Cobalt Housing Limited (202124347)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124347

Cobalt Housing Limited

6 July 2022


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 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 repairs to the resident’s patio doors.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a semi-detached house.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that she had issues with both her front and back patio doors, where handles were loose and there was an issue with the locking mechanism, for which an emergency repair was issued and attended by its contractor on 22 and 23 April 2021, respectively. During August to September 2021, she advised it of another issue with the patio door lock and, on 6 September 2021, it referred this to its contractor to investigate.
  3. On 7 September 2021, the contractor attended the resident’s property and subsequently advised the landlord that follow–on work was required to her patio doors. Although the front door had now been repaired by them, the contractor advised that the rear patio doors needed to be replaced, as these had been badly fitted and had warped over time. The resident chased updates on the issues regarding the doors between 29 September and 20 October 2021, and then lodged a stage one complaint on 26 October 2021, after failing to receive a response from the landlord.
  4. In her complaint, the resident advised that, as the patio door would not lock, she had the locking mechanism changed and, as a result, the door handles had become loose as the doors would not latch, forcing her to exert extra force in order to lock them. She advised that the contractor had therefore taken photographs and measurements of this for a replacement door. The resident explained that she had subsequently contacted the landlord a number of times about this and reported that she was told on each occasion that someone would get back in touch with her, although there is no evidence that it did so.
  5. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 3 November 2021, in which it stated that, according to its surveyor, new patio doors were not needed by the resident, but that new handles and a catch were. It advised her that its policy was to attempt to repair items before replacing them, and it reiterated a previous offer to her of a £50 gift voucher as an apology for the delays and poor communication that she had experienced from it in relation to this, but it advised that it was now closing the complaint. It was later stated by the landlord that it had closed the resident’s complaint about her patio doors in expectation of the work being carried out by its contractors.
  6. The resident’s complaint was then escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 11 November 2021, as she was unhappy with her complaint being closed while work to her patio doors was outstanding. Between 1 and 15 November 2021, it chased the outstanding work with its contractor before intervening on 15 November 2021, when the door handles were repaired but it decided to replace the doors, and a job was raised to this effect on 19 November 2021.
  7. An appointment had been booked for the contractor to visit the resident on 30 November 2021, in order for them to confirm that they had the right measurements for the doors. However, due to a miscommunication, she cancelled the appointment, advising the contractor to come back once the door was in stock, believing that the doors had already been ordered when they had not been. Another appointment was booked for 31 January 2022 to measure the doors, but the resident had believed that the doors were to be fitted on this date. The contractor therefore advised her that this was not the case, and the appointment was cancelled by her.
  8. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 16 November 2021, noting that several attempts to measure the patio doors had been unsuccessful due to miscommunication with the resident. It advised her that it would take approximately six weeks to order replacement doors. The landlord acknowledged its delays in responding to the resident about this, its poor communication and, as an apology, as agreed it had arranged for the £50 gift voucher to be issued to her.
  9. Replacement patio doors were ordered by the contractor on 1 February 2022, based on the measurements that were already on record, and on the photographs taken on their previous visit. The contractor then re-attended the resident’s property on 14 March 2022, and they found that the replacement doors that had been sent were the wrong size. Subsequently, the patio doors were reordered on 16 March 2022, and were satisfactorily installed on 23 April 2022 without any further problems.
  10. In a follow–up letter on 11 May 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident, and it accepted that there had been inconvenience caused to her in relation to the patio door operation and mechanism. It found that there had also been failure in its communication with her during March to April 2022. The landlord acknowledged that its contractors had failed to measure the doors correctly, that it had delayed getting the new doors which had delayed the resolution of the complaint, and that there had been poor communication, planning and clarity in explaining to the resident why the contractors needed to remeasure the doors.
  11. The landlord additionally advised that there had been a UPCV availability issue, which had led to a delay in the patio doors being manufactured during the Covid-19 pandemic, and that this issued had been raised by its contractors. Moreover, it apologised that the resident’s complaint had been closed by it, due to the assumption that the work would be completed, and that as a result she had to keep contacting it for updates. The landlord therefore awarded her £250 compensation, as an apology for time taken by it to complete the door repairs, its poor communication and her inconvenience, which was in addition to the £50 gift voucher.
  12. Although the resident complained to this Service about the landlord’s poor customer service and communication with her, its repair delays causing her to take time off work unnecessarily for its contractors’ visits, and their repeated attendances and measurements before replacing her patio doors.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s patio doors

  1. The landlord arranged for the resident’s front and back patio door handle and lock repairs of 22 April 2021 to be attended within its responsive repairs policy’s 24-hour timescale for emergency repairs on 23 April 2021, which was appropriate. However, it responded to her reports of further rear patio door warping and locking issues from August to September 2021, for which its contractor‘s inspection of 7 September 2021 recommended replacing the doors, by fitting new doors on 23 April 2022.
  2. Although this exceeded the landlord’s responsive repairs policy‘s timescale of ten working days for a routine repair, the policy did confirm that there may be instances where parts or specialist engineers/services are required, and these repairs may take longer than the published timescales.
  3. With regard to the resident’s case, the installation of new patio doors for her property was not a repair but replacement works, and these first had to be manufactured and delivered to the landlord’s contractor, which would understandably take longer than ten working days. The landlord also explained that this was delayed further due to the effect that the Covid-19 pandemic had on the availability of UPVC, one of the materials used to make the doors, which at that point was in short supply. Therefore, in this case a delay in it replacing the resident’s patio doors was reasonable under its responsive repairs policy.
  4. However, the resident contacted the landlord numerous times, including from 29 September to 20 October 2021 to chase updates from it on the replacement of her patio doors. There is nevertheless no evidence that it responded to her at that time, and it did not do so until after her stage one complaint to it, which was inappropriate. This also breached the landlord’s responsive repairs policy‘s requirement for it to keep its residents informed of any potential delays with a repair.
  5. This was added to by the landlord‘s difficulty in chasing its contractor for updates on the resident’s case from 1 to 15 November 2021, until the landlord intervened to raise a job on 30 November 2021 to replace her patio doors. It therefore ought to have both responded to her requests for updates, in line with its responsive repairs policy, especially when it was aware of the delays in replacing the doors, and to have ensured that there were clear and timely communications about this between it and its contractors. This is particularly in light of the latter repeatedly seeking to re-attend the resident’s property to measure her doors on 7 September and 30 November 2021 and 31 January 2022, only to attend with the wrong sized doors there on 14 March 2022.
  6. The landlord did acknowledge its multiple failings, however, and it offered redress for these. It did so because it awarded the resident £250 compensation, which was the maximum level of discretionary compensation that it could award under its complaints and discretionary compensation policy, without approval from a head of service and/or director, for multiple instances of failure connected with a matter. There is no evidence that the landlord was aware of any vulnerabilities or disabilities on her part, or that was provided by her, which would have obliged it to look at a higher compensation award in line with any significant impact or serious long–term effect from this on her under the policy.
  7. When the value of the £50 gift voucher that the landlord issued to the resident is included, the total value of compensation that it offered to her was £300. Since the £250 compensation was offered after all of the work to replace her patio doors had been completed, the offer had taken the length of time from it being made aware of the fault in August to September 2021 until the completion date of 23 April 2022 into consideration, which was reasonable. This is also because, after the landlord issued its final stage complaint response, it agreed to further discuss such additional compensation with the resident once the doors had been replaced to her satisfaction, showing its intent to put things right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to her patio doors satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Issue the resident with the £50 gift voucher that it previously offered her, if she has not received this already.
    2. Pay the resident the £250 compensation that it previously awarded her, if this has not been paid to her already.
    3. Carry out a case review of its handling of repairs to the resident’s patio doors in order to identify and implement relevant learning points, policy reviews, process changes and staff and contractor training to seek to prevent future failings regarding repairs before replacements, following contractors’ recommendations, repair communications and updates, repair appointment bookings, measurements for replacement parts, and record keeping.