Cobalt Housing Limited (202218996)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218996

Cobalt Housing Limited

30 September 2024

 

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:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about repair issues at her property, including damp and mould;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since April 1993. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a semi-detached house. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has not used email in her communications with the landlord throughout the period of the complaint. Instead, she has communicated in person, and by using the phone and post.
  2. It is not disputed that there have been repairs for various issues carried out at the property throughout the resident’s tenure.
  3. In or around September 2023, the resident made reports about issues with damp in the property surrounding her fireplace, and the level of quality of plasterwork which had been completed following a pipe leak. She contacted this service in October 2023 for advice and subsequently raised a formal complaint with the landlord.
  4. The landlord provided a stage one response on 22 December 2023, which included the following:
    1. It noted that it had recent discussions with the resident about the outstanding issues, including issues with the plaster work, debris in the garden following works, and damp and mould.
    2. It noted that some of these issues had not previously been reported and so raised works to address them.
    3. Regarding the other outstanding works, it provided its position that the resident had previously not allowed access for the works. It advised that it would attempt to rearrange them.
  5. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two on 23 January 2024.
  6. The records also show that its surveyor attended the property in January 2024 to carry out a further inspection. It is evident that the landlord attempted to discuss the issues with the resident over the phone on a number of occasions throughout January and February 2024 but had difficulty getting in contact with her.
  7. In or around February 2024, a care organisation working with the resident reached out to the landlord for an update. The landlord subsequently communicated with this organisation in an attempt to arrange access.
  8. In February 2024, the parties had discussions about structural works required to a gable wall. These works commenced on 29 February 2024 and were completed on 5 March 2024. The landlord has advised that it attempted a follow-up inspection on 11 March 2024, but that the resident did not provide access. It subsequently completed an external inspection on 15 March 2024.
  9. Also in March 2024, the landlord raised emergency works to address leaks with the resident’s radiators. The landlord’s records note that it attended on 1 March 2024 to inspect the radiators but was unable to take action as the resident declined an inspection of her boiler.
  10. The resident subsequently raised a further complaint about the ongoing issues. The landlord provided a further stage one response on 20 March 2024, which included the following:
    1. It noted the actions it had taken in relation to the structural works, including its attempted contact and its position on issues with access.
    2. It advised that the remaining lintel works were due to be completed on 28 March 2024, dependent on access. It would then complete any required remedial works.
    3. It noted the resident’s concerns about the length of time the works were taking but advised that it considered that the delays were reasonable as it had to obtain costings and arrange access. It also noted it had attempted to stay in touch throughout the period of the works.
  11. In April 2024, the resident reported that she was unhappy with the works. The parties communicated about her concerns throughout April and May 2024, and the resident subsequently escalated her complaint on 22 May 2024.
  12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 June 2024 and advised that it required additional time to investigate her complaint. It subsequently provided a stage two response on 18 July 2024, which included the following:
    1. It noted the resident’s ongoing concerns about outstanding works in the property, including damp issues.
    2. It noted that it had attempted to arrange further inspections but had been unable to gain access. It also noted that it sought to complete any works in a manner that suited the resident’s needs, such as going room to room in order to minimise disruption.
    3. It advised that it remained committed to completing any repairs but needed the resident’s cooperation.
  13. In her communications with this service, the resident has disputed that she declined to provide access. She has also advised that many repair issues remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes that in her discussions with this service, the resident expressed concerns about repair issues at the property spanning over the past 26 years. However, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, this investigation will focus on events which occurred within a reasonable period of the formal complaint being raised.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has a responsive repairs policy, which notes that non-urgent repairs will be addressed within 28 working days. It also has a damp and mould policy, which notes that instances of ‘slight’ damp and mould will be addressed within the same timeframe.
  2. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. This policy notes that it will provide a stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation request.

 

Repairs

  1. As noted above, the landlord has provided this service with its repair records and internal notes from the period of the complaint; however, these begin in December 2023 and do not include the landlord’s actions following the resident’s initial reports in September 2023. Given that the resident’s reports were verbal, it cannot be known to what extent the landlord was aware of the issues or what action it proposed.
  2. In its stage one response in December 2023, the landlord did allude to a prior inspection by its surveyor which had uncovered necessary repairs. The landlord also noted it had difficulty obtaining access to complete these repairs. While it provided detail about what actions it would take to resolve the issues going forward, this was a missed opportunity to provide a detailed breakdown of what actions it had taken and when exactly the resident had refused access. By failing to provide specific information, it prevented the resident from being able to comment on its assertions and provide her position, which would have been frustrating.
  3. Following this stage one response, the landlord arranged for a further surveyor visit within the timeframes of its policy. Its contemporaneous records from this period also show it attempted to contact the resident by phone around this time. The landlord also appropriately worked with an organisation providing care to the resident in an attempt to improve communication.
  4. While it was appropriate that the landlord progressed works about a gable wall, it is not evident that it provided a detailed position about the other issues raised by the resident, such as the poor plaster work and damp. It is possible that these issues were discussed verbally, but given the ongoing issues with the progress of these works, it would have been helpful had the landlord put in writing what it understood to be outstanding and the scope of works it was intending to complete. It is evident, however, that it continued to respond to the resident’s further reports, such as the repairs to the radiators. While these works did not progress, this demonstrated that the landlord remained committed to completing works at the property.
  5. In its stage one response in March 2024, the landlord appropriately provided a greater level of detail about the timeline relating to the structural works. While some works to the lintel still remained, the landlord appropriately explained that some delays were reasonable, such as those caused by arranging access and costings for the works. While delays of this nature are reasonable, it is not evident that the landlord notified the resident in writing when the delays occurred. Had it done so, this may have avoided the need for a formal complaint.
  6. Additionally, while the stage one response provided sufficient detail about the structural works, it failed to provide detail about any of the other works in the property which the resident had raised concerns about. This demonstrated that the landlord had not sufficiently discussed the resident’s complaint with her prior to its response.
  7. In its final response, the landlord took the position that it remained committed to inspecting the property and carrying out any necessary works. It also appropriately set out that it was willing to work with the resident to ensure any works were carried out in a way that caused the least disruption. It reiterated the need for access and the resident’s cooperation in order to complete this, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. In her communications with this service, the resident disputed that she has not provided access throughout the period of the complaint. The landlord’s contemporaneous records note in around 20 entries that the operative making the entry had difficulty communicating with the resident or gaining access. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s position, it was reasonable for the landlord to take the position based on these records that access had been an issue impacting its service delivery.
  9. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident has had concerns about her interactions with the landlord’s surveyors, including her request to view their reports. It is not evident that this concern was specifically raised as part of her formal complaint, and so it was reasonable that the landlord did not address this in its formal responses. It is also evident from the landlord’s records that it provided its position on sharing the reports, but that it nevertheless discussed its understanding about the outcomes of the reports with the resident.
  10. In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord has remained committed to completing necessary repairs in the property. It is also evident that, from the landlord’s perspective, it experienced issues with communication and access which prevented works progressing. Nevertheless, given the resident’s concerns about multiple repair issues (damp and mould in particular) and the issues the parties were having with effective communication, the landlord missed the opportunity to regularly set out its position clearly in writing. Had the resident used email, the landlord would have undoubtedly increased the level of written communication, and the resident should not be disadvantaged by her need for postal communication. Communicating in writing would have allowed the resident to fully understand what works were proposed and when. Doing so would have also provided a clearer audit trail for the landlord to justify its actions and any delays.
  11. While this approach may not be proportionate in every scenario, given how long these issues had gone on for and the resultant breakdown in trust, the landlord should have escalated its approach to communication to ensure it was doing everything reasonable to progress the works. The landlord could have also included greater detail and specific examples in its formal responses to allow the resident to understand its position, which it did not do.
  12. Given these missed opportunities for improved communication and to fully utilise its formal responses, a finding of service failure has been made. An order has been made for the landlord to apologise for its lack of consistent written communication over the period of the complaint.
  13. Given also that some works in the property remain outstanding, an order has been made below which seeks to reset the landlord/tenant relationship and progress the works going forward.

Complaints handling

  1. Following the landlord’s initial stage one response in December 2023, the resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 23 January 2024. It is evident this request was made verbally, and it is noted in the landlord’s contemporaneous records of communications with the resident. The landlord’s records show it attempted to call the resident to discuss the stage two complaint on 24 and 26 January 2024, but it was unable to make contact. While further communication occurs between the parties, the stage two response does not appear to have been addressed again.
  2. As noted above, the landlord should provide its stage two response within 20 working days of an escalation request. This did not occur, which meant the resident was left without a clear understanding of the landlord’s position on the issues. While the parties continued to communicate, these communications did not include an overarching investigation of her concerns, which delayed any possible resolution to the complaint. It also unreasonably delayed the resident’s ability to refer the complaint to this service.
  3. Regarding its later stage two response, the resident initially requested an escalation on 27 May 2024, and the response was not provided until 18 July 2024. While this was longer than the timeframe noted in the landlord’s policy, the landlord did notify the resident of the delay within the correct timeframe and explained that it required further time to investigate the complaint. This delay was therefore reasonable in the circumstances and was conducted in accordance with the requirements of this service’s Complaints Handling Code.
  4. Nevertheless, the initial failure to respond was unreasonable and would have been frustrating for the resident. A finding of service failure has therefore been made, along with an order for £50 compensation to reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about repair issues at her property, including damp and mould;
    2. complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. The landlord is to write to the resident within four weeks of this determination and include the following:
    1. It is to apologise for its lack of consistent written communication over the period of the complaint.
    2. It is to enquire about the resident’s position on all outstanding works in the property.
    3. It is to propose a new surveyor inspection.

Recommendations

  1. Following any inspections, the landlord should provide its position in writing on all of the concerns raised by the resident.
  2. It should subsequently raise any reasonable repairs as a result of the inspections and provide a scope of works to the resident.
  3. Any works should include follow up inspections.