From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Bolton at Home Limited (202402454)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402454

Bolton at Home Limited

22 September 2025

 

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 handling of cladding repairs and its response to a request for compensation relating to heating costs.

Background

  1. The resident is a joint assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom end of terrace house. The resident lives in the property with his wife. The resident and his wife both have disabilities.
  2. Both the resident and his wife have been in contact with the landlord, and this Service, about this complaint. For the purposes of this report, all contact from either the resident or his wife will be referred to as contact from “the resident” unless further explanation is required.
  3. An operative attended the resident’s property in July 2022 to repair the kitchen ceiling. During the visit he noted an issue with the cladding to the rear of the resident’s property. The landlord completed a structural inspection on 10 November 2022 and confirmed that the cladding panels needed replacing.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 5 December 2022. He complained about the length of time it had taken the landlord to complete the ceiling repair. He also said he had not heard from the landlord since an inspector said it needed to replace the cladding. The resident said he had asked the landlord for help with the cost of heating the home but had not had a response. He told the landlord that he and his wife were both disabled.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 6 January 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the delays in attending inspections, completing the ceiling repairs and acknowledged that its communication with both the resident and its internal teams could have been better. It offered the resident £150 compensation.
  6. The resident escalated part of the complaint to stage 2 on 24 March 2023. He did not escalate the ceiling repairs issue as the landlord had completed the repairs in January 2023. However, the resident said the cladding repairs, and subsequent heating issues, were still outstanding. The resident also raised issues that were not part of the stage 1 complaint. He said the back door was warped and the upstairs window was coming away from the frame.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 9 June 2023. It said it would fix the cladding within the next 3 months. It said it would replace the rear door and fix the window after the cladding repair. It also said the cost of gas had significantly increased since winter 2021/2022. Therefore, it concluded that this was the reason for the resident’s increased gas charges. The landlord did not offer any additional compensation. Although it said, if the resident could provide further details of their annual gas charges for October 2021 to October 2022, it could calculate a more accurate comparison of costs and consider compensation.
  8. The landlord sent the resident further responses on 26 July 2023 and 27 March 2024. It said, in both responses, that it had found no evidence to suggest any significant increase in the resident’s gas charges that could be linked to drafts in their home. The landlord offered the resident £50 as a goodwill gesture for the time and trouble it had taken to obtain documents from their gas supplier.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said he wanted the landlord to explain its decision in relation to the gas charges and pay compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although we cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures.
  2. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his and his wife’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  3. The resident’s escalation request to stage 2 included concerns relating to the resident’s back door and an upstairs window. Although the landlord provided updates within its stage 2 response, these aspects of the resident’s complaint have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process as it did not investigate the matters or consider them at both stages of the complaints process. Therefore, they will not form part of this investigation. The landlord has since completed both repairs.

The landlord’s handling of cladding repairs and its response to a request for compensation relating to heating costs

  1. The landlord’s evidence shows that an operative noted the cladding issues during a visit in July 2022. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the operative passed the cladding repairs back to the landlord, as the resident had to chase the landlord in both July 2022 and August 2022. However, the landlord told the resident on 12 August 2022 it would need to complete an inspection of the cladding, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the inspection took place, but it appears to have been around 17 August 2022. Although unclear, the evidence suggests that a job to repair the cladding was issued to one of the landlord’s contractors.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2022 to raise structural concerns as there were multiple cracks in his property. The landlord’s structural inspector attended on 20 October 2022. He noted that the cladding was “blown”, and there was a vertical bow in the cladding compared to the adjoining brickwork. The inspector referred the property to a qualified structural contractor for an assessment.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 November 2022 to ask when it would be completing the work. The resident told the landlord he was chasing for an update because of the recent bad weather and the cost of his heating bills.
  5. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 2 November 2022. It said it had requested a structural survey because it had identified potential structural defects that could need remedial work. It said a structural engineer would contact the resident to arrange an appointment. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns with his heating bills or request any further information. This was unreasonable. The landlord missed an opportunity to consider whether a temporary repair was possible at this point. Had it done so, it may have been able to reduce the impact of the defective cladding on the resident and his wife over the winter period.
  6. The evidence shows the landlord put the cladding repairs on hold on 7 November 2022 until the structural contractor had undertaken the inspection. The structural contractor provided the landlord with a survey report on 10 November 2022. The report identified minor remedial repairs, including the cladding repair, and concluded that the property was “low risk” for structural concerns. The report concluded that the cladding had warped due to heat from the sun after the resident painted it black, and it needed to be replaced. There is no evidence to show that the landlord re-issued the cladding repair to the contractor following the outcome of the structural survey.
  7. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 5 December 2022. He said he had not heard anything since the structural engineer visited. He said he had asked the landlord for help to heat the house as it was costing more money because of the cladding defect, but he had not had a response. He said a cold wind was blowing straight through the gap in the cladding into the kitchen. The resident told the landlord that both he and his wife were disabled.
  8. The landlord visited the resident at home on 14 December 2022. It confirmed that the property was structurally safe. The landlord said the repairs, including the cladding, were not urgent. It said it would contact the resident within the next 12 months with a more precise timeframe for the repairs. This was inappropriate in the circumstances, as the evidence suggests the landlord was treating the repair/replacement as a planned improvement, rather than a repair. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out routine repairs, which are complex non-urgent repairs that cannot be left until planned capital investment, within 90 days. Given the effect of the outstanding repair on the resident and his wife, and their disabilities, it would have been reasonable to conclude the repair could not wait for planned works.
  9. In addition, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that a landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also says landlords must carry out the repairs within a reasonable period of time. There is no statutory definition of a “reasonable time”. However, it would be reasonable to conclude, considering the circumstances of this case, that 12 months was not a reasonable amount of time for the resident to wait for the cladding repair.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord by email on 4 January 2023. He said his house was very cold as the wind and rain was coming into the property through the defective cladding. The resident said they were using a lot of gas but not getting much heat, but the landlord had said they would have to wait 12 months for an update on the cladding repair. The resident said both he and his wife were disabled and the cold was affecting them both. The landlord responded and said it had made enquiries and would respond once it had an update.
  11. The landlord’s repair policy says it recognises that residents may have specific needs requiring it to complete repairs more quickly than the policy defines, due to individual circumstances including health issues or disabilities. It says, in such cases, it encourages residents to tell it about any factors that may make the repair more urgent and it will take this into consideration as appropriate when prioritising the repair.
  12. Yet, in this case, there is no evidence to show the landlord considered the risk to the resident and his wife based on their disabilities. This was inappropriate in the circumstances considering the resident had told the landlord on 2 occasions that they were struggling with the cold due to their disabilities. In addition to not following its own policy, the landlord has also not shown whether it properly considered its duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
  13. In its stage 1 response, dated 6 January 2023, the landlord confirmed that it did not consider the cladding works as urgent. It said it would complete the repairs under its programmed works schedule at some point within the future. It said it would contact the resident within the next 12 months with a timeframe for the repairs. It apologised for the delays in attending inspections, carrying out repairs, and its lack of communication and it offered the resident £150 compensation (although this amount included compensation for the delays in completing the ceiling repair). However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns relating to their heating costs.
  14. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 24 March 2023. The landlord visited the resident on 27 April 2023 to discuss the complaint. It told the resident it thought he had caused the issues with the cladding under the kitchen window by painting it black. The resident said he had painted it because the previous tenant had already painted it brown prior to him moving in.
  15. The landlord said, under normal circumstances, it would consider recharging the resident as he had not sought permission to paint the cladding. However, it said, as the brown cladding under the bedroom window had also warped, it showed that any darker UPVC cladding would likely fail due to the effects of the sunlight on the south facing wall. The resident also provided the landlord with a list of gas payments during the visit and explained that the cost had increased substantially. The landlord said it would undertake a comparison exercise, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  16. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 9 June 2023. It said the resident had painted the lower cladding black, and as this was a south facing wall, the heat from the sun had caused the cladding to warp. It said the resident did not obtain permission to paint the cladding in line with the tenancy agreement or to fix an electric box to the cladding. Therefore, it concluded that the resident was partly responsible for the defective cladding. It did acknowledge that the previous resident had painted the cladding brown before the resident moved in. It said it would arrange to refix the cladding within the next 3 months, as a gesture of goodwill, without recharging the resident.
  17. The landlord also said it had considered the resident’s gas costs. It said, it had taken into account the increase in gas prices and a milder than average winter of 2021/2022 and concluded that this was the reason for the resident’s increased gas costs. It did say if the resident could provide further information, it would carry out a further review and consider compensation.
  18. Although the landlord did reasonably consider the resident’s gas costs, it did not fully explain how it had calculated and compared the gas charges. The stage 2 response overly focused on the resident painting the cladding black. It is clear from the evidence provided that this likely contributed to the problem. However, the landlord had already told the resident that the contribution was likely minimal as the brown cladding, not painted by the resident, had also warped.
  19. In addition, although the landlord said it would arrange the repair within the next 3 months, it did not acknowledge the overall delays in fixing the cladding. It had been 9 months at this point since the issue was first reported. It did not recognise that it had missed opportunities to consider a temporary repair. It also did not recognise that it had not acted in line with its repairs policy in relation to vulnerable residents, or that it had not considered the detriment to the resident. It also did not recognise that it had not shown it properly considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
  20. The landlord reviewed the resident’s gas charges on 26 July 2023 and it concluded that there was no evidence to suggest any significant increase in the resident’s charges. The evidence shows it completed the outstanding work to the cladding on 30 September 2023. The landlord reviewed the resident’s gas charges again on 27 March 2024. However, it again found no evidence to suggest that the drafts in the property had caused the increase in gas costs. The landlord offered the resident £50 as a gesture of goodwill for the time and trouble spent obtaining the evidence from their gas supplier.
  21. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account 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.
  22. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, while the landlord has recognised that there were some failings in the way it handled the repairs at stage 1, it has not shown that it recognised all the failings, as set out above. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint, and on that basis, we find that there has been maladministration. Therefore, we consider the offer of £150 insufficient to reflect the resident’s circumstances and the effect of the landlord’s failings.
  23. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer) to be appropriate in the circumstances. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord has acknowledged failings but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation. We have also made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident in the circumstances and to provide a further explanation of its calculations relating to the resident’s gas costs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of cladding repairs and its response to a request for compensation relating to heating costs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology on behalf of the landlord.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £450 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £150 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience likely caused by the landlord’s handling of cladding repairs and its response to a request for compensation relating to heating costs.
    3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    4. Contact the resident to arrange an appointment to discuss and fully explain its response in relation to the resident’s gas charges and usage between October 2022 and January 2023. The landlord must confirm the outcome of the appointment in writing to both the resident and this Service within 2 weeks of the meeting.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.