Vivid Housing Limited (202304369)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304369

Vivid Housing Limited

30 January 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 handling of the:
1. Defect works at the resident’s property relating to:
  1. 2 draughty windows.
  2. The fence.
  3. The kitchen lights, socket, and extractor fan.
  4. Screws sticking out.
  5. Plasterwork in the bathroom.
  6. Flooring.
  7. A leaking tap and smell of damp, and mould on the carpet and walls.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house and is a shared ownership leaseholder. The landlord is the freeholder. The resident has a lease dated 23 June 2021. The landlord’s records noted that the resident’s son has vulnerabilities relating to his vision and mental health. The resident told the Ombudsman that he also has a “lung condition” and has referred to 2 people in the household having autism, although the landlord’s records do not note this.
As the resident’s property was a new build it was subject to a defects period, which ran from March 2021 to March 2022. This period is where a developer retains responsibility for any defects caused by faulty workmanship, materials, or design. During 2021, the resident reported the following issues:
1. marks to the front door.
2. the back door not locking.
3. a leaking shower and a dripping noise through the ceiling.
4. a blanking cap attached to the dishwasher not detaching, and a fault with the plug behind the dishwasher.
5. an issue with an outside light and a landing light flickering.
6. squeaky floorboards in a bedroom by the bathroom.
7. cracked bathroom tiles and pipework making a noise.
8. painted over spotlight ceiling lights and a flickering kitchen spotlight.
9. a cracked windowpane.
10. a non-matching light switch fitting.
11. a dripping sink.
12. a missing kitchen socket.
13. an external electrical box with a missing cover.
14. an uneven concrete fence post.
15. a faulty shower door.
Between 2021 to 16 March 2022, the landlord’s repair records show that it completed repair jobs for the above issues, but on 14 April 2022 the resident reported to the landlord:
1. 2 draughty windows.
2. fence panels that had come away.
3. a large screw sticking out of the lounge ceiling.
4. kitchen lights that had started flickering again.
On 13 July 2022, the landlord raised the following jobs to:
1. “attend to vents on bottom return corner”.
2. refix the fence.
3. attend to “2no nail pops” and a “nail pop” on the first-floor landing ceiling.
4. check the socket below the kitchen extractor fan and that the fan was working correctly on humidistat setting.
5. attend to flickering kitchen lights.
6. replace a water–damaged bath panel.
7. “investigate, check and leave the landing window sitting tight into frames and investigate, check and leave the top floor window tight into its frame”.
The resident complained on 24 January 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 February 2023 and said:
1. it had found a gap between its last communication with the resident and update from its contractor, and it had not continued to chase the jobs.
2. it had escalated the matter to its head of construction and support and arranged for its contractor to make contact with the resident.
3. it offered the resident £150 for her time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience, agreed to chase the outstanding jobs more regularly, and update the resident.
The resident escalated the complaint on 10 February 2023, adding on 28 February 2023 that she wished to challenge the contractor’s account of what it told her neighbour. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 March 2023 and said:
1. it accepted its defect contractor had not communicated properly and was unaware of the challenges the resident faced.
2. it acknowledged that it had not checked with the resident more regularly about how outstanding jobs were progressing to see if it needed to take any action.
3. it overturned the stage 1 outcome and upheld the resident’s complaint, as it was satisfied that jobs were outstanding, and the resident had been available.
4. it agreed to work with its contractor and independent surveyor to complete the outstanding jobs and would arrange an inspection to agree on the outstanding defects and agree on the best way to resolve these, including arranging a full electrical test.
5. it agreed to chase the outstanding jobs more frequently and update the resident.
6. it offered the resident £500 total compensation, made up of £400 for the delays in resolving the defects and £100 for the communication failures.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 22 March 2023 and noted the issue of “croaking” flooring. The surveyor also noted that there was “blown plaster” in the bathroom. The resident reported to the landlord a leaking kitchen tap on 6 April 2023, and, on 11 April 2023, the landlord noted the resident said her kitchen fan extractor needed replacement, and the landlord needed to do minor decoration. The landlord offered the resident an additional £300 compensation on 29 January 2024 and increased this to £500 on 11 March 2024. It told the resident that it aimed to complete the work to her flooring within 2 weeks of 2 April 2024.
The resident complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord completed the work to the flooring in April 2024, but her windows are still draughty, her kitchen lights still flicker, and the landlord did not replace the kitchen extractor fan or do any decoration work. It told us it has resolved all the jobs and paid her £650 compensation for the delays in dealing with the work and its communication during the complaint process. The resident told us the landlord offered a further £500 for the disturbance caused by the flooring work and another £220.58 for replacement blinds following completion of the complaint process. This amounted to £1,370.58, which the resident has confirmed she received but is dissatisfied with and reported a damp smell and damp mould on the carpet and wall. She would like an apology, additional compensation, and for it to address the jobs she said are outstanding, also referring to it making statements to neighbours that negatively affected her reputation.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the investigation

The resident has reported defect works since 2021. While the Ombudsman acknowledges this, we may not consider matters that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable time. This would normally be within 12 months of matters arising. This is under paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of defect reports until 24 January 2023. Therefore, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of these following the resident’s most recent reports in the 12 months leading up to the complaint. The reports of defects and repairs referred to in the background and made prior to January 2022 are for context only.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states we may not consider complaints made before having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
This is because the Ombudsman expects residents to allow landlords the opportunity to respond to complaints before referring matters to us. We note that the resident reported to the landlord a leaking kitchen tap and told us she has a “constant damp smell” and black mould on her carpet and walls. While this is a concern, there is no evidence to show this is connected to the defect works, that the resident either raised or pursued these issues as a formal complaint, or that these issues exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. These issues are therefore outside of the scope of this investigation under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. The Ombudsman has included an order for the landlord to consider this as the resident has raised this with our service and damp and mould can affect health.
The resident told us that she felt that the landlord had “defamed her character”. The Ombudsman considers that it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy for this through the courts. This is in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, which states that we may not consider such complaints, and because courts are set up to deal with defamation claims, which are specialist legal claims. A court can issue a legally binding decision and can award damages for defamation. The Ombudsman can award compensation to reflect any distress and inconvenience caused by a landlord’s failures affecting the resident in respect of an application for, or occupation of, property and not reputation.

The landlord’s handling of defects

The resident’s property was a new build and, on 24 January 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that its contractor was dealing with all defects that were outstanding at the end of the defect period (March 2022).The landlord’s defect process provided that the developer was responsible for these repairs, usually within 28 working days of the resident reporting the defect, if the defect was a routine repair, meaning non-emergency. As the landlord had accepted responsibility for outstanding defects, it was reasonable for the defect process to apply to it. On 14 April 2022, the resident reported that she had 2 draughty windows, fence panels that had come off, flickering kitchen lights, and a screw coming out of the ceiling.
The landlord logged 2 jobs to investigate and make the windows tight to the frame on 13 July 2022. The landlord’s repair records show it completed a job in relation to the landing window on 30 January 2023. The evidence shows the landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 22 March 2023 and identified a draught in the top floor bedroom window, which it said it resolved on 13 August 2023. The Ombudsman considers that this was unreasonable, as it did not complete this within 28 working days, and there is no evidence to explain satisfactorily the delay.
The resident has told us that the windows are still draughty, and that the landlord has said that this was because of the way the developer built the window frames. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s account, the surveyor’s inspection report of 22 March 2023 does not support this and states the there is nothing that would suggest the developer had built the windows incorrectly. The report stated that the landlord only found one window that was potentially draughty, and that the issue was with the blinds the resident had fitted, which did not fit the inside of the windows.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that shows that the landlord was either responsible for the blinds under the resident’s lease, or that there was a defect with the windows. The landlord paid the resident £220.58 for replacement blinds. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns reasonable in the absence of any evidence to show that the windows were defective, or that the landlord agreed to replace them.
The resident reported that some of her fence panels were missing, and her kitchen lights were flickering again, on 14 April 2022. The landlord’s records state that it resolved the damaged fence and flickering lights by 6 April 2023. This was almost 12 months after the resident reported the issue, which was unreasonable, as the landlord did not complete this job within 28 working days, and there is no evidence to satisfactorily explain the delay. While the landlord noted that the resident may have contributed to the problems with the kitchen lights by instructing an electrician on a private basis, there is no evidence to support this.
The resident has told us that the kitchen lights still flicker. While the Ombudsman notes that the landlord completed an electrical test on 10 August 2023, it has not provided a copy of this, or details of what work it completed on 6 April 2023 to resolve the flickering kitchen lights. In the absence of these items, the Ombudsman cannot be satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve this issue. Therefore, we have made an order in relation to the kitchen lights for it to share its electrical test certificate and inspect and repair the lights.
The landlord logged a job on 13 July 2022 relating to a sticking out screw that the resident reported on 14 April 2022. The landlord’s repair records show that the landlord completed work on this on 13 August 2023. This was unreasonable, as the landlord did not complete this repair within 28 working days, and there is no explanation for the delay.
The landlord logged the following jobs on 13 July 2022, and the dates in brackets note when the landlord completed them:
1. attended to a water damaged bath panel (6 April 2023).
2. attended to “2no nail pops” in the living room (13 August 2023).
3. checked the socket below the kitchen extractor fan and that the fan was working on the humidistat setting (13 August 2023).
The landlord did not complete these jobs within 28 working days and the landlord has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delays. While the landlord’s contractor told it on 27 January 2023 that the delays in it completing the jobs were because the resident limited their access to her property and was unresponsive, the landlord has not provided any evidence to support this. Indeed, it accepted in its stage 2 response that the resident had made herself reasonably available. Therefore, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord did not complete these jobs within a reasonable time because it has not provided a satisfactory explanation or evidence to support the reasons its contractor gave for the delays.
The landlord also noted in its inspection of 22 March 2023 that there was some damaged plasterwork in the bathroom. It is unclear when the resident first reported this, however the evidence shows that the landlord was aware of this on 1 December 2022. The landlord accepted responsibility for this. The resident told us that the landlord completed this work in April 2024. The Ombudsman is unable to establish if or when the landlord completed the work to the plaster based on the available evidence.
The landlord’s repair records, as noted above, indicate that the landlord raised a job for the kitchen extractor fan on 13 July 2022, which it completed on 13 August 2023. The landlord noted, following its surveyor’s inspection on 22 March 2023, that an electrical report should resolve this. While the landlord’s repair records state that it completed an electrical test on 10 August 2023, the landlord has not provided any report or evidence to support that it satisfactorily resolved this. In contrast, the resident has said that the landlord has not replaced this. The evidence the landlord provided showed that its contractor agreed to replace the kitchen fan. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made an order in relation to the kitchen fan for the landlord to do so.
The landlord noted on 22 March 2023 that there was “croaking” flooring and accepted on 14 June 2023 that this amounted to a defect. The resident agreed with the landlord’s proposal to make a claim on the building warranty on 13 September 2023, provided the landlord looked at this within a reasonable time. While the landlord submitted a warranty claim on 19 September 2023, it has provided evidence that the warranty provider refused the claim on 29 September 2023. Despite this, the landlord did not inform the resident of this until 18 January 2024 and started work during the week commencing 2 April 2024.
The Ombudsman understands from the resident and landlord that this work completed in April 2024 but considers that there was an unreasonable delay in this. This is because it told the resident on 21 July 2023 that it would start work on the flooring if the building warranty provider refused the claim and yet it did not start the work until April 2024, some 6 months after the warranty provider refused the claim.
The resident told us that the delays in dealing with the flooring affected her sleep. Neither the resident nor landlord have provided any noise recording for the flooring. Therefore, the Ombudsman cannot assess this, but we have accepted that the issues will have caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. The resident said that the landlord agreed to reimburse her outgoings like noise cancelling headphones. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord agreed this but notes that the landlord was aware on 13 March 2023 that the resident had two microwaves damaged. While the resident’s contents insurance would usually cover damage to a resident’s personal belongings, there was uncertainty over whether this alleged damage was caused by an electrical fault.
Therefore, if the landlord is unable to provide a satisfactory electrical certificate for 2023 that rules out any electrical faults, the Ombudsman considers the landlord ought to consider offering the resident discretionary compensation for this damage. This is on the condition that the resident confirms that she has not already made a claim and on providing evidence of the microwaves. The Ombudsman has made an order to this effect.

Summary and conclusion

The landlord’s above handling of the reported defects to the 2 draughty windows, sticking out screws, fence, kitchen socket, extractor fan and lights, “croaking” flooring, and bath panel was unreasonable. These failures caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and the delays and uncertainties are likely to have made her husband and son more anxious on account of their autism.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident said that the landlord paid her £1,370.58 compensation. While the landlord only paid £650 of this during the complaint procedure, it paid an additional £720.58 following its final response, £500 was for the delays in work following its stage 2 response, and the balance was for replacement blinds. While it was positive the landlord paid additional compensation there was a significant delay in dealing with the “croaking” flooring. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord ought to have offered the resident more than £500 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. Therefore, we have made an order of £200 additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in this range for failures that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy provided that the landlord needed to deal with a complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process if it was unable to resolve the resident’s dissatisfaction within one working day. The landlord had 10 working days to respond to complaints at stage 1 and 20 working days to respond to complaints at stage 2 under its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident complained on 24 January 2023 and the landlord responded on 7 February 2023. The resident escalated the complaint on 10 February 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 14 March 2023. It took the landlord 10 working days to respond at stage 1, which was in line with its policy and the Code, and 22 working days to respond at stage 2 against a target of 20 working days. There was a short delay of dealing with the complaint at stage 2 but there was no evidence that this caused any detriment to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of defect works at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. arrange for a written apology to be sent to the resident from a director for the delays identified in the report.
2. share the electrical test certificate it completed on 10 August 2023 with the resident and the Ombudsman and arrange for an electrician to inspect the resident’s kitchen lights to establish the cause of any flickering lights. The landlord must provide the resident and us with a copy of its findings and complete any repairs it is responsible for in line with its repair policy. If the landlord is not responsible for any electrical faults, it must provide the resident and us with an explanation with evidence.
3. inspect and replace the kitchen extractor fan if it finds any defect with its operation, confirming its findings to the resident and the Ombudsman.
4. consider paying the resident discretionary compensation for the damage to or the loss of 2 microwaves, if it is unable to provide a satisfactory electrical test certificate for 2023 that rules out any electrical faults. This is also on condition of receiving confirmation from the resident that she has not made an insurance claim and on evidence of the microwaves.
5. pay the resident directly £200 to reflect the level of distress and inconvenience caused to her by the delays in resolving the flooring and the uncertainty over the kitchen lights and extractor fan.
6. arrange a damp and mould inspection with the resident to see if it is responsible for any repairs that have caused this. The landlord should provide the resident with a copy of this report within 5 working days of the inspection, which the landlord should conduct in line with its policies.
7. review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to the application of its defect process to ensure that its failures in the resident’s case do not occur again in the future.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of the determination.