Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Cobalt Housing Limited (202318338)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318338

Cobalt Housing Limited

12 February 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. Reports of a personal injury.
    2. Reports of delays to complete multiple repairs.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her 2 children. The landlord is aware of the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. We have not had sight of the resident’s original complaint to the landlord. However, it acknowledged her complaint on 22 June 2023. It said that her complaint was about outstanding repairs to her home and communication from its officers. As an outcome, she wanted it to complete the repairs.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 July 2023. It said it had raised her repairs in May 2023, but she had been unhappy with the standard of work. The delays in completing repairs were due to her behaviour toward its contractors, resulting in them having to leave site. It had agreed to visit and discuss next steps during a property inspection when she returned from her holiday.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 24 July 2023. It acknowledged her request on 25 August 2023. She was unhappy that the contract manager did not attend when asked and said her home had been left in an unsafe condition. This led to her sustaining an injury after falling down the stairs.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 12 October 2023. It explained the timeline of events and detailed the dates it undertook repairs. It did not disagree that there were outstanding repairs. It said this was due to the resident’s request for additional work, and occasions where its contractors had to leave due to her behaviour. The matter of her personal injury was outside its complaints process. It apologised for its late complaint response and offered £50 in shopping vouchers.
  6. The landlord sent a further response on 18 April 2024. It acknowledged that its stage 2 response had failed to address all of her concerns. This related to her claims about a damaged carpet and her request to appeal its warning letters and restrictions. It found no evidence that the carpet had been damaged but said it would consider her appeal. It offered £50 compensation and apologised for its communication failings.
  7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wanted it to complete the repairs, apologise for the delays, and compensate her for the inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the Scheme. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states:
    1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. As set out above, the resident told the landlord that its contractor’s had left her home in an unsafe condition, resulting in her falling down the stairs. In its stage 2 complaint response it said that her reported injury was being pursued through solicitors and fell outside its complaint process. This matter, therefore required a decision by a court or insurer. As such, we will not investigate this matter under paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord that the situation was affecting her mental health. 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 on 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, her reports about the impact on her mental health is better dealt with via the court.
  2. In the resident’s communication with us she raised additional concerns about the landlord’s actions in relation to rent arrears. This matter did not form part of the resident’s complaint. We are unable to consider matters which have not exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. We have, therefore not considered her rent arrears concerns in this investigation.

Reports of delays to complete multiple repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 20 working days.
  2. The resident complained that she had multiple outstanding repairs to her home which the landlord had delayed in completing.
  3. The landlord’s records show that it raised repairs in January 2023 to re-grout tiles in the bathroom and secure the bathroom sink. The resident asked for a surveyor to visit to assess her bathroom as she felt it was unsafe. She refused work to refix the tiles as they would not match the existing ones. The landlord attended a pre-arranged appointment on 14 February 2023 to assess the bathroom but was unable to gain access and left a calling card. This demonstrates that it responded to the resident’s concerns.
  4. The landlord’s records show that it raised repairs for a glazer in April 2023. The resident was unhappy with the appointment and asked it to do the repair sooner as she was a victim of domestic abuse. It advised that it had booked the appointment for the earliest time possible. During the call she was abusive to the call handler who terminated the call. It is not known whether it offered any support to her given her situation or whether it took any other actions in relation to security measures.
  5. On 28 April 2023 the resident said that its contractor had wanted to put unmatching tiles all over her bathroom. She again asked for a surveyor to visit to assess her bathroom. She made a report on 5 May 2023 that a kitchen drawer front had broken and all doors in her home were broken. The same day, the landlord’s contractor reported that they had attended to repair the drawer front, but she became verbally abusive and made threats to harm them. The contractor left the property without completing the work.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 May 2023 to say she had an issue with her ex-partner. She said the police attended the day before. She wanted to speak with someone as he worked for its contractor. She wanted to raise a complaint to the contractor as he had turned up in uniform and discuss the issues. There was no evidence provided to show how the landlord responded to the resident’s report or whether it discussed this with its contractor. It also did not demonstrate whether it considered making any referrals to external agencies, such as adult social care, or signposting to victim support.
  7. The landlord’s records of 17 May 2023 referred to insulation being removed during DIY improvements by the resident. It said that there were mitigating factors which had resulted in the “improver” going to prison.
  8. The landlord’s records show that it liaised with the contractor to clarify appointments and work. This included doors to be fitted, boxing in, removing a radiator and skirting boards. It said that work would be scheduled but other work had been booked for 2 June 2023. The resident was unhappy with the date and said the boxing needed to be done sooner. The resident became abusive during a call and hung up.
  9. On 2, 19 and 21 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the repairs. She complained about the number of appointments and time taken to complete her repairs. She said her kitchen was not useable and her children had no privacy as it had not hung the doors.
  10. The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended on 28 June 2023 but had to leave the property. There was a further incident reported on 7 July 2023 where its contractors had been working at a neighbouring property and again had to leave due to the resident’s verbal abuse toward them.
  11. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that its surveyor attended on 17 May 2023. It understood that a section of rendering had been removed from the rear of the property by her former partner to create an extension. The surveyor had raised repairs, and its contractor attended to complete the work, but she was unhappy with the quality. Since May it was aware there had been several occasions where its contractors had left site due to her behaviour. It agreed that a site visit would take place to do a property inspection and reminded her to raise any new repairs to itself rather than its contractor.
  12. The landlord’s response was reasonable and demonstrated that it had attempted to complete the repairs. It was not responsible to complete some of the repairs which had been caused by DIY by the resident or her family. Thus, its agreement to complete them was reasonable under the circumstances. However, it did not demonstrate whether it had considered changing the contractor at this point given the resident’s situation.
  13. The landlord sent a tenancy breach letter to the resident on 10 July 2023. She had admitted swearing at its contractors and it reminded her of her tenancy obligations. It asked that she did not communicate with the contractor, but it had received a further complaint on 7 July 2023. It invited her to a meeting to discuss the incident on 24 July 2024 and said if the behaviour continued it would consider a court injunction. Its warning letter was appropriate given the detail and number of reported incidents.
  14. The landlord’s records show that it met with the resident on 24 July 2023. She denied that her behaviour had been unacceptable or that it had delayed the repairs. She said that the changing appointment dates was affecting her mental health. We appreciate that it was appropriate for it to address her behaviour, however, there was no evidence to suggest that it had considered signposting her to any support agencies to help with her mental health concerns. It also failed to show how it had considered her situation and that this may have been influencing her behaviour toward its contractor.
  15. On 28 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said the house was dangerous to live in. She also made contact on 2 August 2023 and said she was supposed to have a visit, but this had not happened. She wanted to raise additional repairs and said there were wires coming out of the walls in the kitchen. Its records show that it raised a job for a bedroom radiator with a different contractor, and while it could raise the additional repairs, its contractor would not attend.
  16. On 10 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say its contractor had arrived to do electric works, but they were only there to do loose sockets and not move the bathroom light switch. She would not let them in unless they did both jobs and refused access. Her refusal to allow access would have contributed to the delays in it completing repairs.
  17. The landlord’s records show that there was an incident on 22 August 2023. It said the resident was talking to its operatives in a “degrading” manner and using abusive language. Its contractors were advised to leave the property. A further behaviour warning was sent on 25 August 2023 which acknowledged the breakdown of the relationship with its contractor. It agreed to rectify damage caused by her former partner without any recharge and remained committed to resolving her repairs. However, it set out restrictions for 3 months which included allowing access, refraining from being abusive, and arranging for a family member to be present if she felt it may impact her mental health. It said she could appeal its decision if she wished to do so. Its records show that she asked to appeal its decision on 30 August 2023.
  18. The landlord’s records of 6 September 2023 referred to its agreed list of works and that it would be attending on 11 and 12 September to complete them. It required the resident’s agreement so not to repeat previous incidents of arguments with operatives when they turned up to do the work. This was a reasonable approach to take to mitigate any further incidents.
  19. The landlord wrote to the resident the following day setting out the agreed list of repairs and asked her to confirm that she still wanted it to attend. She responded the same day and said she wanted a plan in place of when it would start and complete her repairs. She also raised concerns about her stair carpet and damage to her wooden floors which she asserted was due to its contractors. It responded the following day and said it would attend on Monday to carry out the agreed work and it would take a number of days to complete. It would deal with the issue of her carpets as part of its stage 2 response.
  20. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord narrated the events of May 2023 regarding the resident’s behaviour during visits and its operatives having to leave the property. It said it completed the bathroom work on 31 May 2023 and 12 June 2023. Its operatives attended on 19 June 2023 to complete work, but she advised she was unhappy as there were outstanding works and raised her complaint.
  21. The landlord said that various works had been completed on 24 June 2023 but as she had purchased her own internal doors, it discovered that they did not fit the opening. Its contractors tried to find ones that fitted for her. During its attempt to fit the doors it noted that the frames had been damaged by her, and its contractor again had to leave site. They did, however complete the skirting and floorboards along with the boxing in. They attended to regrout the tiles, but she refused the work and wanted all of the tiles to be replaced. But reports from the surveyor advised this was not necessary.
  22. In its response the landlord said that on 27 June 2023 the resident said the 4 internal doors had not been rehung, the skirting boards in the bathroom were incomplete, the tiles still needed regrouting and wash basin securing. She also said a bedroom needed plastering. There was a further incident on 30 June 2023 where she was abusive to its contractor. She had also attended their offices and refused to leave. This resulted in the police being called and her being asked to leave the premises. It mentioned the incident of 10 July 2023 where she was abusive to an operative working on a neighbouring property. It arranged to visit in the hopes it could progress the work and completed a full inspection on 8 August 2023.
  23. The landlord said that the resident asked for additional work and its surveyor attended on 17 August 2023. Work started on 21 August and on 22 August 2023 its operative had to leave the property due to her behaviour and the work was paused. It wrote with a list of the agreed works and said it would complete these on 11 and 12 September 2023. It also agreed to the additional requested work to conclude her complaint. The work was completed on 6 October 2023 due to the additional work it had to complete. It also, as a gesture of good will, included decoration. Whilst on site completing work, she started stripping wallpaper and asked for these walls to be replastered which it did.
  24. The landlord did not disagree that at the time of her stage 2 complaint there were outstanding repairs. However, it had made every effort to complete her repairs but had been unsuccessful. This was due to several occasions where her behaviour led to its contractors having to leave site and her ongoing dissatisfaction. It arranged for a different contractor to complete the work following its property inspection. There were further delays because of her behaviour toward them.
  25. This demonstrates that the landlord did change its contractor to try and resolve the matter. However, the resident’s behaviour remained the same toward them.
  26. The landlord’s response was comprehensive and provided a timeline of events. This showed that it had made multiple attempts to complete the repairs. It would have been challenging for it to complete the repairs within its repairs policy timescales due to its contractors having to leave site and her refusal to allow repairs to take place. It also completed additional repairs which were not part of the resident’s original complaint and it redecorated which it was not obliged to do.
  27. The landlord sent a further response on 18 April 2024, this related to the alleged damage to her carpet by its contractors. It acknowledged that it had failed to respond to this matter in its stage 2 response. It said there was no evidence that the contractor damaged her carpet. It had seen images of the workmanship which showed they had attempted to keep areas covered and clean. It also agreed that it had failed to address her request for an appeal about the warning letters and subsequent restrictions. It said its alert had now been removed as it was added for 3 months, however, it would consider her appeal. It offered £50 compensation to apologise for its communication failings and lack of appeal.
  28. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failures and respond, despite these matters not being part of the resident’s original complaint. Its offer to review her appeal and compensation offer was reasonable.
  29. There were some failings in the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s personal situation, and it could have shown more empathy in relation to this. However, the evidence shows that it made efforts to complete many repairs which were not its responsibility. It also did change the contractors. Given her behaviour towards its contractors, along with her refusal to allow access in some instances, it would have been challenging for it to complete repairs within its policy timescales. We find that it went beyond its obligations to complete repairs. In its explanation to us, it said that its ASB team were aware of her personal situation and were managing this. Ultimately, we conclude that the landlord adequately remedied its earlier shortcomings in considering her situation.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. Its policy states that where complaints require an extension of time to respond, this should be agreed with the resident and be no more than 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. The reasons for extension must be clearly explained to the resident. This is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code timescales.
  2. The date of the resident’s complaint is not known; however, the landlord acknowledged it on 22 June 2023 and said it would respond by 6 July 2023. It extended its response time on 10 July 2023 and responded at stage 1 on 12 July 2023, 14 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This was in line with its complaint policy timescales.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 August 2023. She said that at a meeting on 24 July 2023, she asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. Its records confirm this, and it should therefore have escalated her complaint from this date. However, it did not acknowledge her escalation request until 25 August 2023. She asked for her complaint to be backdated but the landlord said it had been unclear as to the progression of her repairs and there had been a behaviour warning letter. It said it would provide its response by 25 September 2023. It did not provide its response until 12 October 2023.
  4. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for its failure to respond within timescale and offered £50 in shopping vouchers. Its apology and offer were reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance of £50 to £100. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a personal injury is outside our jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays to complete multiple repairs.
    2. The associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay to the resident £50 offered in its stage 2 response and £50 offered in its letter of 18 April 2024, if not already paid. It should allow her the choice of money or vouchers.
  2. The landlord should ensure that where it is extending timescales to respond to complaints that it agrees this with the resident and clearly communicates its reasons.
  3. The landlord should consider where it has challenging situations between resident’s and its contractors, and there are mitigating circumstances, how it can signpost residents for support or involve third parties to help resolve similar situations.