Bolton at Home Limited (202417311)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417311

Bolton at Home Limited

26 August 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Delay in undertaking plastering works inside the property.
2. Handling of the cleanup and repairs following plastering works.
3. Handling of associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 28 March 2011. The property is a 3-bedroom semi-detached house and the resident lives there with her 5 children. She states that one of her children has bronchiolitis.

Delay in undertaking plastering works inside the property

The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 28 November 2023:
1. She said she had been waiting for plastering works to be completed in the interior of her house.
2. She took the wallpaper off so the plastering could be inspected and that she had been living with bare walls, open plaster and brickwork, and dust in the house since July 2023.
3. She explained that her son has bronchiolitis, and the condition of the home was impacting his health. She said the landlord was not communicating with her about the repair despite her chasing several times.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 December 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said the repair had been cancelled due to human error. To put things right the landlord:
1. Apologised.
2. Said a member of the repairs team would contact the resident within 2 weeks to discuss arrangement for the works.
3. Offered £100 in compensation made up of:
  1. £50 for the delay in attending plastering repairs.
  2. £50 for the lack of communication regarding the delay.
The landlord mis-typed the resident’s email when it sent its stage 1 response, so she did not see this until it was sent to her correct email address on 4 April 2024. The resident escalated this complaint on 20 April 2024. She pointed out that she had chased for a repair appointment several times, the repair had been delayed by several months (completed in March 2024), and the £100 in compensation was not enough to recognise the distress that was caused.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged it did not attend the plastering repairs within policy timescale and increased the compensation amount to £300, made up of:
1. £100 as offered in stage 1.
2. £50 for delay in responding at stage 2.
3. £150 for the delay in attending the repair.
The resident escalated the complaint to this service on 30 July 2024. She does not feel that £300 is enough to recognise the impact the delay had on her and her family.

Handling of the cleanup and repairs following plastering works

The resident raised a new stage 1 complaint on 3 April 2024. She moved back into the property on 20 March 2024 following plastering works and said there were several issues following this. She asked for the outstanding works to be completed and for compensation, including a decorating grant. The resident said:
1. The works started late and took longer than agreed.
2. The house was not clean when she moved back in, as was agreed.
3. There was damage to the laminate flooring in the back bedroom, a built-in unit in the bedroom, a blind, and the lino in the kitchen. She said there were 2 missing blinds as well.
4. There were problems with the quality of some of the plastering work and outstanding jobs with sealant and caulk not yet applied where needed.
5. The new door frames were not fitted properly.
6. The carpet at the stairs had been pulled up and not secured back down.
7. There were items left behind including:
  1. A Stanley knife, which worried her with having young children.
  2. A power tool left charging in the living room, using her electricity.
  3. Planks of wood in the kitchen which had fallen on her.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 April 2024. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised. It acknowledged that:
1. The home was not cleaned properly prior to the resident moving back in and was then recleaned one week later.
2. There was a delay in getting the plastering works scheduled.
3. The works started one day later than scheduled and took longer to complete then expected. It explained it gave the option to the resident of moving back in prior to all the works being completed or staying at temporary accommodation longer. The resident chose to move back in knowing there were outstanding works to be completed.
4. The outstanding follow up jobs were completed on 12 April 2024.
5. It had picked up the items left and would cover any electricity used at the property when the resident was in temporary accommodation.
6. It had provided the resident with information on how to claim through the contractor’s insurance for the damage to the laminate flooring in a bedroom.
7. During an inspection on 11 April 2024, it had identified a need to replace 3 internal doors.
As a resolution to the stage 1 complaint, the landlord:
1. Said it was not able to offer a decorating grant as the works completed did not meet the criteria.
2. Said it was willing to review further compensation for damaged items and asked for clear photos showing the damage or receipts where the resident had to purchase an item (such as replacement blinds).
3. Said that the resident would be contacted by 9 May 2024 to schedule an appointment to replace 3 internal doors.
4. Offered £200 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £100 for delay in attending plastering work within timescales.
  2. £100 for failure to clean the home to an acceptable standard prior to the resident moving back in.
The resident escalated the complaint on 5 August 2024. She was not satisfied with the stage 1 response for the following reasons:
1. Some of the repairs had not been completed.
2. The trunking and plastering were completed on the rear bedroom door, but the door was still not shutting properly.
3. The Stanley knife had not been collected.
4. The landlord had not acknowledged that the planks of wood that were left behind in the kitchen had fallen on her, causing bruising.
5. She had not been contacted by 9 May 2024 about the internal doors, as stated would happen in the stage 1 response.
6. She felt that she should have been offered a decorating grant.
7. She wanted the £200 in compensation reviewed, as she did not feel this was high enough, given the money she had to spend to get the house back in shape and to recognise the distress caused.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 September 2024. It said:
1. That the repairs area manager attended on 21 August 2024 and acknowledged works were incomplete and substandard.
2. That an appointment was scheduled for 4 September to complete the remaining repairs.
3. It was not clear how the kitchen lino was damaged or who was responsible but arranged to replace this on 13 October 2024.
4. The Stanley knife was picked up but did not belong to the landlord.
5. That 3 internal doors were replaced on 21 August 2024 and a bedroom door that had split was scheduled to be replaced on 13 October 2024.
6. It apologised for the planks of wood falling on the resident.
7. That the carpet was pulled back, but it was not able to fix this as the resident had replaced the carpet.
8. It had completed staff training in respect of the job booking errors that had been made.
9. Offered an additional £200 in compensation made up of:
  1. £50 for the repairs being incomplete and substandard.
  2. £50 for failure to arrange an appointment to replace 3 internal doors.
  3. £50 for damage to blind.
  4. £50 decorating voucher.
On 13 October 2024, the resident escalated this complaint to this Service. She wanted the compensation to be reviewed and increased. She has confirmed that the repairs have been completed. She decided not to have the landlord replace the kitchen lino as she wanted different lino than what was offered, so that it matched with her kitchen. She initially declined to have the cracked bedroom door replaced but then changed her mind and this was completed in February 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told the landlord and the Ombudsman that planks of wood left in the kitchen fell on her and caused bruising. She has also reported that her son’s bronchiolitis was made worse because of the delay in repairs to the plastering. While this service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court. However, the Ombudsman does consider the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by the landlord.

Delays in undertaking plastering works inside the property

The landlord’s repair policy says it will attend within:
1. 2 hours for ‘life and limb’ emergencies.
2. 24 hours for risk to property or welfare.
3. 7 calendar days for urgent repairs.
4. 21 calendar days for routine repairs.
In 2023 the repair policy was updated to add another category of repairs where external factors meant it would take longer than a typical routine repair, extending the timeframe to 90 days. This new category includes large plastering works.
The resident informed the landlord on 20 July 2022 that much of the interior of her property needed to be replastered. The landlord inspected the property on 13 September 2023 and determined replastering needed to be done in the living room and the 3 bedrooms. The job was raised and cancelled 3 times between September and November 2023, due to human error. The works started on 20 February 2024, 19 months after the resident contacted the landlord. This is over a year outside of the timeframes in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord does not dispute that there were failings that caused a delay in the plastering works being started. It has acknowledged that the initial delay in carrying out an inspection for over a year was not acceptable and that it was human error that caused the delay in raising the job after the inspection. The evidence shows it completed training with the admin staff involved to prevent future errors.
When a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The delays in the plastering works had an impact on the resident:
1. She and her family lived with cracked and crumbling plaster for over a year from when she reported the issue in July 2022.
2. She took the wallpaper down in July 2023 prior to the inspection and this left the property with dust from plaster falling off the walls. The resident was especially concerned about her son who has bronchiolitis, and she reported his condition was worse during this period.
3. She continued to chase the landlord as she was not hearing back about when the works would be scheduled, and this would have been inconvenient and frustrating.
In its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for its failures and offered the resident £250 for the delay, made up of:
1. £200 for delay in attending to plastering repairs.
2. £50 for lack of communication regarding the delay.
Overall, we are satisfied that the acknowledgement of its failures, apology, and compensation offered by the landlord represents reasonable redress for the failures in respect to the delays in undertaking the plastering works. The compensation that it offered is in line with what we may have awarded for this type of issue and in our opinion is proportionate to the impact to the resident. We will recommend that the landlord pay this amount, if it has not already done so.

Handling of the cleanup and repairs following plastering works

The resident moved back into the property on 20 March 2024. There is not a dispute that there were several failings by the landlord, meaning the home was not in a reasonable condition when the resident returned. The failures include:
1. The property was not cleaned to an acceptable standard when the resident moved back in and had to be recleaned a week later.
2. There was damage to a bedroom floor, a blind, and a built-in unit. There were also two missing blinds.
3. The carpet by the stairs was pulled back.
4. There were things left behind, such as tools.
5. Some of the follow up jobs were not completed to an acceptable standard and had to be redone.
6. There was a long delay (approximately six months) before the landlord completed the follow up works needed, when it initially said it would take about a week.
The landlord’s handling of cleanup and repairs following the plastering works had an adverse impact on the resident:
1. She and her family returned to a home that was not acceptably cleaned and had things left behind. It would have been distressing for the resident to return and find her home in a poor state.
2. She was told that a further week was needed for follow up works. This raised the resident’s expectations for what she could expect.
3. She had to be available for more follow up appointments than necessary due to the work not being completed correctly in the first place.
4. She spent six months chasing to get the follow up works and repairs completed.
5. The resident and her children had to live in a home that needed further work for several months. This was inconvenient, caused distress, and impacted her enjoyment of her home during this period.
The works have now been fully completed, and the resident has confirmed this. The landlord has acknowledged its failings in and apologised for its handling of cleanup and repairs following the plastering works. In its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord offered a total of £400 in compensation for this issue, made up of:
1. £100 for delays.
2. £100 for failure to clean the home to an acceptable standard prior to the resident moving back in.
3. £50 for repairs being incomplete and substandard.
4. £50 for failure to arrange an appointment to renew 3 internal doors.
5. £50 for damage to one blind.
6. £50 decorating voucher.
The landlord provided evidence that it has reviewed its service literature following this complaint. It says it has now implemented a process for there to be a sign off on larger scale works. This demonstrates that the landlord has learned from the failures in this case.
Given the above, we are satisfied that the landlord has taken appropriate steps to resolve the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. This is because the landlord has:
1. Completed the repairs.
2. Acknowledged its failings in respect to its handling of the cleanup and repairs following the plastering works.
3. Learned from the complaint and changed its process following major works.
4. Offered a reasonable and proportionate amount of compensation for its failures and the distress and inconvenience caused.
Therefore, we find reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of cleanup and repairs following the plastering works. We will recommend that the landlord pay the resident £400 for this issue, if it has not already done so. This amount is in line with what we may have awarded for this type of issue and is proportionate to recognise the impact it had on the resident. We will also recommend that the landlord confirm its previous offer to reimburse for the 2 missing blinds, upon the resident providing receipts.
We note that in text exchanges with the resident, the landlord has acknowledged that its contractor damaged the laminate flooring in a bedroom. It has provided third-party insurance information to the resident. The resident told us that the insurance claim was not successful. We do not have information about why this was refused. As the landlord has accepted that its contractors damaged the floor, we are making a recommendation that the landlord reviews its position regarding reimbursement for the laminate flooring.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days after acknowledgement, and respond to stage 2 complaints within 15 working days after acknowledgement.
The first complaint was made on 28 November 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 December 2023, which is within its timeframes. It made an error when sending out the complaint response as it typed the resident’s email wrongly, meaning the resident did not receive the response for almost 4 months and had to chase for this.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 20 April 2024, and the landlord did not provide its response until 21 June 2024, which was outside of its timeframes.
The second complaint was made on 3 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 April 2024 and provided its stage 1 response on 16 April 2024, which is within its timeframes.
The resident escalated the second complaint on 5 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 16 August 2024, which was outside of its 5 working day timeframe. From then, it took 28 working days to receive the stage 2 response (sent on 26 September 2024), which is outside of the 15 working day timeframe in its policy.
The landlord has apologised for the delays in its complaint handling and offered £50 in compensation in its stage 2 response to the first complaint.
The evidence shows the landlord continued to be in contact with the resident throughout the period when the complaints were ongoing. Our view is that the late complaint responses did not impact the timeframe for the works being completed.
The late responses would have understandably caused frustration to the resident. Given this, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the late responses and offer compensation. The £50 offered is reasonable to recognise the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made in respect of complaint handling. We will include a recommendation for the landlord to pay this amount to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in response to the resident’s complaints about:
1. The delay in undertaking plastering works inside the property.
2. Its handling of cleanup and repairs following plastering works.
3. Its handling of the associated complaints.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord now pay the resident £700 it previously offered in its complaint responses. The findings of reasonable redress are dependent on this amount being paid to the resident. This amount is made up of:
1. £250 for the delay in undertaking plastering works.
2. £400 for the handling of the cleanup and repairs following the plastering works.
3. £50 for complaint handling failures.
It is recommended the landlord confirm its previous offer to reimburse for the 2 missing blinds, upon the resident providing receipts.
It is recommended that the landlord review its position regarding reimbursement for the laminate flooring that it accepted was damaged by its contractor.