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

Cobalt Housing Limited (202319550)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319550

Cobalt Housing Limited

25 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 reports of:
    1. Rat droppings in the loft.
    2. Issues with the roof and guttering and subsequent damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The tenancy started on 24 April 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom house and she lives there with her 3 children. The resident and 2 of her children have a skin condition.
  2. On 25 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to ask if there had been a recent loft inspection. She said the loft was full of rat droppings and it was likely there were rodents nesting in there. On 9 May she let the landlord know that she had not moved in, and would not move in until the rat issue was resolved due to her family’s health issues.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 6 June 2023. She was unhappy that she was unable to move in due to rat droppings and said she currently had 2 tenancies running. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 27 June in which it said it was working with contractors to get matters resolved. It said there was no evidence of current pest activity so the property was habitable. It credited £100 to her rent account as a goodwill gesture and asked her to contact it to set up a payment plan for the remaining rent arrears.
  4. The complaint was escalated on 3 July 2023. On 2 August the landlord contacted her to extend the deadline to 9 August. It sent its stage 2 response on 9 August 2023, in which it said that the rat issue did not prevent her from moving in, as the loft was not a habitable space. It acknowledged that works took longer than expected and it credited a further £50 to her rent account.
  5. On 4 September 2023 the resident raised a further complaint about damp and mould in the third bedroom. She said she was unable to use this bedroom due to this. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 26 September in which it said it had completed work to a drainpipe on 9 May. A Surveyor attended on 14 September and raised works for the roof, which had a target date of 24 October. The Surveyor said that the damp would not stop them being able to use the bedroom.
  6. On 2 November 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She said the roof was still not repaired and she had not been given a date for work to start. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 29 January 2024 in which it acknowledged roof repairs were outstanding. It said it had credited £500 to her rent account as a goodwill gesture. Once the roof was repaired and the bedroom wall had dried out it said it would arrange for the bedroom to be redecorated at no cost to her. It said repairs would be completed by 20 February, including repairs to the guttering.
  7. The resident contacted us on 5 February 2024 as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s responses and asked us to investigate. She wanted the landlord to clear the rent arrears built up during the period where she delayed moving in.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised further repairs issues with the landlord that were not raised as part of her complaint about the roof and guttering. We have not seen any evidence that these issues have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. If the resident remains unhappy with outstanding repairs, other than those related to the roof and guttering issues, she should raise these directly with the landlord.
  2. The resident has raised concerns about her family’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Rat droppings

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it aims to carry out urgent repairs within 3 working days and routine repairs within 10 working days. Urgent repairs are those which could cause further damage if not dealt with urgently. Routine repairs are those which can wait without causing major inconvenience to the resident.
  2. The resident’s tenancy started on 24 April 2023. Prior to that a void check was completed on 15 February. The void checklist indicates that a loft clearance was completed, but does not give any further detail about what this entailed. However, if the loft was inspected at this time, we would expect it to have noticed there were rat droppings present and taken action before re-letting the property.
  3. When the resident first went to check the property upon receiving the keys, she said that the loft hatch was missing and it had been left inside the loft. On 25 April 2023 she reported to the landlord that there were a lot of droppings, and likely rodents nesting in the loft. The landlord attended the same day and found no indication of a current pest infestation but said it would arrange for pest control to visit, which was a reasonable response.
  4. The landlord’s records state that an appointment was attempted on 6 May 2023, but access could not be gained. The notes do not say whether this appointment had been pre-arranged with the resident. It booked an appointment for 9 May, however the resident was not available and the appointment was rearranged for 6 June. The resident said she was struggling to move in due to the contamination in the loft. She advised the landlord she had extended the notice period at her previous flat. At this time she told the landlord that she and one of her children suffer with respiratory problems.
  5. The landlord spoke to the resident on 18 May 2023 when she again said that she had not moved in. The landlord told her that the ongoing issues were not things that would prevent her from moving into the property. On 23 May she emailed the landlord saying she was waiting for a date for the house to be fumigated. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records that fumigation was a recommended course of action. However, there is also no evidence that the landlord took this opportunity to clarify that fumigation was not necessary, which it should have done.
  6. On 24 May 2023 the resident called the landlord to again say she could not move in until the loft was sorted. She told it she and 2 of her children have a rare skin condition which would be made worse by contact with chemicals. She said that she was currently paying rent for 2 properties as a result.
  7. On 6 June 2023 pest control visited and it was confirmed there was no current pest activity. That day, the landlord raised a job to remove any rat droppings, remove old insulation and disinfect the loft. In its stage 1 response of 27 June the landlord confirmed contractors attended on 23 June, however there was a concern about potential asbestos. It said this had now been resolved and it was working with the contractors to get them booked in to complete the works. It credited her rent account with £100 to recognise failings in its communication with her.
  8. The landlord’s contact records show that it did not update the contractor that there was no asbestos present until 14 July 2023. A job was booked in for 17 July, however the contractor was unable to replace the insulation as it had only been booked to remove the damaged insulation. It is not clear from the landlord’s records exactly when the insulation was replaced. However, the resident confirmed on 31 July that she would be moving in that day as work had been completed.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 10 August 2023 it said that it did not consider the loft to be a habitable space and there was no evidence of previous or active pest activity in the rest of the property. It said that this issue did not prevent the resident from moving in, as the work could have been completed whilst she was living in the property. It said that at no point did it tell the resident that the property was uninhabitable. It did acknowledge that work took longer than expected and credited an additional £50 to her rent account to recognise this.
  10. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of rat droppings in the loft. While the landlord did recognise some failings during its internal complaints process, it did not recognise all its failings. In the first instance, we would have expected the landlord to have identified the issue and taken action during the void period, avoiding the need for the resident to have to report the issue.
  11. There were also delays to getting the work completed once it was reported by the resident. It took 6 weeks for the landlord to arrange for pest control to visit and its records do not make it clear why an earlier appointment could not be arranged. It then caused further delay when it took more than 3 weeks to communicate to the contractor that asbestos was not present. It caused another delay by not raising the job fully, meaning the contractor had to revisit to install new insulation. The work took around 3 months to complete which was not in line with its repairs policy and represented an unreasonable delay.
  12. The resident did not move in during this period as she was concerned for her and her family’s health. We appreciate her concerns, and acknowledge that knowing the loft space was contaminated with rat droppings would be unpleasant. However, the landlord did visit on the day she reported the issue and found no evidence of a current infestation. What the landlord said about the loft not being a habitable space was reasonable, and the loft was separated from the rest of the property by a loft hatch, which she confirmed was located and put in place.
  13. The resident said she was concerned about the property needing to be fumigated, given her family’s health conditions. However, we have seen no evidence of fumigation being mentioned as a potential treatment, and this would not be a usual treatment for rats. We cannot say that the resident could not have moved into the property at the start of the tenancy. Therefore, we cannot say the landlord should remove any of her rent arrears built up as a result of this issue.
  14. The landlord credited £150 to the resident’s account during its internal complaints. However, this did not go far enough to recognise its failings. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in resolving this issue. This is in addition to the amount it has already credited to the resident’s rent account.

Roof

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will:
    1. Ensure its staff are trained to enable them to effectively diagnose the root cause of damp and mould to ensure the recommendation is effective to mitigate it from returning.
    2. When carry out a property inspection this will consist of a thorough examination of the property both internally and externally within 5 working days. Following an inspection repairs will be given one of the following categories:
      1. Severe – 24 hours to attend and make safe.
      2. Moderate – 10 working days.
      3. Slight – 28 working days.
    3. Keep residents informed of the timetable of works, including explaining if any changes to the programme of work are needed.
    4. To provide assurance on the quality and safety of work it will carry out post inspections of all works associated with damp and mould.
  2. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
  3. When the resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2023 to report the rat droppings in the loft she also said that there were roof tiles that needed replacing as there was daylight coming through. She also said that there was new plaster in a bedroom that was not drying.
  4. On 9 May 2023 the landlord attended and found the next door neighbour’s rainwater pipe disconnected, which was diverting roof rainwater to her bedroom wall. Work was completed to unblock and reconnect a rainwater pipe. This inspection was not carried out in line with damp and mould policy timescale of 5 working days, and we have seen no evidence it followed up to ensure the work had resolved the internal issue.
  5. On 14 August 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in a bedroom. On 22 August the landlord raised a job for a damp survey. On 4 September the resident raised a new complaint about the damp not being resolved as she said she was unable to use that bedroom. In its stage 1 response of 26 September the landlord said that a survey had been carried out on 14 September, although a copy of the report has not been provided. The landlord said that works had been raised for the roof and that an inspection and repairs would be completed by 24 October 2023. This timeframe was not in line with its repairs policy of 10 working days and it did not provide any reason for the delay, which was not appropriate.
  6. The landlord said that the Surveyor had said that the damp in the bedroom would not prevent the room being used. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 28 September 2023 to say that her doctor had told them that she should not use the room due to her and her children’s skin condition. A Surveyor is not a medical expert and it was reasonable for the resident to rely on her specialist’s advice rather than that of the Surveyor. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment or seek further advice in light of what the resident’s doctor said, but we have seen no evidence it did this, which was not appropriate.
  7. On 2 November 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint as the repairs had not been carried out. No evidence has been provided that the landlord updated the resident in line with its damp and mould policy with the reason it was unable to meet the timescale it set of 24 October 2023.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 29 January 2024, in which it acknowledged there had been a delay in carrying out repairs. It said it had credited £500 towards her rent arrears to recognise this. It said that once roof repairs had been carried out it would arrange for the bedroom to be redecorated at no cost to the resident. It said the roof repairs, along with guttering work, would be completed by 20 February. Whilst it did acknowledge failings at this time, it did not consider the impact on the resident’s specific circumstances, so this was not a fair response.
  9. Work was carried out on 10 February 2024. The resident contacted the landlord that day to say that the roof contractors had left a mess and the landlord said it would arrange for them to come back and clean this up, which was reasonable. On 22 February the resident told the landlord that the guttering was still overflowing and the issue with the bedroom wall remained unresolved.
  10. A contractor visited on 22 May 2024 and said that work to the gutters was not done on the original job. It confirmed that the gutters were leaking and a new job was raised on 28 May. We have seen no evidence that the work was completed. The landlord’s contact notes say that on 5 June it agreed to carry out an inspection and an appointment was made for 20 June. It has not provided us with a copy of a report. In a recent telephone call with the resident she told us that the damp and mould issue in the bedroom remains unresolved. She said that she has been sleeping on the sofa in the living room since moving into the property as her doctor has said it would be unsafe for them to use the bedroom due to their health conditions.
  11. The Ombudsman considers there to have been severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the roof and guttering and subsequent damp and mould. The landlord took too long to take action, and when it did, it failed to follow up to ensure that work had resolved the damp problem. It made promises in both its stage 1 and stage 2 response that it failed to keep, and it did not keep the resident updated when it did not meet these timescales. Its damp and mould policy sets out clear commitments in terms of timescales, communication and follow up inspections which if failed to adhere to.
  12. The resident made it clear early on that her and her children have both asthma and a skin condition. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered these vulnerabilities at all during the duration of the issue, meaning that it did not meet its statutory duty under the HHSRS. Its failure to consider the vulnerabilities and take appropriate actions caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  13. When considering the combination of failings relating to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, a greater compensation amount has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the impact of her being unable to have enjoyment of a bedroom for a prolonged period of time. When considering the landlord’s repeated failings and the impact this would have had, a rental based compensation of 25% has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. The landlord has confirmed the weekly rent was £105.46 during the time of the resident’s complaint. 25% of this is £26.37.
  14. When deciding an appropriate timeframe for compensation, the resident first told the landlord she was unable to use the bedroom on 4 September 2023 and it still has not taken meaningful action to resolve the damp issue. As such, 77 weeks between 4 September 2023 and today’s date has been decided as a reasonable timeframe in these circumstances. £26.37 multiplied by 77 weeks equals £2,031 (rounded up) in rental compensation to acknowledge the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home.
  15. It is important to explain that the above calculation is not exact and as such, the Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. When considering the significant failings mentioned and the serious impact they had on the resident an additional compensation amount of £500 has been decided as appropriate to acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. The awards are in addition to the £500 the landlord has already credited to the resident’s rent account.

Complaint handling

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of receipt of a complaint. At stage 2 it says it will send its response within 20 working days of the escalation request.
  2. The resident raised her first complaint on 6 June 2023 and the landlord acknowledge this on 9 June, saying it aimed to respond by 23 June. It sent its stage 1 response on 27 June, slightly outside its policy timescale, and the deadline it had given the resident in its acknowledgement.
  3. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident requested escalation, however the landlord acknowledged the request on 3 July 2023 and set out a deadline of 31 July. On 2 August, when it had already failed to meet this deadline, it let the resident know that it needed to extend the deadline to 9 August. It sent its stage 2 response on 10 August. While it is noted that it did update the resident, it should have updated her before the deadline had already passed, and it did not meet the extended deadline.
  4. The resident raised the second complaint on 4 September 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 12 September. It set a deadline of 26 September and it did send its stage 1 response on this date, however this was outside of its policy timescale.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 2 November 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 7 November, setting a deadline of 5 December. It did not send its stage 2 response until 29 January 2024, almost 3 months later, and it did not update the resident in the meantime, which was not appropriate.
  6. The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It did not meet its policy timescale at either stage of both complaints. In particular, it took too long to respond at stage 2 of the second complaint and did not explain why. Its response did not acknowledge the significant delay.
  7. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of rat droppings in the loft
    2. Severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the roof and guttering and subsequent damp and mould.
    3. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report the landlord to carry out the following actions and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
    1. Pay the resident total compensation of £2,981, broken down as follows:
      1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings relating to the rat droppings in the loft.
      2. £2,031 rental based compensation for the loss of enjoyment of the home due to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
      3. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings relating to the handling of the damp and mould.
      4. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
      5. These amounts are in addition to the amounts the landlord has already credited to the resident’s rent account. The compensation should be paid in full to the resident and should not be used to offset any outstanding rent arrears.
    2. Arrange for its Chief Executive to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
    3. Carry out a risk assessment and identify what actions it needs to take to reduce risk to the resident and her family while repairs are carried out.
  2. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to carry out the following actions:
    1. Arrange an inspection of the property to assess its internal and external condition in relation to damp and mould. An appropriately qualified specialist should conduct the inspection(s). It should confirm in writing to both the resident and this Service:
      1. The work required to the property to address the internal and external issues, its planned approach to work and a schedule of work including timeframes for completion. This should include the internal decoration it promised the resident in its stage 2 response.
      2. The measures it will put in place to monitor if the work it completes resolves the damp and mould issues.