The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Cobalt Housing Limited (202009114)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009114

Cobalt Housing Limited

5 May 2021


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 regarding the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of various repairs required to the property.
    2. The resident’s reports about the conduct of operatives visiting the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a two-bedroom house, owned by the landlord.
  2. In an email of 5 April 2019, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in which he stated that he had visited its office several times for a resolution to many repairs required to the property. He had contacted it several times in less than three years since he moved into the property to report required repairs and there was no response to most of his calls. Following a recent repairs visit, an engineer had informed him that the floorboards had no support underneath and advised that he does not stand in that part of the room. He queried how this was possible as he had a child in the property and a baby was soon due.
  3. The resident stated that, due to his work schedule, he was able to visit the landlord’s office on Wednesdays alone. This was also the only day when he had his daughter with him, thus, he was spending his day with her at the landlord’s office. He had been promised a call back several times, but this had not taken place. The last incident was three weeks previously and he was still awaiting the promised call back. He was complaining about both the repairs and the entire service he had received from the landlord.
  4. The repairs log provided to this Service indicates that the resident reported the presence of mould in the kitchen of the property on 31 January 2020 and the first works visit for a mould wash took place on 7 February 2020. No works could be completed on the day as the operative found that the walls had damp and rather than mould. Further visits occurred on 12, 14 and 21 February 2020. On the last visit, which appeared to be on 27 February 2020, no works were undertaken due to heavy rain, and another visit was booked for 12 March 2020.
  5. On 9 March 2020, the resident complained to the landlord that an electrician had attended the property without a uniform and identification. He was particularly angry about this because his children had been at home. There also were outstanding repairs regarding which there had been miscommunications with the contractors. He called the landlord again on 11 March 2020 to ask that his complaint is logged.
  6. In an email of 12 March 2020, the pest controller advised the landlord about the cost to undertake pest control works in the property and that it would begin by removing the loft insulation. The landlord agreed that this could be done.
  7. In emails between the landlord and the electrical contractor, of 12 March 2020, the contractor explained that the operative had an incorrect number for the resident thus, could not call him prior to attending the property. He was, therefore, unaware that the job had been cancelled. However, the resident had informed the operative’s supervisor in a telephone call that his partner granted the operative access as she recognised the apprentice who accompanied him.
  8. In its decision to the resident, dated 24 March 2020, the landlord stated that it had investigated the issues of outstanding works to the property and the unannounced visit by the electrician. An inspection visit had taken place on 12 March 2020 after which it raised the following repairs, to commence on 19 March 2020:
    1. Reseal all windows externally to include around soffits where needed.
    2. Take off and re-fix skirting to kitchen, right hand side.
    3. Hack off any bridging plaster and renew plaster to affected areas.
    4. Ease and adjust the front door.
  9. The landlord stated that the bricklayer had been at the property during the visit, completing works to the kitchen wall. It also stated that a full explanation and apology had been made to the resident regarding the unannounced visit by the electrician. It would investigate the issue of error in inputting the contact details as the resident required. As its records indicated that it had the resident’s contact details alone, it assumed that the error in contacting his partner was made by the contractors.
  10. In his response of 25 March 2020, the resident requested for clarity regarding the status of his complaint. He also stated that the electrician’s supervisor had called to state that the operative did have his pass on during the visit, which implied that the resident’s partner had given false information. He stated that the supervisor had ‘threatened’ to visit him as he did not like his response. He also reported that further operatives had attempted to access the property without showing their identification badge because he had refused access. This, he stated, was evidence that the electrician had not had his badge on.
  11. The resident reported that he had been informed during the inspection that the windows needed sealing, but the engineer had called to state that he could not undertake the repairs due to the windows being in very bad condition. He had also stated that the resident should not have moved into the property in that situation. The resident found that most parts of the property were cold in the night–time and the kitchen was cold all the time. He sought clarity about the plasterers’ visit to complete the works as the uncompleted works were unsafe for his child. He also stated that his partner’s telephone number should be in the landlord’s file as he had provided this. He concluded that he wanted more than an explanation and apology.  
  12. In its response of the same day the landlord clarified that the complaint had not been closed. It advised that the resident could request an escalation to its next stage if he were dissatisfied. It informed him that the plasterer was due to continue with the works on 4 April 2020. However, non-emergency works had been affected by the lockdown restrictions as the resident had been informed. The resident requested for information on how to progress the case. He also requested for clarity on how the landlord would deal with the issues of the operatives’ attendance at the property, as well as the scope of works to be completed with respect to the windows. He confirmed that he was aware of the impact of the restrictions to the works.
  13. The landlord agreed to escalate the case and clarified that works would be undertaken solely to the interior of the windows. The resident stated that he had been advised that works would be undertaken to both the interior and exterior of the windows. He also inquired about the status of works to be undertaken by the pest controller. In other email exchanges it was established that the pest controller had advised that the insulation in the loft required replacement after baits had been removed. The resident also made a subject access request (SAR) regarding all information held on himself and the property since he took up residence in May 2016. 
  14. There were further communications between the parties on the status of the complaint and works in the months of April and May 2020. The resident arranged to have a telephone conversation with the landlord on 11 May 2020 to discuss the issue of how the supervisor responded to his report of the operative’s visit, as well as the outstanding works. Following this, the landlord wrote to him on 18 May 2020 to confirm the issues. It also provided the list of outstanding works as follows:
    1. Front Door realignment,
    2. Plastering to the kitchen and skirting boards replaced/refitted,
    3. Windows ill-fitted to the property,
    4. Inadequate heating in the kitchen and ventilation cover to the kitchen fan.
    5. Renewal of loft insulation due to rat baiting (potential inclusion of a new loft hatch due to the size of the current one),
    6. External render repairs.
  15. The landlord advised that it had passed on the SAR request to the relevant department which would contact the resident. It explained that it was its intention to work with him to complete the repairs when the lockdown restrictions had been lifted. It also requested that he informs it if any aspect of the repairs had been left out.
  16. In his response, the resident agreed that the list was accurate, however, he mentioned a new repair issue with respect to the back garden. He also reiterated the issues he had raised regarding his conversation with the electrician’s supervisor, whom he stated had waited for three days before investigating the matter.
  17. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 July 2020 to confirm that it was still dealing with his complaint. It clarified that the works would be completed before the closure of the complaint and stated that it had to extend it further until 24 July 2020. It wrote to him again on 27 July 2020, to reiterate the same information. It added that the matter had been delayed by the lockdown restrictions, which were being gradually lifted at the time. It had to complete risk assessments prior to letting operatives into properties, thus, the date for completion of the works had been extended to 4 August 2020.
  18. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 August 2020 to request for updates on the matter, stating that he had seen that works were being undertaken to neighbours’ properties. It explained in its response that it was awaiting the completion of a risk assessment which was to be finalised on the same day and would contact him in this regard. It informed him, on 12 August 2020 that the assessment had been completed and he would be contacted for a survey to be arranged. It contacted him on 19 August 2020 to arrange an inspection for 26 August 2020. After the inspection it contacted to request for a suitable time frame for the works and he confirmed that it could commence as from 21 September 2020.
  19. In its final decision of 10 September 2020, the landlord referred to its conversation with the resident in May 2020, during which he stated that the landlord had allowed the contractor to undertake sub–standard works. He had confirmed that he was aware that government guidance prevented the execution of non–essential works in surveys and the landlord was therefore unable to inspect the property. It had been agreed that the inspection will take place after the restrictions, however, there had been an extension which in turn led to the complaint target date being extended.
  20. Following the end of the restrictions the landlord had reviewed the matter and a staff member had been appointed to inspect the property for outstanding repairs and arrange works appointments between the resident and the contractor. This would lead to the completion of the works and post-works inspection. Following the inspection, several works were agreed to be undertaken to the exterior and interior of the property. As the resident was away on holiday, appointments would be arranged on his return.
  21. The landlord further stated that it had contacted the electricals contractor regarding the conduct of the operative and had been assured that the matter would be investigated and the operative cautioned and advised about appropriate conduct. The designated staff member would monitor further works appointments to the property to prevent further incidents of missed or unproductive appointments. It offered the resident a gift voucher worth the sum of £50 in compensation for the issues. 
  22. The works commenced in the ensuing weeks and the parties continued to communicate by email regarding this. There was a further incident of an operative attending without their identification badge. The landlord informed the resident that this had been reported back to the contractor. Further emails provided to this Service indicate that the works were still on-going up till early 2021.

Events Occurring After the Conclusion of the Complaint

  1. The landlord has provided documents to this Service which indicate that it wrote to the resident on 24 February 2021 to confirm that it conducted a post-works inspection of the property on 12 February 2021. It stated that the following repairs had been undertaken:
    1. Replaced external trickle vents to all windows where previously missing or damaged
    2. External patch repair to render
    3. Filled a small hole to rear of property at low level
    4. Internal plastering and painting to 2 x kitchen walls
    5. Radiator replacement in the kitchen (flushed system, fitted a new 600 x 12 k2 (double) radiator, filled, bled and balanced system
    6. Ease and adjustment to composite front door
    7. Tap replacement in kitchen
  2. The landlord also stated that it had instructed a contractor to install a Positive Input Ventilation unit in the loft space and an extractor in the kitchen to improve ventilation in the property. The resident had confirmed his satisfaction with the works. It apologised for the issues that had occurred with the repairs and offered the resident a further £100 gift voucher in compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. No documentation has been provided to this Service regarding events occurring after the resident’s formal complaint of April 2019. The documents provided clarify that the further complaint was made a year later, in March 2020. The resident has informed this Service that he has no written communication on the issue for that period as he communicated with the landlord verbally. The summary of events indicates that he made a SAR to the landlord and he states that he did not receive the documents he requested for. This Service has advised that he may wish to consider contacting the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for advice on this aspect of his case.
  2. When formal complaints are made by residents, landlords are expected to provide written responses. This would apply even where it is believed that the issues raised in complaints could be resolved informally. It is also expected that that residents would chase landlords for responses to their complaints if none has been provided. No evidence has been provided to this Service of the landlord having made a written response to the complaint of 5 April 2019. Although the resident mentioned that there were outstanding repairs to the property, his complaint of March 2020 made no reference to the complaint of April 2019. This was also not mentioned in his escalation request, or in several email exchanges between him and the landlord.
  3. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) provides in paragraph 39(a) that the Ombudsman would not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As there is no evidence that the complaint of April 2019 exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, this report would not be considering this earlier complaint. Furthermore, from the foregoing, this Service has insufficient information to support any consideration of the complaint of April 2019.  
  4. This Service requested that the landlord provides ‘details of any outstanding issues identified from 10 September 2019 – 10 September 2020’. The timeframe of this request is based on the complaint of March 2020, regarding which a final complaint decision was provided. This is due to the jurisdiction limits of the Scheme with respect to timescales as stated the preceding paragraph. Thus, the landlord was required to provide repairs logs for the property from a period of 6 months prior to the complaint of March 2020. It has however provided records beginning from 31 January 2020. While these records are comprehensive and thorough, they have not clarified the length of time for which the issues have been outstanding or when they were first reported.
  5. This Service is unable to consider the later complaint as a continuation of the complaint made a year earlier without any documentary evidence linking the two complaints. However, it is plausible that the repairs visit which resulted in the further complaint of March 2020 was with respect to issues leading to the April 2019 complaint. The documents provided to this Service, do not include sufficient information in support this assumption. Nonetheless, it is the responsibility of the landlord to maintain records of repairs and related communications with respect to its properties.
  6. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide this Service with adequate information to enable us to fully investigate matters referred to us. In responding to the request for repairs logs it did not clarify that it had no records for repairs requests or part of the required period. It has recently informed this Service that the resident made no repairs requests for the period from 10 September 2019 till 30 January 2020. However, the lack of any information or records on its handling of the earlier complaint, coupled with the resident’s consistent assertions that the landlord has ignored his reports on repairs during the period, creates concerns about the accuracy of the landlord’s version of events.
  7. The landlord has not disputed that there were delays to it completing the repairs. After the initial disparity in information on the works to be undertaken to the windows, the parties agreed about the extent of all outstanding works. Thus, the task before this Service is to consider whether the compensation offered by the landlord is adequate redress for the identified shortcomings. The lack of any notes on its communications with the resident for the requested timescale has complicated this task. This is particularly significant as the resident maintains that he discussed outstanding repairs with the landlord during this time. He states that the discussions occurred by telephone and in meetings at the landlord’s office and this is the reason for his SAR request. This Service is unable to conclude that the landlord’s assertions on the nature of the conversations is accurate as no contemporaneous records have been provided in evidence.
  8. The records provided by the landlord indicate that there was considerable mould in the property which implies that the issue had been ongoing prior to 31 January 2020. The repairs outlined in paragraph 16 (a) to (f) of this report were extensive and in consonance with the resident’s complaint that the issues had been on-going for a considerable period. This Service concludes that the total voucher offers of £150 by the landlord, in compensation for identified issues, is insufficient redress in the circumstances of this case.
  9. It is vital to note that the formal complaint of March 2020 was made shortly before the first national lockdown caused by the pandemic. This was an unprecedented time for organisations in the country as most began to attempt to deliver services under restrictions. Thus, it is reasonable to consider the difficulties the landlord experienced in trying to deal with the outstanding repairs as well as respond to the ongoing complaint. It was reasonable in the circumstances that the landlord requested an extension to its response and repairs to the property. It also provided an adequate explanation regarding its intention to complete the repairs prior to making a final decision on the matter.
  10. The landlord’s internal communication with the contractor indicate that the operator stated that he got no response when he called the number provided to him for the resident. As he was in the area he decided to knock on the door, and it was opened by the resident’s partner. He did not have his uniform but stated that he had his identification badge on. He stated that the partner permitted him to enter the property as he was with an apprentice who was willing to provide a witness statement if this was required.
  11. The contractor stated that the telephone number provided to them was the partner’s number and he offered to call the resident to speak to him if this would clarify matters. From the foregoing, the contractor had called the resident with the landlord’s permission and with the intention of narrating the account of events as stated by the operative. The landlord had investigated the matter and was provided a differing account of events by the contractor. Its decision did not indicate that it disagreed with the resident’s account of the matter. However, in the absence of an independent witness to corroborate either version, there was no basis on which the landlord could verify the facts.
  12. The resident reported further incidents of operatives visiting the property without proper identification and the landlord responded by informing him that it would be raising the issues with the contractor. This was a reasonable response as it is the responsibility of the contractor to deal with issues regarding the conduct of its operatives. The landlord ensured that it contacted the contractor to report the issues and informed the resident about its actions in this respect in making its decision on the complaint. It is impossible to eliminate further occurrences in the future and the landlord is unable to guarantee that operatives would adhere to the requirements of identification on each visit. Thus, this Service finds that the landlord dealt appropriately with the resident’s complaint about the conduct of the operative.
  13. As the resident states that the works adequately completed, he should consider contacting the landlord to discuss any outstanding issues. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs required to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of operatives visiting the property.

Reasons

  1. The evidence provided to this Service indicates that the repairs had been outstanding for a significant period, although, the documents provided by the landlord are insufficient to clarify this fact.
  2. The landlord appropriately raised the issue with its contractor, ascertained that it was investigated and provided an adequate response on the matter in its decisions on the complaint.

Orders

  1. I make the following orders to be complied with by the landlord within 4 weeks of this report:
    1. The landlord should pay the additional amount of £50 in compensation to the resident for its handling of the repairs to the property including any inconvenience and distress he has experienced in chasing this matter. In addition to the £150 previously offered by the landlord, this would bring the total sum of compensation to £200.