Vivid Housing Limited (202341328)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341328

Vivid Housing Limited

7 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since December 2021. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 1-bed maisonette. The landlord is aware of the resident’s health concerns which include memory loss, mental, physical, and respiratory conditions.
The resident reported damp in her property on 6 February 2023. The landlord surveyed the property on 22 March 2023 and a contractor inspected the cavity wall insulation (CWI) on 30 March 2023. CWI works were arranged for September 2023; however, in November 2023, the contractor informed the landlord of access problems with the privately owned neighbouring property that was stopping the works from proceeding. In November 2023 the contractor also suggested the installation of an extractor fan in the kitchen.
A contractor surveyed the property on 19 December 2023 prior to the fan installation which was arranged for 28 May 2024. The landlord told the resident it would speak to the contractor about the CWI as the resident had said the contractor told her the fan had to be installed before the CWI work.
The resident contacted this Service on 5 March 2024 with her complaint about the landlord’s handling of the extractor fan. The landlord was asked to log the complaint and respond to the resident by 22 March 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 March 2024. In summary it said:
1. The resident was unhappy with the lack of updates regarding the installation of the extractor fan and the CWI, and its proposal to insulate the part of the wall that it could not access due the neighbour’s conservatory.
2. A contractor had surveyed the property prior to the installation of the fan and had asked it to arrange the appointment directly with the resident.
3. It was sorry the contractor had not arranged the appointment and confirmed it would be installed on 28 May 2024.
4. The contractor could not insulate one part of the wall due to the issues with the neighbouring property, but it was confident the work proposed would eliminate the damp, mould, and condensation and reduce heat loss.
5. The CWI would not be done until the fan had been installed.
6. There had been a service failure because of the contractor not arranging the fan installation which it acknowledged it should have monitored. It would take learning from the failure identified.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 22 April 2024. She remained dissatisfied with the outstanding work and stated she wanted the full wall insulated.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 24 May 2024, in which it said:
1. The stage 1 response had not explained the steps it would take to insulate the wall that was shared with the neighbouring property.
2. It had not explained how it would manage the work so it could limit the impact on the resident’s home and her wellbeing.
3. It had raised an inspection for 23 May 2024 to confirm if the wall needed thermoboarding and if it did, it would discuss how it would support the resident while the work was completed.
4. The extractor fan would be installed on 28 May 2024 and the CWI work would be completed over 30 and 31 May 2024.
5. It had tried to contact the resident to discuss her support needs and would continue to follow this up.
6. It had taken learning from the complaint and offered £50 for the lack of detail in its stage 1 complaint response which it would credit to the resident’s rent account due to arrears.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 1 August 2024. She confirmed her complaint was about:
1. The outstanding installation of the extractor fan and CWI work.
2. The amount of compensation offered.
As a resolution, the resident asked for the landlord to complete the repairs and to offer more compensation for the stress caused.
After the final complaint response, there is evidence of the continued efforts and attempts by the landlord (and its contractors) to arrange the work. This involved discussions around the support available while the work was ongoing. The landlord has advised us of the following:
1. The resident confirmed she did not want to continue with the thermoboarding due to the upheaval it would cause.
2. Due to the resident’s availability for providing access for the works, the fan will be installed on 25 March 2025 and the CWI will be completed 1 and 3 April 2025.
3. It would complete a thermal camera check on the walls on 27 March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on her health. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter best suited to an insurance claim or court. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she should seek legal advice.
It is acknowledged that a lot of evidence has been provided concerning the ongoing efforts to complete the outstanding work following the final complaint response date. While we may refer to this for context, it is not within our role to make an assessment on this as the landlord has not had the opportunity to provide a response via the complaint process. Further, the resident has referred to issues that were not raised within the complaint outlined above. For clarity, we can only assess the issues that were raised in this complaint. If the resident is experiencing issues with other matters, she should contact the landlord directly to raise a new complaint.

Response to the resident’s reports of repairs

The landlord’s repair policy states it will attend and make safe emergency repairs within 24 hours, complete urgent repairs within 7 calendar days, and address routine repairs within 28 days.
As outlined in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs complaints, published in March 2019, we expect landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, we expect landlords to be proactive in:
1. Communicating the cause of delays to residents.
2. Explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
3. Identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
When the resident raised an issue with damp in her home on 6 February 2023, the landlord’s damp and mould inspection on 22 March 2023 confirmed:
1. The trickle vents were closed and there was “a bit of condensation” on the windows.
2. There was a slight smell of damp in gas cupboard, but all tests were dry with no indication of damp, but the CWI needed checking.
The landlord’s response to the initial report of damp and the recommendations from the report was appropriate and in line with policy. The CWI inspection took place on or around 18 April 2023 and the contractor sent the landlord a quote; however, the landlord did not approve the quote until 1 June 2023. This was unreasonable and caused a delay in the work. By August 2023 there was no evidence of any progress or communication with the resident to explain the delay. This was unreasonable and not in line with expectations from our spotlight report.
The CWI work was arranged for 12 and 13 September 2023; however, the landlord told the neighbour the wrong dates and when the contractor arrived, access was denied. The initial provision of the wrong dates by the landlord caused avoidable delays; however, the landlord appropriately apologised, advised the neighbour a new date would be arranged, and asked the contractor to provide new dates to both residents.
On 15 November 2023 the contractor told the landlord it could not do the work as the neighbour’s conservatory was too close and it could not drill the wall. It also advised an extractor fan was needed in the kitchen. The landlord placed the order for the fan on 17 November 2023. This was an appropriate response.
With no evidence of any progress or communication, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update on the work in November and December 2023. She said the issue with the neighbouring property should have been identified during the initial CWI inspection, and that the contractor had told her the fan had to be installed before the CWI could be done. There is no evidence the landlord confirmed this with the contractor. This was unreasonable and the evidence demonstrates the confusion regarding the order of the work contributed to further delays.
The landlord raised a further inspection to address how it could resolve the CWI while considering the access issues with the neighbouring property. This was reasonable but it did not explain its approach to the resident. This was a communication failure by the landlord and led to her spending unnecessary time and effort chasing the landlord.
Following a survey on 19 December 2023 in preparation of the fan installation, the landlord approved the quote, and on 1 February 2024 the contractor confirmed it would book the appointment with the resident. There is no evidence this happened, and this was the main issue raised by the resident in her complaint on 5 March 2024. The landlord is responsible for the completion of all repairs; therefore, it failed to monitor this closer. This would have caused the resident frustration, particularly as she had said the contractor had said this work had to be done first and was therefore impacting the progress with the CWI.
The landlord’s inspection on 15 January 2024 confirmed there was no damp in the property, but there was condensation present. There is no evidence the landlord confirmed the outcome of the inspection with the resident or how it intended to progress. This was a communication failure. It was evident from the resident’s contact with the landlord that she was frustrated and confused as to how the landlord was going to address the outstanding work. Knowing the resident’s health concerns, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to provide a clear plan of action. Further, as the landlord identified there was condensation in the property, it could have provided the resident with information on how to manage this. There is no evidence it did this.
When the resident raised a complaint, it was clear she still believed the fan had to be fitted first. While the landlord said it would speak to the contractor, there is no evidence it did, and in its stage 1 complaint response on 18 March 2024, it repeated that the CWI would be done after the fan had been installed on 28 May 2024. There is no evidence the landlord liaised with the contractors about the order of the works until May 2024, despite the resident raising this 6 months earlier. This was unreasonable and caused considerable avoidable delays. It added to the confusion and did little to reassure the resident that it had correctly investigated her complaint.
On 17 April 2024 the resident asked for written confirmation of the work planned and said all the walls needed to be done due to her health concerns. Due to the lack of communication as to what work would be completed, the resident would not allow the contractor to proceed. The contractor arranged for the CWI to be done 30 and 31 May 2024, after the fan was install on 28 May 2024.
On 23 April 2024 the contractor told the resident it was going to progress with the CWI using a different option so it could address the shared wall. It confirmed this would involve drilling through the bedroom wall to extract and refill the insulation. While this provided an alternative option, there is no evidence the landlord discussed this proposal with the resident in advance, or that it took her health concerns into consideration. This was unreasonable and it is evident from the resident’s contact that this caused increased distress and frustration.
The landlord’s evidence shows it tried to contact the resident, albeit after the work had been confirmed by the contractor. After leaving a voicemail, on 26 April 2024 the landlord spoke to the resident and advised it was to conduct an inspection with a view of thermoboarding the wall rather than drilling the wall. This was a positive proactive step by the landlord as it demonstrated it was looking for alternative ways of providing a resolution while reducing the impact on the resident.
On 13 May 2024 the resident called the landlord to cancel the thermoboarding inspection due to her going away. She said the contractor had changed the date for the fan, so the date for the CWI also had to be changed. The resident told the landlord all the changes in appointments were making her “stressed, tired, and confused.” The landlord subsequently put the work on hold.
The landlord recognised its lack of clarity regarding the work in its final complaint response when it apologised to the resident. It said if thermoboarding was needed, it would offer support in moving furniture, protecting carpets and belongings, and would complete any decorating that was needed because of the work. The landlord recognised its own failure in considering how all the work would impact the resident and how it should have reassured her much earlier. This was reasonable.
It is noted that the landlord’s lack of clarity and communication with the resident caused her confusion, distress, frustration, and inconvenience in the time she spent contacting the landlord for updates. However, the inspection reports do not indicate the property was suffering from any damp or mould therefore there was no immediate risk or impact on the resident.
While the delays in communication and the failures identified in this report would usually warrant a finding of maladministration, this is balanced by the attempts made by the landlord (and its contractors) to arrange the work. These mitigating steps included:
1. The continued contact with the resident to discuss the support it could offer while the work was completed.
2. Several attempts to appoint the work.
3. Asking the contractor to pull the date forward for the installation of the fan and adding the work to the cancellation list.
4. Using a different contractor to complete the fan installation sooner.
5. The offer to pay for the resident’s lunch on the days the work was completed.
6. The offer of support regarding the moving of furniture, protection of belongings and furnishings, and the redecoration.
7. The offer of a hotel stay for 2 nights to allow the completion of the work.
8. The offer to put the resident’s cat in a cattery while the work was completed.
Considering the information above, we find service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs. In line with our remedies guidance whereby the landlord has not offered appropriate remedy for the distress and inconvenience to the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 to reflect the distress and inconvenience its poor communication over an extended period has caused.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy which states it will aim to acknowledge receipt of a complaint or escalation request within 5-working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days of the complaint being escalated. If at any stage it requires more time, this will be communicated to the resident.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
1. Issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request.
2. Decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be explained to the resident.
3. Track outstanding actions and action them promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
The resident contacted us regarding the issues she was experiencing with the landlord. As there was no evidence that the resident had raised a complaint with the landlord, she was advised to do so. After further contact on 2 March 2024, we asked the landlord to log a complaint and provide a response by 22 March 2024.
The complaint was logged by the landlord on 5 March 2024, acknowledged with the resident on 7 March 2024, and responded to at stage 1 of the complaint process on 18 March 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord identified a service failure with the contractor’s communication and the impact on the resident. As the landlord is responsible for the completion of the repairs, it confirmed the learning that it had taken to address this and confirmed it would monitor open jobs to ensure residents are made aware of appointment dates. This was reasonable and in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged receipt on 29 April 2024 and informed the resident it would respond by 25 May 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with its policy.
There is evidence the landlord called the resident on 22 May 2024 to discuss the outcome of the complaint. It could not contact her and so it provided its final complaint response on 23 May 2024. This was in line with policy timescales.
The landlord acknowledged that its initial response had not provided enough detail to answer the resident’s queries. While it provided the appointment dates for the outstanding repairs, there is evidence that confirms the resident had cancelled these appointments prior to the response date. This was not highlighted in its response; therefore, the information it provided was inaccurate. Further, the landlord did not demonstrate a commitment to monitor the repairs through to completion. This was a service failure and was not in line with the Code.
In summary, while there were failures with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, these were acknowledged in the final response. In line with our remedies guidance, the £50 compensation offered was what we would expect to see for a minor failure that was acknowledged by the landlord. As such, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the residents reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Write a letter of apology to the resident which addresses the failures highlighted in this report and the learning taken to prevent recurrence.
2. Pay the resident a total of £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in progressing the initial repairs and the communication failures.
3. Provide an update regarding the further works agreed with the resident.

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 that was offered in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis this compensation is paid.