Homes Team to raise the unresolved issue and that the responsibility for addressing the repair lay with the developer. The landlord should have done more to reassure the resident, outlined a plan for monitoring the developer’s progress, or confirmed it would address the repair if the developer failed to resolve it within a specified timeframe. This would have been a reasonable response, considering the matter had been ongoing for 6 months. The resident had informed the landlord that she was distressed by the toilet repeatedly backing up and leaking sewage. The landlord’s lack of action to ensure the developer completed a lasting repair only compounded the distress experienced by the resident.

18.        On 15 November 2023, the resident confirmed that an operative unblocked the toilet but had advised her that blockages would reoccur because of a bend in the pipe. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response but did not explain how the developer would fix the issue. It also apologised for the lapse in communications and lack of accountability. Still, it needed to address how it would ensure the issue was permanently resolved, which it failed to do.

19.        The landlord completed the repair in April 2024, 6 months after the landlord’s final response and a year after the problem was initially reported. In our view, the landlord did not have appropriate oversight or effectively track the repairs, leading to poor customer service. We understand that the recurring blockages and occasional overflowing of the toilet would have been distressing and unhygienic for the resident.

20.        The landlord attempted to put things right by apologising and offering compensation for the delays in repairs, the lack of communication, and the distress and inconvenience this caused. However, the landlord did not do enough to ensure the repair was fixed and minimise further delays. The landlord missed an opportunity to explain how it would improve its communication with the developer to mitigate similar mistakes and delays in the future. Therefore, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had learned from the outcome of the complaint.

Front door

21.        The landlord raised a repair to the developer regarding the front door and its locking mechanism on 1 June 2023. Based on the evidence, the landlord followed up with the developer regarding the repair on 27 September 2023 and again on 15 November 2023. An engineer visited at some point between these dates and identified a problem with the frame and hinges, and another inspection was required.

22.        Due to the lack of repair records and communication records between the landlord, developer, and resident, it has been challenging to determine the exact timeline of events.

23.        The landlord’s stage 2 response was reasonable, acknowledging that there had been a lack of accountability regarding the repairs, leading to them exceeding anticipated timeframes. However, the landlord did not do enough to ensure the developer repaired the front door. This concerned the resident, who was worried about the safety of the property. Although the landlord confirmed it would take further action against the developer if it did not receive a timely response, there is no evidence to support it did this.

24.        After the landlord’s stage 2 response in November 2023, the landlord sent a contractual notice to the developer on 24 January 2024. The landlord should have done this much sooner once it was aware the developer was not responding to or completing repairs as soon as reasonably practicable. At this time, the landlord confirmed it would give the developer 1 days’ notice before sending someone else to complete the work.

25.        On 15 May 2024, the landlord’s contractor confirmed that the resident required a new front door. It was installed in June 2024, 9-months after the resident reported the problem.

Overall assessment

26.        We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported defects in the property. While it went some way to trying to put things right, it did not resolve the substantive issues or do enough to show that it took sufficient action to ensure that the developer responded to the repairs as soon as reasonably practicable. Furthermore, it failed to explain how it would mitigate similar future failures. The landlord has not been able to demonstrate learning from the complaint, with the resident experiencing between 6 and 9 months of further delays after completing the landlord’s complaints process.

27.        Therefore, to proportionately recognise the further time, delays, distress, and inconvenience, we have awarded an additional £450. This comprises £120 for the further 6 months’ delay in repairing the downstairs toilet (£20 per month), £180 for the additional 9 months’ delay in replacing the front door (£20 per month), and £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused during this time. This aligns with our remedies guidance, which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range where the landlord has made errors which caused distress and/or inconvenience for the resident but where there has been no permanent impact.

28.        The landlord offered the compensation as a “full and final settlement upon the closure of the complaint.” The landlord should be mindful of the language used in its complaint responses, as residents are entitled to refer their complaints to our service. It should refrain from using “full and final settlement,” which has a legal connotation unless the landlord intends to seek an agreement to bind the resident, in which case it should explain the full implications of the phrase. It is the Ombudsman’s established position that residents should be able to accept compensation offered by the landlord through its complaints process as an interim payment whilst still maintaining their right to approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to their complaint.

29.        The resident has advised that she is unhappy with the workmanship of the front door, specifically the gaps in the frame. Therefore, the landlord should re-attend the door to inspect and repair it if necessary.

Staff conduct

30.        It is unclear when the resident first raised concerns about the staff member. However, we know she raised this as part of her escalation to stage 2, and the landlord responded to this aspect during stage 2 of its complaints process.

31.        When a resident raises concerns regarding staff conduct, the landlord is expected to conduct a fair and impartial investigation and then take appropriate action based on the investigation findings.

32.        The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that when a complaint is made about a landlord’s staff member, they must be given a fair chance to set out their position. The evidence shows that the landlord had a Teams call with the staff member to discuss the complaint and address how they handled the resident’s reports concerning her neighbour.

33.        The landlord determined that no information about the resident’s complaint had been shared with the neighbour. In response to the complaint investigation, the landlord stated that it had investigated the allegations but found no evidence to support them. Apart from a conversation with the staff member, it is unclear what other evidence the landlord obtained or what records it relied upon before concluding the matter. The lack of clarity may have made the resident understandably feel that the report was not thoroughly investigated.

34.        Additionally, we would have expected to see file notes from the landlord documenting discussions about the incident with the staff member and the resident. The only record provided states that the landlord “discussed concerns that information about a complaint was passed to a neighbour.”

35.        It is evident that the resident’s trust in the staff member had been eroded, and she reported that it had further impacted her relationship with her neighbour. The landlord’s response did not set out its position on how to improve the relationship between the resident and the staff member. The landlord missed the opportunity to support the resident and show that it took her concerns seriously.

36.        The evidence suggests that the staff member acknowledged in internal correspondence on 17 November 2023 that she had contacted the neighbour regarding the resident’s complaint in May 2023. This supports the resident’s concerns that her complaint was discussed without her consent. However, to reach a definitive conclusion, further evidence is required. If the landlord solely relied on the staff member’s denial of the report, the reliability of the facts cannot be established. With the limited information provided, we cannot conclude that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the matter.

37.        There was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the conduct of a staff member. Given the identified failings, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 in recognition of the distress caused by its failure to demonstrate that it appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance, which states awards from £50 are appropriate in cases where the landlord’s failure caused inconvenience to the resident and may have led to a loss of confidence in the landlord.

Determination

38.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to:

1. Reports of defects in the property.
2. Concerns raised about the conduct of a member of staff.

39.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

40.        Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 compensation, comprising:
   1. £120 for the time and trouble caused by the additional delays in repairing the downstairs toilet.
   2. £180 for the time and trouble caused by the additional delays in replacing the front door.
   3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairs.
   4. £50 for the distress caused in relation to the landlord’s response to her concerns about staff conduct.
   5. This amount is in addition to the £520 the landlord has already paid.
   6. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed (unless the resident states otherwise).
3. The landlord should arrange to inspect the front door fitting and either ensure that the developer resolves the issue or arrange the repair itself. The landlord should also update the resident and our Service with its intention within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

41.        The landlord will arrange to meet with the developer to agree on a streamlined approach for assessing defects, arranging repairs, and managing resident expectations. The landlord should reflect on this case and ensure that, moving forward, it effectively monitors and manages the performance of third parties to ensure that contractual obligations are met.

42.        Review its wording, such as “full and final settlement”, when offering compensation at stage 2 of its complaints process.