Four months ago I attempted to describe how Bromford Housing Group’s systemic failures sat at the intersection of all the things that can go wrong for tenants and residents. A series of service and management failures over more than a year felt like it couldn’t be just a coincidental failure of all the landlord’s working parts.

Over the last four months, there has been the impression of some progress being made at the landlord with regard to the work that needed to be done to resolve long-standing issues of damp and mould. The work has been left unaddressed for so long that the damp and mould has spawned an infestation of mould mites. At no point had anyone at Bromford taken accountability for the issues or come up with a plan to resolve them.

The problem isn’t even that Bromford doesn’t know what the issues are. As this blog will show, their failure to carry out a stage 1 complaints response led to an escalation to a stage 2 response, in which the multiple failures of staff and departments is spelled out by Bromford’s complaints manager. This blog will examine this response in detail and then wonder how all of its findings have continued to be ignored by the landlord as today, the 4th March 2024, it attempts to repeat the failures it admits to in this document.

The Bromford Stage 2 complaints response starts with a preamble perhaps straight from pro forma:

“I am writing to you today to provide the outcome of my investigation and response to concerns at stage two of our internal complaint process.

I regret that we were unable to resolve your complaint at stage one, necessitating it’s escalation.

At stage two, we thoroughly examine the issues you have experienced, assess the appropriateness of the actions taken, and evaluate any service failures. Additionally, we consider if there are lessons to be learned from the overall experience.

I understand your stage one complaint raised with us on 27th October 2023. Details of this complaint were as follows:”

There’s not really much to be commented on here yet, other than the claim that the organisation considers whether there are lessons to be learned from the overall ‘experience’. Bromford have been notably failing on damp and mould problems as has been clear on ITV News, local news reports and dating back to the Cult Of Bromford/Bessy Banks problems it manifested back in 2014. There have been plenty of opportunities to learn lessons, none of which have been taken. I’ve left the various grammatical and spelling errors made in Bromford’s formal response in place as they appear in the original.

Onto the details of the complaints raised, summarised in this stage 2 response. The tenant wanted the complaints raised as individual issues so that they could be closed as they were addressed, but Bromford inexplicably wanted to make it a single complaint, meaning there’s a lot of work to get it to a state where it can be closed at all.:

  • When you initially were shown around the property, you pointed out the damp and mould and were told that it would be dealt with.
    This refers to the occasion when the tenants were shown the property before moving in, ten years ago.
  • Due to damp and mould resulting from Bromford’s negligence, the wheelchair to use for mobility has become mouldy and unsuitable.
    This issue has now been resolved after a number of admin and organisational hurdles from the landlord including one investigation by a fraud team after a numerical typo by the tenant.
  • No reports shared with customer regarding CDM.
    ‘CDM’ is the first unexplained acronym used in the report. It is shorthand for the Condensation, Damp and Mould team, which the response makes clear is a kind of black hole in the organisation where necessary actions go to die. 17 months after the initial complaints were raised, this team within Bromford has still not identified what the cause of the damp and mould is, and so have not planned to resolve it.
  • The external pointing related to the extension is coming away and missing is places.
    No work has been commenced on this. A report was commissioned but its results are still a mystery, apparently to both tenant and landlord. But the landlord has probably seen it.
  • The floor in the extension is not level and safe for a wheelchair user.
    All of the work in the extension was carried out by a terrible contractor used repeatedly by Bromford.
  • The windows are not fit for purpose and as a result are causing more mould within the property.
    Many of the windows have now been replaced, although there are still issues with some of the seals and with some draughts. No proper assessment has been done of the
  • Serval appointments missed, no communication from CDM team.
    Over the course of 2023, several appointments were made and not attended by subcontractors to assess and address the damp and mould. A complete lack of attention from Bromford and an absence of any communication is what led to the complaints being raised, really. Tenants being ignored by landlords is not unusual.


Stage 1 Complaint Handling

The stage 2 complaint detailsa lot of communication from the ‘case handler’ to several departments to ask for updates on the status of the issues raised. It is important to note that these issues were almost all brought to Bromford’s attention in November 2022.

A damp and mould survey was carried out in March 2023 and then… nothing happened. Despite the Housing Ombudsman making it clear that sharing such reports is what good landlords do, Bromford are not a good landlord, so they did not share it. At the time of writing in March 2024 they have still not shared it. One thing is certain: the report is a year out of date, but is still the basis for the works Bromford are carrying out. The damp and Mould are much worse than they were when the report was produced.

The review of internal communications of the stage 1 response is long and ultimately a bit pointless to reproduce here. To summarise, after a year of total disinterest and inactivity at Bromford, the stage 1 complaint process consisted of telling the tenants to not worry because all the departments who had done nothing for a year had been notified that they have some work to do. None of the reasons why this colossal level of failure had occurred were explored, and no apology was offered other than an apology the tenants ‘felt that way’.

Because of the absence of any meaningful stage 1 response from Bromford, the tenants were forced to escalate to stage 2. Bromford’s complaints process states that tenants have the right to raise stage 2 complaints after two weeks, but in the end it took Bromford six weeks to undertake this escalation, and then a further four weeks to do anything about it.

Stage 2 Complaint Case Actions

As the stage 2 response makes clear:
“
I understand you escalated your complaint with the stage one case handler on 17th November 2023. I have conducted that the stage two escalation was submitted to management on 14 December, and it was sent to me on the 18th December 2024. It is evident that there has been a failing at this stage of the complaint and I sincerely apologise for the length of time it has taken to escalate this complaint. I fully acknowledge the frustration this has undoubtedly caused.”

To be fair to the stage 2 complaints manager, they were polite, reasonable and balanced in their discussions with the tenants. A meeting in person with this stage 2 manager was the first time the complaints had been heard and dealt with in any meaningful way, which is a failure of the process, but at least it had finally happened, more than a year after the damp and mould issues were raised with Bromford.

Then this little gem:

“Constructive feedback will be communicated to the relevant teams and management for further investigation and necessary rectification. This process aims to identify any additional training requirements and facilitate enhancements to our services moving forward.”

This feels like a paragraph that is left in all complaints responses. The main problem with it in this context, no matter how sincerely it was communicated, is that it can’t be taken seriously. Bromford have a long history of failing to deal with, or dealing inappropriately with, condensation, damp and mould. They made many similar promises about training and enhancements after they were featured prominently in a series of ITV News reports in 2021. It is unequivocally clear from the experiences of my family members, and others, that they have learnt not a single lesson and improved not a single service despite all this.

The stage 2 complaint then goes on to deal with a number of issues, making it clear that Bromford have failed in each case to acknowledge there is a problem, therefore not acting on any issues or communicating anything about any of the issues.

Wheelchair

“During my investigation, I’ve engaged in discussions with colleagues responsible for handling compensation claims. It has become evident through my inquiries that we failed to expedite the compensation process in a timely manner, and this lapse was not communicated to you”

The intervention of the stage 2 complaints manager was the only reason that progress was made on Bromford replacing the wheelchair which they had caused to become unusable through their neglect. More accurately, through their complete inability to do their jobs, but particularly to ensure that a person who relies on a wheelchair for their independence could use it. Why Bromford could not resolve this without a stage 2 complaint being raised remains a mystery.

Windows

The windows have been one of the relative success stories of this whole shower of failures, although obviously no work was planned until complaints were raised. What remains a mystery is why the work wasn’t done or communicated about in the first place:

“Through my investigation, it is evident that you expressed concerns about the windows to your neighbourhood coach. I recognise that a report was submitted by the neighbourhood coach, and I concede that we failed to address this in a timely manner. I extend my sincere apologies for this lapse, and I will ensure that the relevant departments are informed of this shortcoming. Following discussions with various colleagues, it remains unclear how the breakdown occurred, and I will be advocating for lessons to be gleaned from your situation.”

Tenants wait with bated breath details of which lessons are to be gleaned.

Gutters

“I can affirm that the gutter issues will be addressed by the conclusion of March 2024, as indicated in the Ridge and Quantum report. Home Investments is presently coordinating arrangements to initiate this necessary work. A team member will reach out to confirm the commencement dates. It has come to my attention that this is a primary contributor to the dampness and mould concerns and rectifying it is expected to bring about a significant improvement.”

The ‘Ridge report’ referenced here was undertaken in March 2023. In the intervening year, the recommendations of the report appear to have been completely ignored. Many staff and contractor visitors during this time mentioned that the guttering was worsening the damp and mould situation by tipping water into the walls, but this did not prompt Bromford to take any action.

Fortunately the workers assigned this task were keen, diligent and dedicated, working to make up lost time from other department’s incompetence and flailing. There is still wide concern that the walls themselves are not waterproof due to issues with pointing (mortar) and what is probably rising damp in the walls, but at least the guttering is sorted along with the windows, and now the roof too.

Extension

In a way the extension sits outside the remit of this blog, but it is its own separate colossal failure. Once again a survey has been undertaken and a report produced, but Bromford is not sharing its findings as to whether it is structurally sounds. What is clear is that the pointing is crumbling between the bricks, the original construction was not square and was of a low quality, and it accompanied a number of other complaints raised prior to those covered here about bigotry, homophobia, incompetence and Bromford breaking its safeguarding agreement with the tenants. None of which have been satisfactorily resolved.

The stage 2 complaint response sounds promising:

“As of the time of composing this report, it is confirmed that concerns have been identified with the mortar, and the Home Investment team is awaiting the complete report to determine the appropriate course of action. A thorough communication of these findings will be provided to you. I have been informed that all the problematic mortar will be removed, and the work will be redone correctly.

While I am unable to detail the specific program of work at this moment, the team will engage in discussions with you to address this matter comprehensively, and we will closely monitor all communications. The course of action may involve significant measures for your family, and until we have the complete report, we are unable to specify the actions that will be taken. I want to maintain transparency and honesty with you. Any planned works will be thoroughly discussed with you prior to their implementation.

This planned work program has and will be chased to determine the timeline and therefore provide you with the necessary dates and times. While the relevant department needs to wait for the full report, we will continue to chase and hold them accountable.”

The only problem with this written plan of action is that none of it has been done. Nothing has been undertaken and no communication about the report or the work needed on the extension has been undertaken. Bromford have simply reverted to its default position of doing nothing and saying nothing and being accountable for nothing. Even though the tenants have been moved out to do other work, it has not been coordinated with any work to the extension.

Furniture

I sincerely regret the damage caused to items in your home due to damp and mould. I understand that certain items hold sentimental value, and I want to specifically address this concern in this section. Following our discussion, I recognise that assigning a precise value to these items is challenging. Despite this, I have included a suggested amount in the compensation section. If this proposed figure is not acceptable, I recommend initiating a separate claim through our insurance for the damaged items. This insurance claim would be separate from any compensation we may offer. If you decide to proceed with an insurance claim for the furniture, I can provide you with all the necessary details.

The main problem with the response on furniture is that it was impossible to know when the offer of compensation was made whether further items would be damaged by the damp and mould spreading unchecked. Some of the items had immense sentimental value. I have blanked out all the amounts offered in compensation after a discussion with my tenant family members, but the path to restitution for what is lost could be a bit clearer.

The stage 2 response then goes into some excuse about why Bromford won’t inform the tenants of what the reports into the damp and mould in the home they live in say. It’s pretty rubbish. There’s a brief review of the “Condensation, Damp and Mould” works package which is ok in so far as it goes, but only relates to issues identified in 2023, not the ones currently faced as a result of a year of inactivity by Bromford.

Stair Lift

While this aspect was not initially part of your formal complaint, during my visit to your property, you brought up concerns about the stair lift and its potential issues. Subsequent to our discussion, I contacted our contacts manager responsible for overseeing the Delton contract. It has come to my understanding that a visit was conducted on January 19th, during which certain issues were identified. I have been informed that necessary repairs have been raised, and the process of authorizing payments is underway.

I was also informed that although we do not install stairlifts, in the event that your stair lift is deemed beyond economical repair, we can assist you by referring you to your Local Authority for a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG).

The stair lift saga is almost comical, except when it leaves the tenant trapped half way up or down the stairs because Bromford are incapable of sourcing and replacing a spring that the person who inspected the stair lift on behalf of Bromford in October 2022 said would cost about 50p. The most recent development is Bromford challenging whether two remote controls are necessary – presumably trying to save money – when one is needed at the top, and one at the bottom of the stairlift. Who exactly is responsible for the stairlift remains unclear, as a result of a further communication failure. It’s just another area where a person made vulnerable by circumstance has had their life made more challenging by Bromford.

Lack of communication

To begin, I want to acknowledge the comment you raised in the escalation within the stage one report. Upon reviewing the emails available in the system, I have identified an email that references this comment. The email pertains to a conversation between your husband and the contractors, advising that any internal changes should be deferred until the windows are installed. In retrospect, I recognise that this was a prudent recommendation, and I apologise for any misrepresentation in the wording of the stage one response. It was not a refusal to allow workmen in but rather a sensible approach to facilitate continued work.

This paragraph refers to a problem the tenants had with repeatedly being told they had refused work being done to resolve damp and mould issues. It acknowledges that actually the subcontractor paid to do the initial survey had said it would be pointless doing the internal works until the external works were completed. Presumably this is reflected in the report itself, but as the landlord won’t share it, it’s impossible to know. Nevertheless it was used by the Condensation, Damp and Mould team as an excuse to cover their own incompetence and inability to do their jobs. This stage 2 complaint investigation has clearly highlighted their failure to do their jobs, their misrepresentation of the situation and the further failure of the stage 1 complaints process to identify this glaring error and dishonesty.

I acknowledge that the communication from Bromford has not met our expectations, and unfortunately, you have had to actively pursue your concerns on multiple occasions.

I understand and acknowledge your dissatisfaction with the service you have received from us. The deficient communication, delays, and the overall lack of urgency in resolving your issues must have caused you significant frustration and distress. I sincerely apologize for the impact this has had on you.

Fair enough, but there is no indication of how this will be addressed or prevented in future. Presumably this slipshod approach will continue across the organisation.

Complaint Conclusion

“After a comprehensive review and assessment of your initial stage one complaint, it is evident that, despite our adherence to policy, the rectification of your repairs faced an undue delay. I extend sincere apologies on behalf of Bromford for the extended timeframe in addressing and resolving these issues.“

“despite our adherence to policy”, it says. This is probably the most incredible thing in a complaints response that is damning in its acceptance of multiple failures. It’s hard to understand how this conclusion can say that policy has been followed. The complaints policy certainly hasn’t been followed, and the document makes specific reference to a number of critical service failures. If these things all form part of Bromford’s policy, we’d certainly like to see where this level of failure being normal practice is written down.

The communication you received from Bromford has fallen short of our expectations, and unfortunately, you have had to actively pursue repairs on multiple occasions.

This has not changed in the works undertaken since this stage 2 response. Communication continues to be patchy, dismissive and often disrespectful or not accommodating the specific needs of the tenants. It’s clear that Bromford are exactly the kind of landlord identified by the Housing Ombudsman in its recent “Attitudes, Respect and Rights” spotlight report. A veritable shambles of poor organisation, a disgusting organisational culture and a patronising and inflexible manner of communicating all the above.

“I am truly sorry to hear about the impact the issues raised in this complaint have had on your well-being and health. While any claims related to your health cannot be addressed within the scope of this complaint, as it falls outside our complaints policy and remit, I empathize with the impact on your overall well-being. I understand your disappointment with the service you have received from us. The deficient communication, delays, and overall lack of urgency in addressing your issues must have caused you significant frustration and distress. I sincerely apologise for the impact you and your husband have endured in this regard.”

That particular complaints manager has left now, and in general it’s back to square one on the failure of communication, a lack of urgency to resolve issues and Bromford causing significant frustration and distress. It seems these things are simply ingrained into the organisation, and while it may be outside the remit of the complaints process to address these failure, you’d think somebody would be responsible for them.

The response then details some not insignificant compensation suggestions and advises the tenants that they can contact the Housing Ombudsman, which they have been forced to do as a result of Bromford’s inability to address the causes of the vast majority of the complaints raised here.

Since this response and apology was received, the tenants have been made to clear out their own damp and mould, mite infested loft after Bromford staff members told them they wouldn’t have to, and have been decanted to get the guttering, roofing and internal remediations done. The guttering and roofing are great news, but the internal remediation has amounted to a mould wash and a coat of paint, something that’s clear from all sources will not address the damp and mould in the walls.

For all its apparent thoroughness, this response cannot offer any assurances about future behaviour or the required culture changes at Bromford.

I would love this to be the end of the matter, both for my tenant family members and myself, as well as for those Bromford staff members who have been helpful and informative in contrast to the general way residents get treated. Unfortunately, while the landlord is now refusing to do the work required to address the causes of damp and mould, rather than just patching over the symptoms, it currently feels that further updates on this catalogue of systemic failure will be necessary in future.

Leave a comment