Vivid Housing Limited (202316347)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316347

Vivid Housing Limited

25 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.

amended

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Requests for other repairs.
3. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
4. Requests to be moved.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and she lives in a 2 bedroom flat in a block of 4 flats. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the block and the resident’s home.
The resident had reported damp and mould in her bathroom and bedroom from at least 2021 and had intended to pursue a disrepair claim in 2022. The evidence suggested that the resident had declined to give access for repairs on her solicitor’s advice but later changed her position when the disrepair claim did not proceed.
Following this, the landlord carried out repairs including:
1. Installing a positive input ventilation (PIV) system in July 2022 and treating the mould.
2. Replacing the bathroom extractor fan in July 2022. It attended in October 2022 to repair the fan.
3. Insulating an external wall in the bedroom in November 2022.
On 20 December 2022, the resident reported that mould had returned in the bathroom because an operative had broken the extractor fan during a previous mould treatment. The landlord raised an order for the fan to be repaired.
The resident complained about the damp and mould on 8 February 2023 saying:
1. Since the operative had broken her extractor fan, the landlord had fitted 3 replacement fans but none of them had worked properly.
2. Her daughter had skin problems due to the mould.
3. She was dissatisfied with work done to box in ventilation pipes in her kitchen.
After speaking with the resident on 10 February 2023, the landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 13 February 2023. It said the fan it had installed had been faulty. It had ordered a replacement and its contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment.
Between 28 February 2023 and 24 April 2023, the resident and landlord continued to communicate about the mould, the extractor fan and other repairs.
The landlord escalated the complaint on 22 May 2023 and included the matters of the resident’s other repair requests, her reports of ASB and her requests to move.
The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 20 June 2023 which said:
1. It had ordered a replacement extractor fan with her preferred contractor. The contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment. It had also treated the mould.
2. It had raised orders to complete work to the walls in her bedroom and bathroom and fit a glass shower screen. It included the appointment dates for each order.
3. It would contact her separately to discuss her moving options. The process for getting a management move on health grounds was to apply through her council.
4. It had opened an ASB case and would contact her about the issues with her neighbours.
5. It acknowledged its “poor” communication and failures in handling her repairs. It offered £600 compensation and £200 of decoration vouchers.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident continued to report mould and delays with repairs from 26 June 2023. She also continued to request a move and report issues with her neighbours.
The landlord issued the decoration vouchers on 27 June 2023 and paid the £600 compensation it had offered around 25 July 2023.
The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate on 14 August 2023. She said that the landlord had not resolved the damp and mould or completed all the agreed repairs. She wanted the landlord to move her and give compensation for the damage to her belongings.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman is only permitted to consider complaints which have completed the landlord’s complaint process. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why parts of a complaint will not be investigated.
The scope of this investigation includes the resident’s reports of mould from 20 December 2022 and her request for boxing in to be removed from her kitchen. This is because they were the subject of her complaint of 8 February 2023 which completed the landlord’s complaint process on 20 June 2023 and was brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of doing so.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of other repairs she requested, her reports of ASB and requests to move between 28 March 2023 and 19 June 2023. This is because the resident raised the matters during the landlord’s complaint process and it had included them in its final response.
We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s historical reports of damp and mould. This is because, while the resident had complained in February 2022, she had not completed the landlord’s complaint process or asked the Ombudsman to intervene. Further, we understand that the repairs done by the landlord had initially resolved the problem.
Similarly, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, and other repairs requested after 4 July 2023. While it appears that the damp and mould continued after this date and the resident requested further repairs, her later complaints did not complete the landlord’s process.
We have referred to the historical and post complaint process issues where necessary for context. We have also considered the current position in making our orders and recommendations.
The resident believes that the mould has affected her family’s health. The Ombudsman cannot make conclusions about any impact on health conditions. Allegations of damage to health are more appropriately addressed by the courts or by way of a personal injury claim against the landlord’s liability insurance.
The resident had claimed against the landlord’s insurance for damage caused to her belongings. She told us that the sum paid by the landlord’s insurer had not been sufficient to reimburse her losses. This is another matter which the Ombudsman cannot consider as we do not have jurisdiction over decisions made by insurance companies.
An outcome sought by the resident is for the landlord to move her. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide this outcome and we cannot order the landlord to move her.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord has a damp and mould procedure that explains how it will respond to reports it receives.
The landlord already had an active damp and mould case when the resident reported the mould had returned in her bathroom on 20 December 2022. The landlord’s initial response in raising an order for the extractor fan to be repaired was appropriate and in line with its procedure. The procedure said the landlord would order any immediately apparent repairs without the need for a further inspection.
The evidence suggested that the landlord attended but was unable to make a lasting repair. It installed a new fan on 28 February 2023 but the resident was not satisfied with the replacement. The landlord agreed to order another replacement by the resident’s preferred contractor. This suggests that the landlord wanted to resolve the issue to the resident’s satisfaction.
The landlord chased its contractor for the replacement extractor fan on 30 March 2023. This suggests that the landlord was actively monitoring the order up to this point and took appropriate action when had not been completed.
The landlord did a damp and mould inspection on 5 April 2023. Its report noted that no damp or mould was visible but the resident had reported condensation in the kitchen and bathroom.
The landlord raised an order for a different contractor to assess whether an extractor fan could be installed in the kitchen and to upgrade the fan in the bathroom. It was not clear why the landlord had ordered work to the bathroom fan given there was already an outstanding order with the resident’s preferred contractor to replace it.
The second contractor inspected on 25 April 2023 and again noted that no damp or mould was visible at the time. Its report said that there was no wall surface suitable for installing a fan in the kitchen and it was not feasible to install one in the window as the resident liked to keep her window open. As such it was reasonable that the landlord did not order any work relating to the kitchen ventilation at this point.
The second contractor gave a quote for upgrading the bathroom fan and the landlord raised an order for the work promptly. The second contractor installed a new fan on 12 May 2023 which was within the landlord’s policy timescale for such a repair.
The resident complained that the new fan was not “strong enough” on 16 May 23 and again asked the landlord for a fan to be fitted by her preferred contractor. She also said that the bathroom ceiling was mouldy and cracked and that she wanted her bedroom carpet replacing as it had been ruined by mould. The landlord replied that it would add the issues to her complaint for consideration.
Even though the second contractor had reported that no mould had been visible on 25 April 2023, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed the resident’s report that her ceiling was mouldy. The landlord could have arranged an inspection or asked the resident to send photographs. The landlord’s apparent lack of action was a service failure.
Through its complaints process, the landlord raised an order on 15 June 2023 for the mould on the bathroom ceiling to be treated. This was done 2 working days later on 19 June 2023. Given the lack of action since the resident’s last report of mould on 16 May 2023, it was appropriate that the landlord expedited the treatment.
The landlord had also exchanged emails about the bathroom fan with the resident’s preferred contractor on 15 June 2023. The contractor said it had not received the order the landlord had raised on 28 February 2023. The time taken for the landlord to discover this suggests that it had not been monitoring the order since it had chased the contractor on 30 March 2023.
The landlord then raised another order and the fan was replaced by the resident’s preferred contractor on 4 July 2023. While this was a few days later than the landlord’s policy timescale, it was reasonable because the landlord had given priority to the resident’s preference over the contractor it used.
The landlord’s complaint process addressed the damp and mould issues that the resident had complained about on 8 February 2023. It had given £150 compensation in recognition of its contractor not replacing the bathroom fan following its order of 28 February 2023. It also gave £150 for its failings in communicating with the resident. The Ombudsman considers that this was reasonable redress under the circumstances.
We note that the resident made further reports of mould since the events in this case. The landlord had inspected and ordered further repairs on each occasion. It installed an extractor fan in the kitchen in August 2024 and serviced the PIV system. It was due to replace the bathroom ceiling in October 2024.
The landlord should continue to actively monitor the situation and take appropriate steps if the mould returns.

The resident’s requests for other repairs

In her initial complaint of 8 February 2023, the resident had asked the landlord to remove the boxing in around a ventilation pipe in her kitchen. She was concerned that the wooden boxing could become mouldy.
The landlord had not addressed this part of her complaint in its stage 1 response of 13 February 2023. After the resident had chased it to respond to this point, the landlord had raised an order and the wooden boxing was removed on 5 April 2023.
As there was no apparent disrepair, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s compliance with the resident’s request was reasonable.
During the complaints process, the resident requested further repairs which the landlord included in her complaint.
On 28 March 2023, she had asked for a hole in the wall between her bathroom and toilet to be blocked. The hole had been left after an obsolete vent had had been removed.
The landlord had arranged an inspection after which it had raised an order for the repair work on 28 April 2023. The work was completed on 31 July 2023 which means it had taken the landlord 4 months from the date of the resident’s request and 3 months from the time of its inspection.
On 30 March 2023, the resident had told the landlord her kitchen unit handles were rusty and asked for them to be replaced. While the landlord had ordered the work promptly the following day, the work was not done on that order. It was not clear from the evidence seen why it had not been done.
The landlord had raised another order on 16 May 2023 after the resident had chased for an update. The handles were replaced on 19 July 2023 which means it had taken the landlord 4 months from the date of the resident’s request.
The landlord’s repair service standards said it would complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. The landlord would give a revised timescale if the work needed was complex and could not be done within that timescale.
The landlord did not meet the timescale within it service standard in respect of repairs to the bathroom wall and kitchen unit handles. We saw no evidence that it had told the resident it would take longer than its usual timescales.
The evidence showed it had not kept the resident adequately updated. Though it had given an update on 14 June 2023, it had not responded to her request for an update on 16 May 2023. This had caused the resident to have to chase for a response.
On 25 April 2023, the resident told the landlord that its contractor had dislodged the bathroom radiator during an inspection and it was hanging off the wall. We saw no evidence that the landlord responded. This was a failing as the landlord should have arranged an inspection or repair in line with its repairs policy.
The resident had chased the repair on 16 May 2023 and the landlord said it had added the matter to her complaint. However, it failed to address the matter in its stage 2 complaint response of 20 June 2023 and this meant that the repair was overlooked and not ordered until the resident reported it again in April 2024.
While we understand that the radiator was ultimately repaired, the landlord had failed to act on the resident’s initial reports. As such, it did not meet its obligations in respect of this repair.
On 9 May 2023, the resident’s MP had told the landlord that skirting board was missing in the bedroom following the wall being reinsulated and plastered. This would normally have been considered as follow on work from the wall repairs which the landlord’s service standard said it would complete within 10 days of the substantive repair.
However, on 16 May 2023, the resident asked the landlord to embed her heating pipes into the new wall. This would have returned the appearance of the wall to how it had been after the landlord had first insulated it in November 2022. Embedding the pipes was not a repair that the landlord was obliged to carry out and it was reasonable that the landlord said it would consider the matter as part of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s repair records show that it raised an order to embed the pipes on 28 June 2023 and did the work on 18 July 2023. The work to embed the pipes delayed the work to skim the wall and fit skirting board that the landlord had given in its stage 2 response. It also caused a new problem for the landlord as the resident was not satisfied that insulation removed during the work had not been replaced and that gaps had been left around the pipes.
The evidence suggested that it took until May 2024 for the landlord to fit the skirting board and fill the holes around the pipes. We saw no evidence that the landlord had replaced the insulation removed when the pipes were embedded.
The work to embed the pipes within the newly insulated wall was not a repair that the landlord was obliged to do. However, having agreed to do the work, the landlord should have completed all the work within a reasonable timescale.
It was inappropriate that the landlord took over 10 months to fully complete the work. The delays caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who was not able to redecorate and had to chase the landlord to act and give updates.
On 16 May 2023 the resident had told the landlord that it had promised a glass shower screen to stop water spilling onto her bathroom floor. We saw no earlier reference to this in the evidence so it is not clear who had told the resident this or when. The landlord raised an order for a shower screen to be fitted on 24 May 2023 which suggests it had agreed with the resident’s view that it had committed to providing one.
The landlord had confirmed its commitment to providing a glass shower screen in its stage 2 complaint response of 20 June 2023.
However, the landlord’s repair records showed that it had not fitted a shower screen when it had attended the job on 19 July 2023. Instead, it had lowered the rail for the existing shower curtain. The resident was not satisfied with this and said it had not resolved the problem of shower water spilling onto the floor.
The landlord had emailed the resident’s MP earlier on 30 June 2023 saying that the screen it intended to fit had been damaged during delivery. It said it could offer a shower curtain instead. We saw no evidence that the landlord had communicated its apparent change of position to the resident who continued to chase for an update on the shower screen she had been promised. Nor have we seen evidence that the landlord later provided a shower screen.
Providing a shower screen was not a repair that the landlord was obliged to do. However, having committed to doing so, the landlord should have honoured its commitment or at least explained to the resident why it had changed its mind. It was a service failure that the landlord did neither.
Overall, the evidence showed the landlord’s willingness to consider repair requests that were beyond its contractual repairing obligations. However, its consideration of them caused it to overlook other repairs which it was obliged to do.
The evidence also showed that the landlord failed to make timely decisions, to effectively co-ordinate repair work and to communicate adequately with the resident. This resulted in avoidable delays and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.
Through its complaint process the landlord had given £300 compensation for its service failings up to 20 June 2023 and £200 decoration vouchers. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be sufficient given the continued failings after the landlord’s complaint process had ended.

The resident’s reports of ASB

We understand that the resident’s neighbours are not the landlord’s tenants. The landlord’s ASB policy at the time said that it may not be able to take action if the person causing ASB was not its tenant. It said that, in such cases, the landlord would offer advice and guidance to those reporting the behaviour.
The resident had reported different issues relating to all 3 neighbours in the block from 26 April 2023. She had reported 1 neighbour throwing rubbish out of the window, 1 being noisy and a foul smell from the other neighbour’s flat. In line with its policy, the landlord should have given the resident advice on how she could try to resolve the issues.
However, we saw no evidence that the landlord had responded to her concerns at the time and this was a service failure.
The resident made a further report about the noise of a dog barking in a neighbour’s flat on 24 May 2023. She reported noise and the foul smell again on 14 June 2023. The landlord’s contact notes suggested it had spoken with the resident on 16 June 2023 but there were no details of what had been discussed. As such, it is not clear whether the landlord had given advice during the call.
On 15 June 2023, the resident had reported that a neighbour was drying washing in the communal hallway. The landlord had emailed the neighbour asking them not to do so again. The Ombudsman considers this was a reasonable response to the resident’s report. We also note that the report would not have been considered as ASB under the landlord’s policy even if the neighbour had been the landlord’s tenant.
The landlord had spoken with the resident on 19 June 2023 after including the matter of her ASB reports in her complaint. It had told her that the occupants of the other flats were not its tenants and she should report the noise issues and smell to the council.
The landlord had agreed to remind the other residents about acceptable use of the communal hallway and to do an inspection of the block. The landlord followed through with those commitments and the Ombudsman considers its response to be reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord acted in line with its ASB policy and responded reasonably to the resident’s reports from 15 June 2023. However, it has not demonstrated that it did so following the resident’s earlier reports from 26 April 2023 and this amounts to service failure.

The resident’s requests to be moved

We understand that the resident feels that her current home no longer meets her needs and that she has wanted to move for several years.
We also understand that landlords may not be able to offer rehousing to existing residents for a variety of reasons. When a resident asks to be rehoused, we expect landlords to give advice on the options available such as joining their council’s housing register and seeking a mutual exchange of tenancies. Where landlords have lettings or transfer policies and procedures, we expect the landlord to follow them.
From 15 May 2023 the resident had asked the landlord to move her because of the ongoing damp and mould, because she felt her home was too expensive and because she is overcrowded. The landlord had added the matter to her complaint on 16 May 2023 but we saw no evidence it had given advice on what her rehousing options were.
The landlord’s management moves procedure says that it may consider a management move where a resident can no longer afford to live in their current home. The resident had told the landlord in an email sent on 16 May 2023 that her home was unaffordable.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done an assessment to decide if the resident met its criteria to be considered for a management move on affordability grounds. We saw no evidence that the landlord had followed the pre-assessment steps in its procedure to decide if the resident qualified to apply for a management move.
While the resident may not have qualified for a management move, this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to manage her expectations.
During its complaint process, the landlord spoke with the resident on 15 June 2023. Its later stage 2 response said it had explained she would need to apply to the council for a move on health grounds. This advice was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s lettings policy and management moves procedure.
However, it made no reference to the resident’s affordability concerns. This could suggest that the landlord had not considered this reason for her wanting to move.
The stage 2 response had also said the landlord would contact her separately to discuss her rehousing options. We saw no evidence that the landlord did so at the time.
We do, however, note that the landlord spoke with the resident on 25 October 2023. It had confirmed the advice it had given about the options available and that the resident did not qualify for a management move due to the repair issues by email later the same day.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to move. This is because it took too long to give advice and manage her expectations.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy said it would respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. It said the landlord would acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
The landlord had given its stage 1 response of 13 February 2023 within 5 working days of receiving the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord had not fully amended its letter template and its response included text that was clearly intended to have been amended or deleted. For example, under the heading “investigation and findings” the response said, “explain what you have done to investigate such as visiting the property, checking the ASB case history, reviewing policies/procedures”.
The stage 1 response failed to acknowledge that the resident’s complaint was about the boxing in of the ventilation pipes as well as the damp and mould. Further, the landlord’s response did not say how the landlord had investigated the complaint or what its investigation had found. Nor did it say what it would do to put things right regarding the boxing in of the ventilation pipes.
This meant the landlord’s stage 1 response was not in line with its policy which said it would include explanations of those things.
Between 28 February 2023 and 15 May 2023, the resident had expressed dissatisfaction about various repair issues at least 12 times. For example, on 28 February 2023 she had said that the new fan fitted, following the landlord’s stage 1 response, was “no good” and that she was still waiting for its response regarding ventilation pipes. On 6 April 2023, she had emailed expressing dissatisfaction that there had been no progress in her fan being replaced.
The landlord should have considered each of her expressions of dissatisfaction and decided whether to escalate her existing complaint or log a new complaint if it was about a different matter. The landlord did act on some of her contacts. For example, it raised an order for the ventilation pipe boxing to be removed on 31 March 2023.
However, we saw no evidence that it had communicated with the resident to clarify whether the issues raised up to 6 April 2023 were being added to her existing complaint or would be dealt with as different complaints. Nor did we see evidence that the landlord had escalated the resident’s complaint at this point.
It was not clear exactly when the landlord had escalated the complaint. The resident’s MP had emailed it about the outstanding repair issues on 9 May 2023. The landlord’s reply had said it had had escalated her complaint but the version it sent to us was not dated so it was not clear when the landlord had sent it to the MP.
From 15 May 2023, the landlord’s complaint emails referred to the resident’s complaint being at stage 2. This suggests that the landlord had escalated her complaint by then but it should have done so sooner.
It acknowledged that it had accepted her complaint at stage 2 on 22 May 2023 and gave its stage 2 response of 20 June 2023 within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
The stage 2 response addressed the issues the resident had initially complained about as well as most of the other issues she had raised during the complaint process. However, while the landlord confirmed it had raised orders to skim the new wall and fit new skirting board, it did not specifically address the resident’s request for the heating pipes to be embedded in the new wall. It was a failing that the landlord did not confirm its position.
Similarly, the landlord’s response did not address the matter of the radiator that had been dislodged by its contractor. This meant the repair was overlooked.
It was appropriate that the landlord had acknowledged failings in its handling of the repairs and her complaint and offered compensation.
There was then a delay of over a month in the landlord paying compensation. This appeared to have been caused because the landlord had miscalculated the total compensation payment in its stage 2 response. It meant the resident had to query the amount offered and the landlord had to reauthorise the payment after the amount was corrected. In the meantime, the resident had continued to chase the landlord for updates.
Overall, the landlord mishandled the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and should have escalated it sooner. Its stage 2 response did not address all the issues it said it had included in her complaint and there was a delay in paying compensation. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Other repair requests.
2. Associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Requests to move.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £650. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s repair requests. This sum is in addition to the £300 compensation the landlord has already paid.
  2. £50 for its failure to respond to the resident’s initial reports of ASB.
  3. £50 for its failings in responding to her initial requests to move.
  4. £250 for its failings in handling the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Carry out a further damp and mould inspection of the resident’s home to identify whether there are any further issues to be addressed.
2. Consider the frequency that replacement extractor fans have been needed and whether there is an underlying cause of the extractors failing.