Vivid Housing Limited (202315915)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315915

Vivid Housing Limited

18 March 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 communication around its repair responsibilities.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder through a shared ownership scheme, they have held the lease since 2014. The property is a 3-bedroomed house. The landlord does not hold a record of the resident having any vulnerabilities.
4. On 4 July 2023, the resident told the landlord there was a leak in the roof of the property. The landlord said that the resident was responsible for repairing the leak. The resident questioned this as they had received a letter in 2022 which said the landlord would conduct maintenance and repairs to the roof. The landlord told the resident this letter had been sent to them in error.
5. On 12 July 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. In their complaint, the resident said:
   1. The landlord had sent a letter in 2022 which said it was responsible for roof repairs.
   2. This letter incorrectly referred to the resident as ‘Mr’.
   3. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord saying the letter had been sent in error.
   4. The resident asked if the landlord could consider paying for the repairs with the sinking fund linked to their service charge.
6. In its stage 1 complaint response on 31 July 2023, the landlord said:  
   1. It had incorrectly sent the resident a letter about it entering into a consultation phase for planned roof repairs.
   2. When producing the letter, the landlord had selected the wrong criteria, meaning the letter was sent to all residents in the area rather than the relevant residents.
   3. The content of the resident’s lease meant that they were responsible for the roof repairs.
   4. The sinking fund the resident paid into via their service charge was designed to cover major works.
   5. The landlord provided details about the resident’s service charges and the property’s building insurance.
   6. It admitted there had been a service failure as it had incorrectly sent the resident a letter which was not relevant to their property. It apologised and offered the resident £50 compensation.
7. On 14 August 2023, the resident escalated their complaint as they did not feel the compensation offered by the landlord was appropriate.
8. In its stage 2 complaint response on 26 September 2023, the landlord said: 
   1. Its stage 1 response had covered all elements of the resident’s complaint appropriately.
   2. The compensation offered at stage 1 was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
9. On 26 September 2023, the resident told this Service that they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses as they felt it needed to be held responsible for the confusion they had caused.

Assessment and findings

Communication around repair responsibilities

10. The landlord’s complaints policy says when it has made mistakes it can offer residents discretionary compensation. When determining if compensation is appropriate, it will consider the affect an incident has had on the resident, the nature of the mistake, and the effort the resident has taken to bring the matter to its attention. For mistakes which are assessed as having a low impact on a resident the landlord will offer compensation of £50 or less.
11. The resident’s lease says it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the property in good condition and to complete repairs which are not covered under the property’s building insurance. An annex to the lease says that even though the leaseholder does not own the house outright, they have the responsibility of a full owner. Meaning the leaseholder is responsible for costs required to keep the property in good repair.
12. It is not disputed that on 20 July 2022, the resident received a letter which contained a formal notification that the landlord was proposing to enter into a long-term agreement with a contractor. The letter said that the contractor would be conducting repairs to pitched roofs, flat roofs, and walkways. The letter also said that the landlord was responsible for the maintenance and repairs to these areas, but the resident would contribute to any repairs via their service charge. The landlord later told the resident this letter had been sent to them in error.
13. The letter contained responses to frequently asked questions (FAQs). Information in the FAQs referred to a felted roof, a block, and residents on the top floor needing to provide access. The content of the letter suggested it was in reference to planned repairs to the roof and communal areas of a block of flats. The resident lived in a semi-detached house, so the subject matter of the letter was not relevant to the resident’s property.
14. On 4 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report a leak from the roof. The landlord told the resident that they were responsible for this repair. On 11 July 2023, the resident sent the landlord the 20 July 2022 letter and noted the letter referred to the landlord’s responsibility to maintain the roof.
15. On 12 July 2023, the landlord told the resident that the 20 July 2022 letter had been sent in error. The landlord apologised for its mistake, which was appropriate. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of their lease and highlighted areas of the document which said the resident was responsible for repairs to the property. The landlord’s advice was reasonable when considering the content of the lease.
16. It was inappropriate for the landlord to send the 20 July 2022 letter to the resident in error. The contents of the letter later caused the resident confusion when they identified issues with the roof. However, while it caused confusion, the harm caused to the resident in this instance was limited as they had not committed to any action based on its content.
17. The resident complained to the landlord as they felt its communication about the roof repairs had been confusing. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the 20 July 2022 letter had been sent in error as the person producing the letter did not select the correct criteria. This meant the letter was sent to all residents, instead of relevant residents. It was appropriate that the landlord provided a clear explanation about the error at the earliest opportunity.
18. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for this error. The compensation offered was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, given the level of impact caused.
19. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord also provided details around the resident’s service charge, the buildings insurance, and the property’s National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty. This was appropriate and it allowed the resident to explore opportunities to fund or make a claim for the roofing issues.
20. The landlord’s service failure was limited to sending the resident a letter which was not relevant to their property and using the wrong prefix to address the resident. This failure would have caused the resident some distress and confusion, but it would not have caused them serious or sustained harm. When considering this against the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation, the Ombudsman finds the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

21. The landlord operates a complaints policy which outlines the timescales in which it will respond to a complaint. The landlord commits to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the resident’s complaint. If the resident wishes for their complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint, the landlord will acknowledge this request within 5 days and provide its response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
22. The landlord’s compensation policy outlines the compensation it can offer for complaints handling issues. Under this policy, the landlord can offer compensation of £50 to £100 when there are delays in it providing complaint responses.
23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 14 July 2023 and provided its stage 1 response 12 working days later, on 31 July 2023. This response was not in line with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
24. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 26 September 2023. This was 32 days after it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. This response was also not in line with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. Sometimes complaint handling delays can be reasonable, but when this occurs the Ombudsman expects delays to be fully explained to the resident. This would have caused the resident frustration.
25. During the complaints process, the resident asked the landlord to correspond with them via email only. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to accurately record a resident’s communication preferences and make any reasonable adjustments or otherwise explain why this would not be possible. However, following this request, there was one occasion where the landlord called the resident, which was inappropriate. There was another occasion where the landlord suggested it might be easier to discuss the resident’s concerns over the phone instead of via email. On this occasion, this was reasonable as the landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication preference, but suggested they might receive better service if they had a conversation.
26. The Ombudsman has determined that service failure occurred as:
    1. The landlord did not provide its complaint responses in line with its complaints policy.
    2. The landlord did not acknowledge that its complaint responses were late, and it did not offer the resident any redress for its complaints handling.
    3. The landlord called the resident when they had asked to correspond via email only.
27. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £100 for its complaint handling failures. This amount is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance as well as the landlord’s compensation policy.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in respect of its communication about repairs responsibilities.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £100 to the resident for its complaint handling failures.
31. The landlord is to provide this service with evidence of compliance with this order within 4 weeks of the determination date.

Recommendation

32. The determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation previously offered of £50 is paid to the resident if the landlord has not yet paid this amount.