Cobalt Housing Limited (202415788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415788

Cobalt Housing Limited

24 July 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reports of a roof leak.
3. The replacement of the resident’s windows and doors.
4. The resident’s reports of repairs needed to a concrete step.
5. The resident’s reports of problems with the lighting.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in the property with her daughter.
The resident and her daughter have compromised immunity due to iron deficient anaemia (IDA). This makes them more susceptible to respiratory infections. The resident also has mental health issues that include anxiety, depression and agoraphobia. Her daughter has autism and is under the care of the children’s mental team. She has shared this information with the landlord.
The resident made a formal complaint on 3 January 2024. She said the landlord had not addressed several repairs reported. These included a roof leak, electrical faults, a concrete step, damp and mould. She also complained her property was cold because of defective windows and doors. She said she had been told these needed replacing, but this would not happen until the planned maintenance programme in 2028.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 January 2024. It said although it had responded to the various repairs, work had taken too long to complete. It agreed to re-raise all job orders for the outstanding repairs. It also agreed to raise a further inspection of the roof. It said there were no obvious faults with the windows but it would replace them, and a contractor would attend shortly to measure up. It offered a £50 voucher to compensate for the delay in completing the repairs.
The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint on 28 February 2024. She complained the repairs agreed at stage 1 had not progressed. She said a surveyor attended, and she had heard nothing since, which was a common pattern with the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 April 2024. It said it acknowledged there had been further delay in addressing the resident’s repairs. It implied the appointment of a new contractor would improve this. It would raise the repairs orders again. This now included remedial plastering work for damage caused by work to the front door and an inspection of the chimney stack. It would complete the window replacement within 3 months. It offered a further £50 for the time she had waited and inconvenience, this made the total offer of compensation £100.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service, stating that the landlord failed to complete the agreed repairs.
In April 2025 the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint. It arranged a further inspection of her property and issued her with a revised final stage response on 24 April 2025. It apologised for the poor communication she had received. It confirmed actions agreed at both complaint stages had not been concluded. It listed several repairs that it had agreed to do. It said the full window replacement agreed in the complaint process had not been officially approved, it would now only agree to 1 bay window replacement. It awarded another £250 compensation for poor complaint handling, the time taken to complete repairs, and the confusion connected with the double-glazing replacement. This was, in addition to the previous £100 offered, making a total of £350 compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope

An aspect of the resident’s complaint was that some of the repair issues had been ongoing since 2019.
We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still “live”, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to effectively review the actions taken to address those.
As such, we will not usually consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising. The resident raised her complaint on 3 January 2024, therefore this investigation will focus on recent events matters leading up to that complaint and not events as far back as 2019.
The resident also raised that the delays in treating the leak, damp and mould impacted her and her daughter’s health. She said the cold and damp made them constantly unwell with their medical condition.
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 into 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. Therefore, the complaint about the leaks, damp and mould impacting on the family’s health is better dealt with via the court.
It is important that we give a landlord the opportunity to respond to or comment on a complaint before it is escalated to our Service. We will not therefore investigate complaints that have not completed the landlord’s complaints process.
The resident said she had complained about a delay in remedial plasterwork in her hallway. This was following alleged damage caused by the landlord when carrying out other repairs. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it referenced “skimming 2m²” of the wall in the hallway. This appears to have been mentioned as an aside, as it was not part of the resident’s original complaint. This aspect of the complaint will therefore not form part of this investigation.
The resident has informed us she has engaged a solicitor to implement the pre-action protocol for housing. The landlord has said that it has not received notification of this action commencing. As there is some disparity in the understanding of the action progressing, the resident may want to consult her solicitor for confirmation. Our investigation will not assess the progress of the pre-action protocol or the adequacy of any settlement that may arise from it as this is a process outside the complaints procedure.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it takes a risk- based approach to the issue. It provides higher priority response times for the severity of damp and level of risk. This considers the health and wellbeing issues of vulnerable groups.
The policy also commits to having trained staff to identify potential causes of damp and mould and diagnose the root cause to ensure effective “right first time” action.
When investigating a complaint about damp and mould, we give regard to the government’s guidance for housing professionals on the health impacts of damp and mould.
In response to a report of damp and mould, the landlord ordered a mould treatment on 21 September 2023. It ordered a further treatment for 6 October 2023.
Mould treatment was an appropriate action to take; this reduces the immediate health impact from mould spores. However, the government guidance states that simply removing surface mould will not prevent the damp and mould from re-occurring.
It is important to identify and tackle the underlying causes of damp and mould, including building deficiencies, inadequate ventilation and condensation. That the landlord completed 2 mould treatments in a matter of weeks showed it needed further investigation.
Records show there was a report of the roof leaking into the resident’s daughter’s bedroom at the same time. This was likely to have been a contributory factor to the damp and mould in the bedroom. However, despite the landlord’s policy commitment to identify the root cause and treat the problem the first time, there is no evidence that it had identified a cause. The problem was reoccurring and there is also no evidence of a risk assessment to determine the level of response needed, as its policy requires.
In the resident’s complaint of 3 January 2024, she said that she still had mould in her daughter’s bedroom.
The landlord’s response on 17 January 2024 said the resident had allowed mould treatment in the bathroom but not her daughter’s bedroom. This was because she had an appointment for the complaint investigator and surveyor to attend to inspect the repair issues. It is understandable that she would want the inspectors to see the extent of the problem. However, we cannot conclude that the delay caused by this was a lack of response from the landlord.
The landlord’s agreed action to resolve the issue was to advise the resident on the use of trickle vents and to investigate the reason for a lack of air bricks in the bedrooms. A further mould wash to the daughter’s bedroom would have been required as she had a relevant health condition, but it did not mention this.
The resident escalated her complaint on 28 February 2024 because, despite the repair actions agreed in the landlord’s stage 1 response, nothing had progressed.
The government’s guidance states that damp and mould pose a risk to anyone’s health and should always be acted on quickly. However, it is important that it is addressed with urgency for the groups more vulnerable to significant health impacts. The list includes people who have a weakened immune system and people living with a mental health condition.
The landlord has said it knew the resident and her daughter suffered with respiratory problems from her complaint (January 2024). It had also recorded that she suffered with several mental health issues on 23 June 2024.
The resident has disputed this timeline. She said she had informed the landlord of their health conditions many times when reporting the leak, damp and mould. She said she also told the surveyors who have attended. She also said that her mental health issues stem from being a survivor of domestic abuse. She said it allocated her the property for this reason, and it was made aware of the resulting mental health issues at the start of her tenancy.
On 12 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident stating it could not gain access for the damp and mould treatment. If she did not contact it within 10 days to schedule an appointment, it would be “forced to temporarily close the job file”. She said it had her home address, mobile phone number and email. No one had tried to contact her. There is no evidence supplied to support the landlord’s claim it had tried to contact the resident, or that she had failed to keep appointments.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 16 April 2024 acknowledged that there had been further delays in addressing the mould. It put this down to poor communication between itself and its contractors. It advised the resident a new contractor was starting, and it would re-allocate the repairs to them, which would resolve the matter. It did not clarify the position with the air bricks in the bedroom as stated earlier.
The landlord had been on notice of the household vulnerabilities from at least January 2024. This 4-month delay did not show the level of urgency required for residents at a higher risk of the health impacts of damp and mould. This was a service failing.
The landlord’s first complaint response acknowledged that it had responded to the repair issues but had taken too long to address them. It made a goodwill gesture of £50 shopping vouchers. This was for failings identified for 7 different repair issues, including the damp and mould.
The landlord’s stage 2 response increased its offer of redress to the resident by £50. Remedies should be commensurate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It offered this sum for failings it identified in 5 separate outstanding repair issues, including the damp and mould. This made its total offer of compensation £100. This was extremely low and not proportionate to the service failing for the damp and mould, let alone the inclusive repair service failings.
The landlord completed a post complaint process review a year later. In its response on 24 April 2024 it confirmed it had not addressed the damp and mould in the bedroom or bathroom. It re-ordered the works and increased its compensation offer by £250 to a total compensation offer of £350. This sum again was for the failings identified for all the repair issues still outstanding, which at the time was 4 of the remaining 5.
The landlord’s compensation policy states when there is a failure to meet a service standard it can award up to a maximum of £50 for each service failure. This is up to a maximum of £100. Where there have been multiple instances of service failure connected with a matter it can award up to a maximum of £250
In our view, the landlord did not administer its policy correctly. It acknowledged it had continuously failed to address several repair issues. So there had been multiple service failings for several elements of the complaint. However, it did not consider more than one element to the complaint in calculating its compensation.
This final sum of £350 was not sufficient redress for failings which resulted in a vulnerable household living with damp and mould for 16 months. The offer was not proportionate to the level of service failure experienced or the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, it could not be considered as sufficient for all the other issues which formed part of the final complaint stage. Each of these have been considered separately below.
Our guidance states redress should be offered prior to ‘the Ombudsman’s formal investigation’ and ‘on the landlord’s own initiative’. It was clear in its correspondence that the landlord reopened the resident’s complaint because of the notification of our investigation. For this reason, any offer at this late stage, even if proportionate, would not have been reasonable redress.
In a recent update in July 2025, the resident advised the landlord had still not carried out the repairs to resolve the damp and mould, which is not reasonable.
Under the Scheme, we will not usually consider complaints about matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. However, where the landlord has made commitments as part of its final complaint response, we will consider subsequent events in order to establish whether it has put things right and learned from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In still not completing the repairs, it is clear it has not done so.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged its failings in this matter. However, it repeatedly failed to fulfil the actions it agreed in its attempts to put things right. As such, it could not show that it had learnt from the outcomes. It did not resolve the substantive issue through its complaint process or its post complaint review. Its offer of redress to the resident was not proportionate to the failings identified, or the detriment caused to her.

Roof leak

In response to a report of a roof leak on 19 October 2023, the landlord raised an order to re-point the chimney stack and replace a roof tile. The leak was in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom, which was an area where damp and mould were present. Despite the repair, the roofers had to be recalled on 7 November 2023 as it leaked as soon as it rained.
In the resident’s complaint on 3 January 2024, she said she could still hear water dripping inside the property whenever it rained. In response, the landlord arranged an inspection of the property, which was appropriate.
The inspection identified the access point of the leak was dry. However, the landlord acknowledged there had been no recent rain and confirmed there was water damage to the ceiling. It accepted that despite completing previous roof repairs and installing vents, it needed to inspect the chimney stack and lead flashings. It agreed to complete any work identified following this inspection.
The cause of a leak is not always easy to identify and can be a combination of issues. It can require a process of elimination or several repairs before the problem is resolved. If the landlord is pro-actively investigating and acts on new reports, we will consider this reasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint on 28 February 2024 because the landlord had not progressed with the chimney inspection.
In the landlord’s response of 16 April 2024, it acknowledged that there had been further delays in inspecting the chimney stack. As stated earlier, it put this down to poor communication between itself and its contractors. However, it made assurances it would re-raise the repair to the new contractor. Under its repair policy, it should have completed the inspection within 10 working days.
In the landlord’s post complaint process review, a year later, it confirmed the roof was one of the repairs committed to, that it had not actioned. In its response of 24 April 2025, it added an inspection of the roof tiles and loft space to the list of works needed. We have already established that the final offer of redress, if split amongst the issues, was not proportionate to the level of service failure or detriment caused to the resident. Neither was it made within a timeframe that could be considered reasonable.
The resident recently informed us (July 2025) that the action committed to on 24 April 2025 had not progressed and the roof was still leaking.
Again, the landlord acknowledged its failings in its handling of the roof leak, but its offer of redress was not proportionate to the detriment caused. Despite the commitments in its final complaint response, it has not put things right or showed it has learned from outcomes in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Replacement of windows and doors

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that work to improve its properties are carried out separately from its responsive repairs service. Work to upgrade such as window and door replacement are completed through its planned maintenance programme.
The resident complained that her windows were not fit for purpose. Despite repairs to fill around them, they let cold air in and heat escape. She said her blinds moved about even when the windows were shut.
On 17 January 2024 the landlord said “although there were no obvious faults in the design, fabric or installation of the windows” the surveyor had agreed to replace them. It said contractors would attend to measure up “in the coming days”.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 28 February 2024, nothing further had progressed on the matter. The landlord said on 16 April 2024 that it had raised another order with the new contractors. This was to replace selected windows and the back door. It had also raised an order to repair the front door.
The landlord’s post complaint review in April 2025 identified that the window and door replacement had not progressed. It said a further inspection had concluded that only 1 ground floor bay window could be replaced.
The landlord is within its rights, taking its limited resources into account, to make informed decisions whether to carry out works. While it was entitled to reconsider its decision on a full window replacement, it had raised her expectations unnecessarily.
The landlord said the job number noted in the initial complaint response was for a contractor inspection. It said, “this did not transfer into a replacement authorisation”. It said its stage 2 response had re-iterated that it had agreed to the window replacement without checking, when the authorisation had, in fact, stalled. It apologised for this error. In not checking, it had missed an opportunity to correct the misinformation sooner.
This would also have been confusing for the resident because the stage 1 response clearly stated that the surveyor had agreed to the replacement windows and that the contractor would measure up within days.
The error could have been in the code used to order the windows rather than the order raised being for an inspection. However, the landlord could not provide full clarity on this issue as the key staff involved had left. This indicated a record keeping failing.
Clear record keeping is a core function of a repairs service. This is not only so that landlords can provide evidence of events and actions taken when requested for an investigation. It is because this also assists the landlord in monitoring outstanding works and enables business continuity when there is staff turnover.
The resident has recently confirmed the landlord decided it should move her property forward to this year’s planned window replacement program. It is currently in the process of replacing all her windows and door.
The landlord acknowledged its failings in its handling of the window and door replacement. It apologised and offered the resident compensation. As already established, the sum offered was insufficient for the level of service failure experienced and detriment caused to the resident. This included poor complaint handling, a year’s delay and misinformation about the window replacement.

Concrete step

The resident reported in her complaint of 3 January 2024 that the front external concrete step was crumbling away. During the complaint investigation, the landlord appropriately inspected the step.
In its response on 17 January 2024 the landlord said it deemed the risk from the “perished concrete” to be low. It agreed to order the work. As it deemed the risk low, this repair would have been raised as a routine repair and completed within 10 working days.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 28 February 2024, the landlord had not repaired the step. In an internal email 8 March 2024, the landlord’s surveyor said he would order the work (along with several other jobs) if he could. This suggests it had not raised the order following its response in January 2024.
In the landlord’s response on 16 April 2024 it said it had raised a repair for the step, but it needed a specific trades person. It offered the £100 for all its repair failings, which we have already established was insufficient redress.
The landlord raised a job order for the step on 17 April 2024. Notes on the order stated that the job was previously raised on 15 April 2024, but the resident refused access. It reports another “3 no answers” and a further refusal to have the work done on 1 July 2024.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it offers an appointment service for repairs. If the contractor cannot gain access following a pre-arranged appointment, we would consider any delay caused to be outside of its control.
The resident denies the landlord made any appointments with her for the repair to the step. She told us no contractor calling cards had been left. When she asked it for specific dates to check her ring door-bell camera, it did not respond. She said the only time she had ever refused access for work was when contractors cold-called and she had other arrangements.
The landlord did not provide evidence to support that it made appointments with the resident for this work. The only evidence that it had of the contractor’s abortive calls was the contractor’s notes to this effect. If the contractor had cold-called in any of these instances, it would not have adhered to its policy to offer appointments and cannot be classed as a ‘no access’ given.
In an update to us on 18 March 2025, the resident advised work to the step was still outstanding. However, it was not on the list of works in its revised final stage response on 24 April 2024. She confirmed in a call last week this work was complete.
Overall, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had adhered to its responsive repairs policy in repairing the concrete step. Neither did it complete the repair in a reasonable time or offer proportionate redress for its failings in the matter. We find significant failings in its handling of the repairs to the concrete step.

Lighting

In the resident’s complaint of 3 January 2024, she said since the mains electrics in the street were upgraded she had problems with her electrics. For 2 years, she had been without lighting in the lounge and the light in the storage cupboard flickered and was dim.
In response, the landlord sent engineers from the company that installed the mains electric to inspect. It advised they had discovered that the wiring loop in her property needed updating. It appropriately raised an order for an electrician “to properly assess” the situation. It expected the work to be booked in and completed within the next 28 days.
The resident did not raise the electrics as an outstanding repair issue in her escalation request on 28 February 2024. Neither did she raise it with the surveyor when he re-inspected for the post-complaint review.
On the request of information about the electrics from this Service, the landlord prompted the resident about the issue. She confirmed it had not completed the work.
Once on notice, the landlord is obliged to complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe. However, as the resident had not raised the issue with it again in 16 months, it was not unreasonable for it to have assumed it had completed the job. It could have addressed this sooner had she raised the issue again. However, it was apparent she had several more urgent repairs that she was chasing.
The landlord should, however, have a process in place to monitor jobs that are not completed on its repair system. Either it does not have a process, or the process failed in this instance.
Overall, the landlord could not show it adhered to its repair policy in its handling of the resident’s lighting. However, the resident’s failure to chase this repair sooner contributed to the delay and we have considered this in findings on its failings in handling the lighting repair.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reports of a roof leak
3. The replacement of her windows and doors.
4. The resident’s reports of repairs needed to a concrete step.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of problems with the lighting.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord provides evidence to this Service of compliance with orders below. It must:
1. Send a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Provide the resident with an action plan to complete the outstanding work. This should include details of the work to be undertaken and timescales for completion that align with its responsive repair policy.
3. Pay the resident the total sum of compensation £2,150, which is an addition of £1,800 to the £350 previously offered. This is broken down as follows:
  1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience of its failure to address the damp and mould.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience of its failure to investigate and address the roof leak.
  3. £400 for the distress and inconvenience of the failing identified in its handling of the window and door replacement.
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience of its failure to repair the step in a reasonable time.