Cobalt Housing Limited (202228902)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228902

Cobalt Housing Limited

28 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request to be reimbursed for damage following replacement of a radiator;
2. Reports about the behaviour of operatives;
3. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 3 bedroom house and is an assured tenant of the landlord. She moved into the property in February 2014.
On 2 February 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and said that:
1. She was contacting it with regard to damage caused by its contractor when it had “recently installed new radiators” in her home.
2. She wanted decoration vouchers for paint and “either a new floor” in her hallway or “compensation towards purchasing new flooring”.
3. She had included some pictures of her wall that the operatives had “drawn on with either felt tip or a marker” and her hallway floor, which had “water on it from the radiator being taken off”.
4. Both operatives had behaved in an “unprofessional” way. One was “on his phone all day, talking loudly”, the other was smoking near the new boiler and “left cigarette stubs all over” her grass. Furthermore, they had left her door open, which resulted in her husband, who suffered from “chronic chest infections becoming ill”.
5. The landlord had to send another operative to fix a radiator leak and fix a wire to the thermostat.
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 10 February 2023 to raise a stage 1 complaint. She said she was “disgusted” that it had not “bothered” to acknowledge her email of 3 February 2023. The landlord replied on 21 February 2023 to say it had passed her email onto the relevant team. It then acknowledged her complaint on 23 February 2023.
On 10 March 2023, the landlord carried out a joint visit to the property with the contractor to inspect the resident’s floor. Following this, the resident wrote to it on the same day and provided photos of the floor before and after the damage she had reported. She added that it did “not take a flooring expert to conclude it was not damaged before the radiator was removed”.
On 13 March 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response in which it stated that:
1. It had noted, when visiting the property, that the laminate flooring had been in place since the resident moved in, “which was 10 years ago”. Both it and the contractor who attended agreed that the flooring was not damaged by the operatives but by “general wear and tear due to the age for the flooring”.
2. The operatives were issued with a wet hoover to ensure water was not spilled.
3. It acknowledged there “was a small pen dot on walls where radiators were being installed”. The contractor had agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of the paint to cover the pen marks.
4. It was sorry the resident felt the customer service she received was below expectations and confirmed that the contractor had arranged training with all operatives regarding their “manner” when they were in residents’ properties.
The resident replied on 14 March 2023 to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She stated that:
1. A picture she had found from around 2 months before the works “clearly” showed that the hallway floor was undamaged. She had also provided 2 pictures taken on 10 March 2023, which showed that her flooring had warped underneath the radiator connecting pipe, which was where water was left on the floor.
2. Despite the floor being “old and worn”, the operatives had not put plastic covering down in the hallway, which meant that water from the radiator had soaked into the flooring.
3. It had told her that a contractor would attend to paint the affected wall but, because the shade of paint would be different, she declined the offer.
4. She explained that she would be willing to accept vouchers as there was “no way” she would buy the paint herself and send it the receipts.
5. She had already passed her complaint to the Ombudsman.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 17 March 2023 and sent her its stage 2 response on 11 April 2023. This stated that:
1. It had looked at the images the resident had provided. However, because of the age and condition of the floor, and the information the operatives had provided, it felt it was not in a position to compensate her for any damage to her flooring.
2. The contractor had accepted the marks it had left on her wall and had agreed to her request for a £25 decorating voucher.
3. It had noted that a team meeting would take place to ensure its operatives were delivering the best customer care. However, it added that the operatives did not agree with her recollection of the events on the day they attended.
4. It appreciated that she was in her home at the time and felt uncomfortable raising concerns. It suggest that, in future, if she feel the behaviour of staff was unacceptable, to contact its call centre or ask the operatives to leave.
5. It felt the resident “had some responsibility to ask the operatives to dry the floor” if she noticed some water. The resident had confirmed there was a pipe draining off water from the radiators. This let the landlord to believe the operatives were “managing any potential water escape”.
6. It accepted that, when comparing the images, there was some water damage near the radiator but there was no evidence when this had occurred.
7. Floor covering was the resident’s responsibility and, if she chose to lay laminate flooring, it came with the understanding that any repairs might impact the whole floor. It added that carpets could be lifted more easily.
8. Considering all the evidence available, it was not able to accept liability for damage to her floor covering. However, it was not unsympathetic towards her circumstances, and as a “gesture of goodwill” it offered an additional £75 “to contribute to any further costs”.
9. It would issue the resident with a total of £100.00 in shopping vouchers.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 12 April 2023. She stated that the pictures she had provided “clearly” showed that the hallway floor was not damaged in November 2022, which was around 2 months before the landlord fitted the new radiator. She added that the only place plastic was not put down was the hall, where the damage took place and that the landlord had suggested it was the resident’s responsibility to monitor the behaviour of its operatives.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the ceilings, floors and internal plasterwork apart from hairline cracks. It also states that the landlord will insure the resident’s building and any fixtures and fitting inside which belong to it. It recommends that residents insure their own contents, personal belongings and items for which they are responsible.
The landlord’s Complaints and Discretionary Compensation Policy outlines a 2 stage process, where stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The same policy states that, if a formal complaint investigation shows the resident experienced unnecessary inconvenience, the landlord can award discretionary compensation up to a maximum of £250.

Scope of investigation

Much of the resident’s dissatisfaction relates to the landlord’s handling of her request for compensation for damage to her flooring, which she considers the landlord to be liable for. The resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s refusal to consider her claim and pay compensation for damage which she says was caused during the replacement of a radiator. The Service cannot determine liability. As such, while we have investigated the resident’s complaint, we have not reached a conclusion as to whether the landlord was responsible for the damage or whether the area had been affected by wear and tear over the years.
A court or insurer would be best placed to make such a decision. Consequently, it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to this aspect of her complaint through the courts, or through another tribunal or procedure such as through an insurer. The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation and whether this was handled reasonably and in line with its own policies and procedures.
In the resident’s stage 1 complaint, she also raised concerns that the landlord had failed to respond to a report she had made about abandoned cars on her street. As it is evident she had raised a separate complaint about this matter, it will not be addressed in this report. If the resident remains concerned about this matter, she may follow it up with the landlord accordingly.

The resident’s request to be reimbursed for damage following replacement of a radiator

It is not clear what date the landlord completed works to replace the hallway radiator. However, the records suggest this took place around January 2023. The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 February 2023 to report some damage caused to a wall and hallway floor during the works. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to acknowledge her email or to provide any response. It is only after she had raised a formal complaint on 10 February 2023 that the landlord took any action in response to her reports. The landlord’s lack of communication was a failing and the evidence demonstrates that the resident was clearly upset by the landlord’s failure to engage.
In response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord acted appropriately by attending the property with its contractor to inspect the areas of reported damage. It was reasonable for it to ask the resident if she had an image of the floor area prior to the works so it could compare this with what it looked like after the radiator had been replaced. It is not clear from the records when the contactor provide the landlord with a statement from its operatives. In the circumstances. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek evidence from all parties involved so as to reassure the resident its investigation was as thorough as possible.
It is noted that the statement the landlord provided said that the resident’s flooring was “covered with flooring protector but that the resident advised the operative that “this wasn’t necessary as they were replacing the entire floor soon”. It added that “there would need to be a considerable amount of water for a long period of time” to cause the flooring to “bulge”. Although it conducted its own investigation, the landlord’s version of events differed significantly from those of the resident. It would therefore have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided details on how the resident could claim on its buildings insurance. This would have given her an opportunity for the landlord’s insurer to conduct its own independent liability assessment. It is unclear why the landlord did not refer the matter to its insurer, or provide the resident with information about how to make a claim via its insurer. However, that it did not do so was a failing.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that, as the resident was walking in and out of the hallway on multiple occasions during the works, it would have assumed she had noted there was water on the floor. It was inappropriate for the landlord to imply that the resident was responsible for preventing any damage while it was carrying out repairs. The landlord is obliged to take all reasonable steps to prevent any damage when carrying out work to residents’ properties. The resident should therefore not be expected to ensure damage does not occur.
It is noted that, in its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that floor coverings were the resident’s responsibility and, that if they chose to lay laminate flooring, it came with the understanding that any repairs to it may impact the whole floor. It is acknowledged that, unless specifically stated, floor coverings were generally the responsibility of residents, However, there is internal correspondence that states the flooring was fitted before the resident’s tenancy started. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored whether any arrangements were made at the time the resident moved in to establish whether or not the existing floor covering could have been the landlord’s responsibility. In addition, if the laminate flooring was in situ when the resident moved in, it was incorrect for the landlord to suggest in its response that it had been her choice to install it.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the pen marks its operatives had made on the resident’s wall and that it offered to repaint the affected areas. Furthermore, when the resident declined its offer, it was reasonable that the landlord offered the resident a £25 voucher instead, so she could purchase her own paint. Although the landlord did not accept responsibility for damage to the hallway floor, it offered an additional £75 as a “gesture of goodwill”, which it stated was a contribution to “any further costs”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made its offer, not as a gesture of goodwill, but as discretionary compensation. This is because it should reasonably have recognised and apologised for its failure to respond to the resident’s enquiry of 3 February 2023, and her time and trouble having to raise a complaint. Furthermore, it should have referred the resident to its insurer. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration. It is understood the landlord paid compensation to the resident on 30 April 2023. In view of the cumulative failings identified in this report, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to order further redress to put things right. We will also make an order that the landlord provides the resident with information on how she can make a claim to its insurer.

Reports about the behaviour of operatives

The Ombudsman acknowledges how disruptive it can be living in a property while works are taking place. This can be exacerbated if the resident feels the conduct of the operatives who are doing the work is below expectations. However, while we do not dispute the resident’s account of how the operatives had behaved, we cannot reasonably conclude what had happened without any corroborating evidence. The records show the landlord conducted a proportionate investigation to try to establish whether the incidents the resident reported had taken place. Its contractor spoke to the members of staff concerned. Although the stage 2 response states that operatives had a different recollection of events, the landlord acted appropriately by advising the resident that the contractor would provide additional training to its operatives regarding their conduct while in residents’ properties. It was also correct that it advised the resident on the steps she could take should she experience similar conduct in the future.
However, given there was a month between when the landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, the landlord could have reasonably given an update with regard to the training it had advised would be provided. There is no indication it had made any enquiries with the contractor about the training to check whether it had taken place or when it was likely to be given. This would have reassured the resident that the landlord was meeting the commitment it had made, and that it was taking the behaviour of its operatives seriously. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord makes appropriate enquiries with its contractor and updates the resident on the progress of its training.

Complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must acknowledge and log stage 1 complaints within 5 days of receipt. The evidence shows the landlord took 9 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. Given the landlord had already failed to respond to the resident’s email of 3 February 2023, it would have been appropriate for it to ensure it acknowledged her complaint in a timely manner. Furthermore, there are no records to show that the landlord had recognised the delay or provided an apology. That the landlord departed from the Code and failed to apologise for its delay was a failing, and the cause of further upset and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered some redress in recognition of the landlord’s poor communication and the inconvenience and distress this caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for damage following replacement of a radiator.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the behaviour of operatives.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of receiving this determination to:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £400, which consists of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified above;
  2. £100 in recognition of its delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint following its failure to respond to her previous correspondence.
2. This compensation is in addition to the £100 the landlord has already paid to the resident.
3. Apologise to the resident, with a copy to the Ombudsman, for the failings identified in this investigation. The apology should be made by a senior manager.
4. Provide the resident with details on how she can claim on its insurance. The landlord to confirm to the Service that it has complied with this order.

Recommendations

The landlord to provide the resident with an update on the training it had advised her about in its stage 1 response, within 4 weeks of receiving this determination.