Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202409367)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409367

Cottsway Housing Association Limited

16 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns regarding adaptation works completed to the driveway.
2. Requests for repairs.
3. Request to adapt the kitchen to make space for a dishwasher.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the investigation.

Jurisdiction

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, or aspects of a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.l of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord and a complaint to the local authority raising concerns about adaptation works completed to the property’s driveway. These were funded through a Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) administered by the local authority. She said the adaptation was not completed in accordance with the approved plans, she was not properly consulted about the works and no works had been undertaken to rectify the issues.
As the resident was not happy with the local authority’s response to the complaint she referred the matter to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO considered the complaint issuing a final decision on 7 April 2025. The LGSCO found fault by the local authority. In summary the LGSCO said:
1. The adaptation was not completed in line with the agreed schedule of works.
2. The local authority did not inspect or sign off the adaptation following completion of the works by the landlord to ensure they were in accordance with the approved plans and met the resident’s needs.
3. The local authority incorrectly told the resident that it was not responsible for the completed adaptation stating it was the responsibility of the landlord.
The LGSCO set out 3 actions for the local authority to take to put things right. This included compensation and an inspection to check what works were needed to make good the issues with the adaptation.
As the LGSCO has already considered the complaint about the adaptation, providing a final outcome for the resident, the Ombudsman will not consider the landlord’s response to her concerns in this regard. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.l of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
The Ombudsman will not be considering the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the adaptation works completed to the driveway. There will be some references to the adaptation within the following sections of the report. This is to provide context to the issues which we can make a finding on.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property. The resident’s tenancy started in May 2018. The property is a 2 bedroom house.
The resident has confirmed in an email to us that she is registered disabled and has autism. The landlord is aware of the resident’s disability.
On 3 February 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord raising concerns about the adaptation completed to the property’s driveway. Within the complaint she noted several other repair issues which she stated required the landlord’s attention. She explained that the repair issues were identified by an independent “expert contractor” whom she had instructed in relation to the adaptation work. She stated that repairs were required to address issues with the damp proof course, repointing on the gable end, the windows and rear door as they were not water tight and the flashings as they were loose. She suggested that the property needed a “full survey”.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 February 2024 confirming that a response would be provided within 10 working days. On 22 February 2024 and 22 March 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its complaint response was on hold while it gathered the information needed to provide a response.
On 13 June 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In respect of the repair issues the landlord said:
1. In response to the complaint it visited the property. The following work orders had been raised and completed following the visit:
  1. Fit UPVC trim to landing window.
  2. Assess feasibility of installing external light at front of property.
2. It would arrange an inspection to assess the damp proof course and repointing. It would contact the resident to arrange a convenient time for the appointment.
Within the response the landlord also apologised for the delay in issuing the response. It noted that this was due to staff turnover.
On 23 September 2024 the resident requested to escalate the complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had not provided her with a report detailing the outcome of its visit to the property following the complaint.
2. The landlord had refused her request for a dishwasher, which was supported by occupational therapy (OT). She had appealed the landlord’s decision however it had not responded. She believed this amounted to discrimination.
3. In order to resolve the complaint the landlord should:
  1. Instruct an independent surveyor to inspect the property.
  2. Reconsider its decision to refuse dishwater installation.
  3. Investigate its handling of the complaint and why its stage 1 response was not provided within its service standard.
  4. Review its “interdepartmental communication” as she believed that it had prevented quick resolution of the complaint.
On 24 September 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response. In summary the landlord said:
1. In response to the complaint it visited the property and arranged for additional work to be completed.
2. The local authority had not approved the resident’s request to install a dishwasher as part of her DFG application. It would be happy to grant permission for the resident to complete this work herself on receipt of a permission form.
3. It was sorry that its stage 1 response was delayed. It had introduced a new system to review complaints daily to ensure that it had better oversight and that they were responded within its service standard.
4. It agreed that its communication between departments could have better in relation to the complaint. It would review the complaint for learning.
5. It would like to award the resident £300 compensation for poor complaint handling.
The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident could refer her complaint to us if she was unhappy with its response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for repairs

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair, as well as the installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, and heating. These obligations are set out in the tenancy agreement for the property.
A landlord is not liable to carry out any repair until it has been put on notice of the need for repair. The landlord must then carry out the repair within a reasonable time thereafter. As the repair issues reported by the resident as part of the complaint dated February 2024 could fall within the repair obligations of the landlord it was required to investigate and to make good any issues identified.
The resident stated that the repair issues subject of the complaint were identified by the independent contractor she had arranged, while they were assessing the adaption works to the driveway. The resident confirmed to us in August 2025 that the independent contractor did not provide a written report of their findings.
The evidence shows that following receipt of the complaint the landlord visited the property on 19 February 2024 to understand the repair issues subject of the complaint. This was appropriate in order to determine the condition of the property and what works were needed, if any. It was also appropriate as no report was available from the independent contractor.
Following the visit it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have documented its findings in a report or within a file note. This is because a landlord should keep a record of its findings and decision making to demonstrate how it is meeting its obligations. Following a review of the evidence we have not identified a record detailing the visit. This is unsatisfactory. As a result we are not clear on the landlord’s position regarding the repairs which the resident reported in the complaint.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that following the visit on 19 February 2024 it raised 2 work orders. As no report is available following the visit, this has limited our ability to assess whether the 2 repairs raised were adequate to address the repair issues raised by the resident. This is unsatisfactory.
As part of its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that it would also arrange an inspection to assess the property’s damp proof course and repointing. This was a reasonable course of action in order to obtain an opinion from a professional with specialised knowledge and the correct tools.
Despite the landlord’s commitment to arrange an inspection in relation to the damp proof course and repointing we have not identified a record documenting an inspection at that time. This is unsatisfactory as it was a commitment that the landlord made in order to resolve the complaint. While the property may not have had an issue with the damp proof course or repointing, the landlord’s failure to carry out the inspection will have resulted in uncertainty to the resident which was unfair. It was also a missed opportunity by the landlord to put things right at that time if any issue was present.
Following the landlord’s complaint responses we have not identified any action by the landlord in respect of the repair issues subject of the complaint. This is unsatisfactory as each repair issue had not been provided with a clear outcome or resolution.
The evidence shows that on 10 March 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident following a stock condition survey of the property earlier that month. The landlord confirmed:
1. The property did not have damp and mould issues. It would however add a French drain to help minimise any “potential future issues”.
2. The downstairs windows were draughty. It would therefore apply silicone to the windows as they were not due for replacement yet.
3. The original lintels had dropped “slightly” resulting in non-structural cracks. It would therefore repoint the exterior.
It is not clear why the landlord arranged for a stock condition survey of the property in March 2025. However it is unsatisfactory that the resident had to wait a period of approximately 13 months for a report detailing the condition of the property and a proper response to the repair issues which she had raised in the complaint. This suggests a lack of oversight and poor management by the landlord in the delivery of its repairs service. This will have resulted in distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident confirmed to us in August 2025 that the landlord had resealed the windows, installed a French drain and completed repointing to prevent water ingress and structural issues from developing to the property.
There was maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s requests for repairs. This is because the landlord:
1. Did not keep a record of its visit to the property on 19 February 2024 documenting its findings in relation to the repairs subject of the complaint. It was therefore unable to support that the actions it took thereafter were appropriate.
2. Did not arrange an inspection to assess the damp proof course and repointing as it committed to doing as part of its stage 1 response.
3. Delayed in providing the resident with a comprehensive response to the repair issues she raised by a period of 13 months. It was not until after the stock condition survey took place in March 2025 that the landlord wrote to her to provide a proper response on the repair issues subject of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to adapt the kitchen to make space for a dishwasher

The resident’s referral for minor adaptations dated 26 June 2024 completed by local authority’s OT set out “[the landlord] to consider removing an under cupboard unit… to house a slimline dishwasher”. The referral confirmed that the request was being made as the resident was “struggling to complete washing up tasks” due to the “temperature of the water set by [the landlord] and accessing the sink owing to her shorter stature”. The referral noted that the resident was aware that she would be required to fund the cost of the dishwasher herself.
On 9 July 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to the referral to make space for a dishwasher. The landlord said that following a meeting with the local authority the request had been refused. It explained that the request was refused as the local authority did “not cover this type of work” through DFGs as it was “not classed as essential works”. It was appropriate that the landlord explained why it was not able to progress the adaptation by using funding administered by the local authority.
We note that the resident reports that she appealed the landlord’s decision. We have not been provided with any evidence in relation to the appeal from either party.
As the landlord was aware of the resident’s disability and the adaptation was classified as minor it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered whether to fund the adaptation itself independently of the local authority. This would have been in line with its aids and adaptation policy which sets out that it can process minor adaptations under the threshold of £2,500 itself and where there is evidence from occupational therapy supporting the work. There is no evidence that the landlord did so on receipt of the referral. This is unsatisfactory and there is no evidence that the landlord had due regard for the resident’s protected characteristics, taking into account the Equality Act 2010, or was mindful of her vulnerabilities and individual circumstances.
We acknowledge that within its correspondence dated 9 July 2024 the landlord provided the resident with alternative options she could explore such as a counter top dishwasher or requesting permission from it to complete the work herself. While it was good practice for the landlord to provide the resident with these options it failed to demonstrate that it had considered whether to fund the minor adaption itself.
The evidence shows that as part of the stock condition survey in March 2025 the landlord agreed to carry out works in the kitchen in order for the resident to install a dishwasher. The resident has confirmed that the work has been completed.
There was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to adapt the kitchen to make space for a dishwasher. This is because the landlord failed to demonstrate that it considered funding the adaptation itself in line with its aids and adaptations policy, on receipt of the referral in June 2024, and taking into account the resident’s own circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident made the complaint on 3 February 2024 and the landlord provided its stage 1 response on 13 June 2024. This was a period of approximately 90 working days. This was significantly outside of its own service standards for responding to complaints and those prescribed by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) – 10 working days. This is unsatisfactory and will have led to the resident feeling that her concerns were not being taken seriously. It was also unsatisfactory as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address complaints at the earliest stage. We acknowledge that the landlord did write to the resident to explain the response would be delayed. However in accordance with the Code, any extension to the complaint response must be no more than 10 working days. The delay in the landlord’s response was significantly outside this timeframe.
The Code sets out that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. In responding to the complaint the landlord did not do this. The landlord did not provide clear information on its visit to the property on 19 February 2024. In not doing so the resident was left without a response to the repair issues which she had raised. It also suggests that the landlord was not fully focused on resolving the complaint.
In responding to the complaint at stage 2 the landlord acknowledged that its complaint handling had been unsatisfactory which included delays and poor investigation of the issues. The landlord therefore apologised and awarded £300 compensation.
The landlord’s apology was appropriate to demonstrate that it recognised that the service it had provided to the resident had fallen below what was expected and therefore that she had been impacted.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out it may offer compensation where it fails to meet its own service standards or provides a poor service. As the landlord had identified a service failure it was reasonable that it engaged its compensation policy. In our opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint. This is because the offer was within the appropriate range for cases where the Ombudsman considers there were failings which had a significant impact on a resident.
While there were shortfalls in the landlord’s complaint handling it has since identified and acknowledged its service failures and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.I of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding adaptation works completed to the driveway is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s requests for repairs.
2. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request to adapt the kitchen to make space for a dishwasher.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this part of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, pay the resident a total of £400 compensation comprising:
1. £300 in respect of the failings in the repairs service provided by the landlord and therefore the impact on the resident including inconvenience, distress and uncertainty.
2. £100 for not considering the resident’s request to adapt the kitchen to make space for a dishwasher in accordance with its aids and adaptations policy and therefore the impact on her including inconvenience and distress.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that it considers all requests for minor adaptations in accordance with its aids and adaptations policy. This includes considering if the work should be funded itself independently of a grant from the local authority. The landlord’s decision making should take into account the opinion of occupational therapy and residents individual circumstances and needs. The landlord should ensure that it keeps a written record of its decisions in relation to these requests, so that there is a clear audit trail to support its decision making.