Cobalt Housing Limited (202113543)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113543

Cobalt Housing Limited

24 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about his service charge.
   2. Request for information.
2. The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord’s since 2014. The property is a 1-bedroom flat within a low-rise block. The resident pays a service charge for garden maintenance and communal cleaning of the block.
4. On 15 October 2020 the landlord installed a new fire alarm into the resident’s property. The resident said the fire alarm was fitted incorrectly and caused a personal injury to him. The resident told the landlord on 22 February 2023 he was unhappy with the service provided for the garden maintenance and communal cleaning.
5. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 April 2023. He said he was still unhappy with the standard of the garden maintenance and the communal cleaning of the block of flats. The resident also emailed the landlord on 14 April 2023. He said he was unhappy it had not provided its insurance policy that he requested regarding his personal injury claim.
6. The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 19 May 2023. It said the following:
   1. It agreed the garden maintenance standard was not as expected, and it would arrange for an extra visit to cut the grass.
   2. The landlord said the communal cleaning was up to standard.
   3. It would not provide the resident with its insurance details as this would be dealt with via his legal representation.
7. The resident escalated his complaint on 29 May 2023. On 23 August 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It said the following:
   1. It was satisfied with the standard of the garden maintenance and communal cleaning at the block.
   2. The landlord would be reviewing all service charges within the next 12 months.
   3. It had provided all the documents requested by the resident in relation to his personal injury claim.
8. The resident remained unhappy and brought his complaint to us. He said neither the quality or the frequency of the garden maintenance and communal cleaning justified the service charge he pays. The resident also said the landlord has not provided all the information he requested for his personal injury claim.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. Part of the resident’s complaint is about the reasonableness of the garden maintenance and cleaning service charges to the block of flats. Our Scheme states we may not investigate complaints that concern the level of service charge. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with the resident was fair and reasonable. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay variable service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). 
10. The resident said he has been raising concerns to the landlord about his service charges, and further information required for his court claim, since 2021. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on what occurred. The Scheme says we may not consider issues not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint, within a reasonable period of the matters arising. As such, this report will centre on the landlord’s handling of concerns since February 2023. Reference to any earlier date is for context only.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his service charges

11. The resident rang the landlord on 22 February 2023. He said he was unhappy with the frequency of the garden maintenance service at his block of flats. The resident also asked about the frequency of the communal cleaning.
12. The resident’s tenancy agreement states he pays a weekly service charge to the landlord. These charges include payment for the cleaning and gardening of communal areas.
13. On 2 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said he was unhappy with the standard of the gardening and cleaning service for the block of flats. The resident said for the amount that was charged the services were overpriced. He also said he had contacted the landlord regarding the frequency of the garden maintenance and cleaning. He said it had not returned his call.
14. The landlord visited the resident on 4 May 2023. It inspected the garden and the communal areas of the block.
15. The landlord replied to the resident at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 19 May 2023. It said the following:
    1. It agreed the garden maintenance was not up to standard. To put things right the landlord had arranged an extra cut for the garden. It offered the resident a £10 gift voucher for its failure.
    2. The landlord would reinspect after the next garden maintenance visit.
    3. It was satisfied the communal cleaning was being completed to standard.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy states:
    1. If it has failed to meet a service standard it can pay up to £50 to a resident.
    2. The payment will “initially be in the form of vouchers”.
    3. Discretionary compensation awards can be given to residents when there has been a “significant impact”.
17. A review of the stage 1 response shows the landlord tried to put things right for the resident with an extra garden maintenance visit and an offer of a £10 gift voucher. This was within the scope of its compensation policy. These were reasonable steps by the landlord to take.
18. However, the landlord failed to:
    1. Explain why it was satisfied with the standard of communal cleaning.
    2. Address the resident’s concern that the landlord had not responded 2 months previously to his service charge query.
19. The resident escalated his complaint on 29 May 2023. He said he felt the standard of the garden maintenance had become worse. The resident also said he was unhappy with a service charge made for electricity to power communal lights.
20. On 23 August 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and said the following:
    1. The landlord had investigated the garden maintenance at the block and was satisfied with the service given. It had provided a further 2 cuts and maintenance visits since its stage 1 response.
    2. The landlord again said it felt the cleaning service provided was in line with the specification.
    3. It would be conducting a review of all service charges within the next 12 months. The resident would have an opportunity to discuss all service charge concerns with the landlord at that time.
21. A review of the landlord’s response at stage 2 shows it did not provide the details as to why it was satisfied with the communal cleaning. The landlord relied on inspection of records. There is no evidence it conducted a further site visit, which would of given it greater confidence in its decision. The landlord failed to refer to the service standard for both communal cleaning and garden maintenance that the resident was paying a service charge for. Its failure to do this undermined its decision making. The landlord made no attempt to investigate the resident’s dissatisfaction of his electricity service charge. This was unreasonable of the landlord.
22. In summary, the landlord failed to explain its rationale for why the communal cleaning and the garden maintenance standards were met. It also failed to investigate the resident’s concerns with his electricity service charge.
23. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We will take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes. As well as our own guidance on remedies.
24. The landlord’s offer of a £10 gift voucher does not address the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It was a suitable opening offer under the terms of its complaint’s policy. However, the evidence shows the landlord failed to address points consistently at both stage 1 and stage 2 of its process. The landlord failed to increase its award in line with the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to put things right and resolve the complaint satisfactorily.
25. The landlord’s failings lead to a determination of service failure. An order for £100 compensation has been made below. This award has been calculated in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a minor failure and it was not fully put right by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information

26. Following the resident raising his complaint, he emailed the landlord on 14 April 2023. He said he was unhappy it had not provided a copy of its public liability insurance which he requested for his personal injury claim. The landlord responded to this at stage 1 of its internal complaints process on 19 May 2023. It said the following:
    1. The resident told them around 17 months earlier he had legal representation. The landlord told the resident at that time to seek advice from his legal advisor on how to move forward.
    2. It would not direct the resident to its insurers as the landlord felt this would be addressed by his legal representation.
27. The evidence shows the landlord acted upon its historic records to formulate its response. The resident’s complaint and its subsequent investigation should have been an opportunity for the landlord to update its records and respond with relevant information. The failure to check whether the resident remained legally represented, especially in the absence of the details of any such representative for the previous 17 months, was unreasonable.
28. The evidence shows the landlord provided a copy of its public liability insurance  to the resident on 22 June 2023. However, the resident sent an email the following day and asked again for the information.
29. The resident emailed the landlord on 4 July 2023. He said again he had not received the public liability insurance details. The resident also said he was still waiting on paperwork in relation to a fire alarm installation at his property. The landlord responded the same day. It asked the resident if he had received the previous email which contained the insurance information. On 5 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said he had not yet received the insurance information he requested.
30. The landlord replied on 23 August 2023 at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It said the following:
    1. It had previously provided the resident with the insurance information requested. It said it had done this both “recently” and “on several occasions”.
    2. The resident had asked to see audit reports from follow-up inspections at his property. The landlord said it would share them with the resident.
31. A review of the landlord’s response at stage 2 shows it did not address the earlier delay in sending the resident a copy of its public liability insurance. This was a failure by the landlord. Following the stage 2 response, it has provided evidence to show the audit reports from the follow-up inspections were sent to the resident. This was a reasonable action of the landlord.
32. In summary, the landlord responded at stage 1 with out of date information. This caused a delay in sending the public liability insurance to the resident. It also caused the resident to escalate his complaint to stage 2. This caused unnecessary inconvenience to the resident and amounts to a service failure. An order of £75 compensation has been made below. This award has been calculated in line with our remedies guidance where there has been a minor failure and it was not fully put right by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

33. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 April 2023. On 4 May 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint. In the complaint acknowledgement it said it would reply at stage 1 of its internal complaints process within 10 working days. It replied on 19 May 2023. This was within the timeframe given in its complaint acknowledgement letter. However, this was a delay of around 21 working days compared with the 10 working days timeframe stated in its complaints policy for a stage 1 response.
34. On 29 May 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He chased the landlord for a response on 23 June 2023 and 4 July 2023. It responded on 26 July 2023 to ask why the resident wanted to escalate the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 on 4 August 2023. The landlord said it would respond within the next 4 weeks. It replied at stage 2 of its internal complaints process on 23 August 2023. The landlord apologised to the resident for not progressing his complaint. However, the resident had been waiting around 41 days longer than the 20 working days stated in the landlord’s complaints policy.
35. In summary the landlord delayed its complaint responses at stage 1 and 2. The landlord only acknowledged the complaints when the timeframes in the policy had already expired for a complaint response. The landlord failed to adhere to its complaints policy timeframes and did not apologise to the resident for the delays. This leads to a determination of maladministration. An order of £100 compensation will be made below.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his service charges.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a manager for the failures outlined above.  
    2. Pay the resident £275 compensation, broken down as:
       1. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns for his service charges.
       2. £75 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information.
       3. £100 for its complaint handling.
    3. Explain to the resident why it concluded the cleaning standards were being met, using the terms of service provision for which his service charge pays for.
40. The compensation balance must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account.
41. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.