Vivid Housing Limited (202317241)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317241

Vivid Housing Limited

16 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 replacement windows.

Background

2. The resident is a shared–ownership leaseholder. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a block. The resident has lived there since 2005. The landlord is a housing association.
3. In 2021 the resident was told by the landlord that the windows in the property would be replaced as part of planned works to update the wooden frames to UPVC. She received a notice of intention as per the Section 20 process.
4. This did not progress and in July and August 2022 the resident made numerous requests for window replacement as hers were in disrepair. She sent photographs and raised concerns about the condition of the window frames.
5. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 13 September 2022 about the delay in window replacement, poor communication and the fact another resident had already had their windows replaced. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 7 October 2022 it said it would be shortly issuing a Section 20 notice for window replacement. It recognised 5 occasions when it had failed to respond to the resident (either at all or within its target timescales) and offered £150 compensation (£30 for each occasion). This was later increased to £180.
6. The complaint was escalated on 5 October 2023 as the issue remained unresolved. The resident wanted compensation for her time, effort and stress. In its stage 2 response of 10 November 2023 the landlord offered a further £510 compensation for its lack of communication and unresponsiveness.
7. The resident referred her complaint to us due to the ongoing delay in the landlord replacing her windows, which she said was stressful and upsetting. The windows were replaced in March 2024.

Assessment and findings

8. The evidence of communication provided to us between the parties began in July 2022. The resident queried why she had received a Section 20 notice in 2021 regarding window replacement but it never progressed. The resident also wanted to know why another resident in the block had already had their windows repaired. The landlord told her it was about to enter an agreement with a contractor for 5 years, during which time necessary repairs would be completed. It said a Section 20 would be issued to describe the work and costs.
9. The landlord did not address the resident’s specific concerns. It was understandable the resident was confused as she had received a Section 20 notice in 2021 for the same issue. The landlord simply told her it was doing the same process, without explanation.
10. On 4 August 2022 the resident sent photographs of her windows, showing the wooden frames on the outside were rotten and there were gaps between the frames and the wall. She said she wanted the windows replaced before winter. There was no response from the landlord, which was unacceptable and a failure in service.
11. The stage 1 response repeated the message that the landlord would be shortly issuing a Section 20 notice for window replacement. This was not particularly helpful as the resident had been told the same 3 months earlier. The response was provided slightly over the landlord’s target timescale. The compensation of £150 offered at this stage was reasonable and in accordance with the landlord’s policy.
12. Despite providing her bank details, the resident had to chase this compensation a month later, which was unacceptable. The landlord agreed to her request for an additional £30, making the compensation £180, in recognition of this. While this was positive, the fact the landlord’s poor communication continued was concerning.
13. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 12 March 2023. The landlord responded on 14 March 2023 stating there was no update regarding replacing the windows. This was unhelpful and inappropriate given the time the resident had been seeking this information. The resident again chased the landlord for an update on 6 April 2023. She said the need for window replacement was urgent as there was mould in her children’s bedroom as a result of the disrepair. The landlord replied to say letters about replacement would be posted out the following week. However it should have arranged an inspection as a priority given the resident’s report of mould.
14. Another resident had already had their windows replaced as there was individual need, outside of the planned process. It was understandable the resident felt ignored and frustrated that the landlord did not consider the same for her situation. The fact the planned works did not seem to be progressing made this worse. The landlord’s poor communication increased the resident’s frustration and this was unfair.
15. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 April, 3 May and 23 May 2023 to explain the stages of the Section 20 process. While this contact was welcome, it did not give any dates or estimated timescales for works. Therefore, it offered little practical benefit to the resident.
16. On 25 June 2023 the resident told the landlord she wanted assurance that the process was progressing. She said her windows were in a “terrible state” and she could fit her finger between the window frame and outer wall. She also said her child had an autoimmune condition. The landlord replied to assure her the matter was progressing. Given the resident had raised a potentially urgent repair issue with added vulnerabilities, the landlord should have taken further action at this point. It failed to do so and this made the resident feel that it was not taking her concerns seriously.
17. Throughout September 2023 there was communication between the parties. The resident queried the stages of the Section 20 process, such as the quotes for works and the need for planning permission. The landlord was more responsive during this period, showing an improvement in communication. The resident felt she should not have to pay for replacement windows given she had been waiting for so long. The landlord correctly explained that payment would be taken from the sinking fund, which the resident had contributed to via service charge as per the lease.
18. Given the resident was clearly unhappy with the landlord’s response at stage 1, the complaint should have been escalated to stage 2 earlier than October 2023. At this time, the resident said the condition of the windows was causing damp and mould and she reiterated that she had a vulnerable child. This should again have prompted action from the landlord, such as an inspection, rather than simply waiting for the planned works to proceed. This was another failure.
19. The stage 2 response was issued slightly over the landlord’s target of 20 working days. It recognised it should have considered whether the resident’s windows needed urgent attention when she raised concerns.
20. The issue of damp and mould was not included in the initial complaint but the landlord referenced it in the stage 2 response. It said its website advised that shared owners needed to get an independent damp and mould report. If this found the landlord was responsible for the cause, i.e. structurally, the landlord would complete a survey and complete repairs. The landlord told the resident to arrange an independent report.
21. This information was not entirely accurate. The landlord’s website states: “If you’re a leaseholder or shared owner within a structure that we are responsible for, we will deal with any root cause repairs that we’re responsible for. If the root cause of the issue isn’t obvious we would expect the leaseholder or shared owner to have their own survey done to establish the root cause.”
22. The root cause of the issue was obvious. The resident had highlighted it was due to the windows and had sent photographs of black mould spots along the window sealant. The landlord should have responded to this. It failed to adhere to its damp and mould policy which states this level of mould should be addressed within 14 days and the required repairs raised.
23. At stage 2 the landlord offered the resident an additional £510 compensation. This was made up of:
    1. £60 for not responding to call back requests on 2 occasions.
    2. £150 for complaint handling failure, in not escalating the complaint sooner.
    3. £50 for the resident not being informed about why the Section 20 process in 2021 did not go ahead.
    4. £50 for not arranging inspection of the resident’s windows.
    5. £200 for the inconvenience and time taken to progress the issue.
24. This offer of £510, in addition to the £180 offered at stage 1, demonstrated that the landlord did ultimately take the complaint seriously, recognised elements of service failure and sought to put things right, in line with our dispute resolution principles.
25. In identifying whether there has been maladministration we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
26. Considering the full circumstances of the case, and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the total £690 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the window replacement and the associated distress and inconvenience caused. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £690 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure. 
27. The resident has stated she seeks reimbursement of the total cost of the windows as she contributed to the sinking fund from which it was paid. The cost was £2,456, which is not in line with the redress recommended for the level of failure identified in this report. Further, the payment for the windows was administered in accordance with the terms of the lease. Therefore, we have not made an order in that regard.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the window replacement.

Recommendations

29. The landlord is recommended to, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the total £690 compensation offered through its complaints process. The reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.