Cobalt Housing Limited (202410694)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410694

Cobalt Housing Limited

28 November 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

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Approving her application on a mutual exchange website.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 24 February 2020. The property is a 2 bedroom mid terrace house.
3. The resident’s local authority operates an online choice-based lettings scheme. The website also offers a mutual exchange function. Residents wishing to exchange can register for this and advertise their property on the website. Their landlord must approve their application before it will appear on the website.
4. The landlord says that the resident completed an application for the mutual exchange function on 17 August 2022. On 11 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask why her application had not been approved yet. On 12 September 2023, the landlord responded advising the resident that it had approved now her application.
5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 7 November 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time taken by the landlord to approve her mutual exchange application. She said she had sent several chasers about this to which it had not responded. The resident said the landlord was aware that she was “at risk and in fear” due to living in a “hostile ASB environment” and it had delayed her in seeking a move. She said that nobody from its ASB team had been in contact with her, despite being aware of the circumstances she was living in.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 23 November 2023. It:
   1. Apologised that there had been a delay in approving the resident’s application for the mutual exchange function.
   2. Said that this was due to a “breakdown of communications between teams”.
   3. Awarded her £30 compensation for its “failure in service delivery”.
   4. Said its ASB team had arranged meetings to discuss the resident’s ASB reports with her on 14 and 22 November 2023. However, the resident had not attended either meeting.
7. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 27 November 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of compensation the landlord had offered and said it had not provided a ‘remedy’ for its failure to approve her application in a timely manner. She also expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had included elements of ASB in its complaint response. She said this was not part of her original complaint and she felt the landlord should have raised it as a separate complaint. The resident listed multiple concerns about the landlord’s ASB service and asked it to respond to these.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 January 2024. It:
   1. “Further compensated” the resident with £75 of vouchers for the delay in approving her application.
   2. Apologised that the resident felt the delay had put her at a disadvantage in securing a suitable move.
   3. Advised that it had completed training with its team responsible for administering the website to prevent future failings of this kind.
   4. Said it remained committed to supporting the resident with ASB but needed to discuss her reports with her. It provided her with contact details to arrange an appointment to do this.
9. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 April 2024. She said she did not accept its offer of a £75 voucher as she did not wish to receive vouchers and found the offer “insulting”. The resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s ASB service and accused the landlord of discriminating against her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

10. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. Paragraph 42 of the Scheme outlines complaint matters which the Ombudsman may not consider.
11. Paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”.
12. On 3 August 2023, the resident issued proceedings against the landlord through the county court for alleged discrimination. In the particulars of claim for these proceedings, the resident referred to the landlord’s handling of ASB reported by her. The landlord advised this service that, as of the date of this report, these proceedings are still ongoing.
13. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s contention that the particulars of claim for the proceedings have changed since her initial application to court. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the resident has the opportunity to raise the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB as part of her ongoing proceedings against it. Accordingly, the Ombudsman rules this element of the complaint outside of our jurisdiction.

Mutual exchange application

14. The landlord has said that the resident completed her application for the mutual exchange function on 17 August 2022. Its stage 1 complaint response stated that due to a “breakdown in communication between teams” it delayed in approving the application until the resident brought the matter to its attention on 11 September 2023.
15. In her original complaint, the resident said that she had sent several chasers to the landlord about approving her application. However, this service has seen no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord about the matter prior to her message of 11 September 2023. The landlord’s failure to approve her application can therefore be considered a single incident, although it spanned a lengthy time period.
16. The resident has also stated that the landlord had barred her from contacting it in 2022, which prevented her from raising the matter with it. Correspondence from the landlord to the resident dated 13 May 2022 shows that it enforced contact restrictions on her under its ‘unacceptable behaviour policy’ at some point prior to that date. However, the restrictions in place did not prevent her from raising new matters with the landlord or contacting its contact centre. A further landlord letter dated 23 December 2022 says that it removed the restrictions in “September 2022”. There is therefore no evidence that the landlord prevented the resident from raising this matter with it at an earlier stage.
17. After the resident brought her application to the landlord’s attention on 11 September 2023, it approved this the next day and contacted her to confirm it had done so. This was an appropriately prompt response.
18. The landlord would be expected to have appropriate oversight of a function of this nature, which required its input in order for a resident’s application to proceed. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised that it had undertaken staff training to prevent repeats of this failing. It has also advised this Service that “this area of work is now closely monitored” to avoid future delays. Taking learning from complaints in this manner is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
19. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £30 compensation for the delay in approving her application. This amount was below the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for instances of service failure – which suggests minimum redress of £50. At stage 2, the landlord increased its offer with a further £75 of vouchers. This brought its total offer to a value of £105. This is above the £50 maximum the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to award for a single instance of service failure. It is also above the maximum redress for service failure of £100 recommended by the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
20. In summary, there is no evidence that the landlord’s failure to approve the resident’s application was brought to its attention prior to 11 September 2023. Once the resident did make the landlord aware, it acted swiftly to resolve the situation. During its complaints process the landlord admitted its failure, took steps to improve its services and made a reasonable offer of compensation to the resident. Due to this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 42.e. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
22. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of approving the resident’s application on a mutual exchange website.

Recommendations

23. The Ombudsman recommends that, if the resident has not yet accepted the landlord’s offer of £75 of vouchers, the landlord offers her £75 compensation as an alternative to this.