Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Vivid Housing Limited (202328475)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328475

Vivid Housing Limited

28 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her soffit and bathroom tiling.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord since 2020. The property is a 2 bedroom house.
  2. In March 2023, the resident told the landlord that a section of her soffit had fallen into her garden. In early April 2023, she chased the matter and highlighted that the soffit was made of asbestos. She also said that it had previously told her it would contact her about her bathroom tiling but that she had not heard from it. On 11 April 2023, the landlord told her that it had raised jobs for her soffit and tiling and would contact her with appointments. The resident chased it for updates until August 2023.
  3. On 16 August 2023, the resident made her complaint to the landlord. She said that it had begun her tiling works earlier that month but that it needed to be redone. She said that her soffit issue had been outstanding since she had reported it. On 15 September 2023, the landlord sent her its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised to her for the time taken to address her soffit and for the standard of its tiling. It advised her of jobs it had raised for both. It offered her £30 compensation for its delayed complaint response.
  4. During the remainder of September 2023, the landlord removed the resident’s shower to allow for the tiling works. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. The landlord told her that it had put her bathroom works on hold until she had arranged for her water supplier to isolate the water. During October 2023, the landlord removed the fallen section of soffit from the resident’s garden. The resident experienced a stopcock leak. She and the landlord exchanged contacts regarding her stopcock and her water supplier.
  5. On 7 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised to her for its service failings and its lack of support with dealing with her water supplier. It said that scaffold had been erected, and her soffit repair would be completed. It said that it had completed her stopcock repair so would now arrange her tiling. It stated that it was reviewing its service to prevent jobs remaining outstanding for as long as they had. It offered her £50 compensation for its delayed complaint response and £400 for her time and trouble.
  6. During the remainder of November 2023, the landlord completed the resident’s soffit repair. She told it that it had not completed her stopcock repair. It apologised to her and completed her stopcock repair. In mid-December 2023, there was confusion with the landlord’s appointments and her tiling and shower reconnection were completed on different days. It apologised to her for this and offered her a further £30 compensation.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of her repairs. She described its service as “appalling” and emphasised the time, trouble, and distress she had experienced..

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s ‘repairs standard’ states that it offers a choice of appointments to complete all non-emergency repairs within 28 days. It says that repairs that are more complex may take longer but that it would keep residents updated and be clear what the next steps are.
  2. On 26 March 2023, the evidence showed that the resident had made what appeared to have been an out of hours report regarding a section of soffit that had fallen from her property. She expressed her concern that her roof space was now exposed to weather and pests.
  3. It was unreasonable that, 11 days later, she found it necessary to chase the landlord for an update via email. She expressed her frustration with its lengthy wait times to make reports via telephone. She highlighted that her job limited her ability to make calls, or take time off to allow repairs access during term time. She explained that she had had to arrange herself to have the hole left by the soffit covered with tarpaulin. She identified that the soffit contained asbestos. She said that she was also waiting for the landlord to contact her about the wall on which it had previously installed her shower, which was only partly tiled.
  4. On 11 April 2023, the landlord advised the resident of the jobs that it had arranged for her soffit and tiling but that they had not yet been scheduled. Over the remainder of the year, and as the landlord later accepted, the evidence showed multiple instances of its service failings and delays, and the time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  5. From April to July 2023, the resident chased the landlord for progress. The landlord apologised to her for the ongoing delays in scheduling her works. It explained how recruitment and supplier difficulties were partly the cause. The explanations and updates it provided were appropriate in the circumstances. Nonetheless, the resident’s frustration was understandable.
  6. On 9 August 2023, the landlord attended the tiling job for the resident’s bathroom but did not complete it. She experienced further time and trouble chasing the matter and made her complaint to it one week later. It sent her its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2023. It was appropriate for it to apologise to her for the delay in doing this and to offer her compensation.
  7. It took the landlord until the end of October 2023 to collect the section of soffit from the resident’s garden, which was 7 months after she had reported it. This was far beyond the timeframe of its policy, which was the case for all the resident’s reported repairs.
  8. From September to November 2023, the resident further chased the landlord and experienced continued frustration and inconvenience. This included the landlord delaying her works again due to water supply issues. As it later acknowledged, its failure to support the resident in dealing with the water supplier was unreasonable.
  9. On 7 November 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response, which apologised for its delays and service failings. It was appropriate for it to commit to reviewing its repairs service with a view to improvement. It completed her soffit repair the same month.
  10. However, having disconnected the resident’s shower in September 2023, the landlord was only able to offer to complete her tiling works, and reconnect it, in mid-December 2023. It was understandable that the resident highlighted the inconvenience of this. It was unreasonable that she experienced further disruption from the landlord’s appointment confusion when this work was done, for which it apologised and made her a further offer of compensation.
  11. The landlord offered the resident a total of £510 compensation (£30 at stage 1, £450 at stage 2, and a further £30 following its appointment confusion). This award was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range where there was a failure which caused no permanent impact but adversely affected the resident. As such, the landlord’s offer to the resident represented reasonable redress for its failings. This finding is based on the landlord’s total compensation offer of £510.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her soffit and bathroom tiling.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident any part of its total £510 compensation award that it has not already done so.