Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Vivid Housing Limited (202342901)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342901

Vivid Housing Limited

14 May 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed upon moving into the property.
    2. Response to the resident’s concerns about rent arrears at her previous property.
    3. Complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy at the property, which is a 3 bedroom house. The tenancy began on 17 September 2023. She lives with her 2 children, one of which is visually impaired.
  2. Between 18 and 26 September 2023 the resident reported repair issues in the property. The landlord carried out a number of these repairs between September and early November 2023.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 16 November 2023 and said  there had been mistakes in the landlord’s sign-up process. She outlined outstanding repair issues.. She also complained that the arrears on her previous tenancy were due to the landlord giving her incorrect information when she changed her payment date whilst she was on maternity leave.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 December 2023. It outlined the works it had completed to date and a plan for outstanding works. It apologised for “errors and miscommunication”. It clarified the arrears and signposted the resident to its wellbeing team. It concluded there had been service failure and it had not always completed repairs within its timescales. It offered £100 compensation. It also said it was happy to discuss providing additional decoration vouchers with the resident.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 3 January 2024. She was dissatisfied with some of the repairs carried out. She told the landlord she estimated decoration costs would be £350 – £400.She reiterated her concern about the arrears from her previous tenancy.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 26 February 2024. It set out a plan for works to be completed and acknowledged it should have rectified issues sooner. It offered an additional £300 decoration vouchers and additional compensation totalling £340 for the substantive repair issues and its complaint handling.
  7. The resident referred her case to us on 4 March 2024. She requested all outstanding repairs be completed and for the landlord to issue the compensation and decoration vouchers. She asked for her arrears to be cleared as she did not feel she was at fault. She told us that as of 27 March 2024 the only outstanding repair required was to the front door.
  8. Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord carried out work to the front door as a planned repair on 14 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord the situation had harmed her mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and the cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of any such injury, testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to this through the courts. While we cannot consider the effect of the landlord’s actions or inactions on health, if we identify a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result.
  2. Within her correspondence, the resident referred to a number of repair issues which she said the landlord had satisfactorily resolved. She also raised issues at stage 1, which she did not escalate to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. This investigation has only focused on the repairs which the resident was dissatisfied with and which she escalated to stage 2. For clarity, the issues which were not escalated to stage 2 and therefore have not been considered as part of this assessment are as follows:
    1. The sign-up information and key safe code.
    2. Leaking toilet.
    3. Shaver light installation.
    4. Replacement doorbell.
    5. Flooring renewal.
    6. Overhaul of kitchen drawers.
    7. Leaking tap.
    8. Loose banister.
    9. Wardrobe door magnet.
    10. Leaking shower.
    11. Toilet extractor fan.
    12. Loose downpipe.
    13. Electrical socket.
    14. Carpet cleaning.

Response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed upon moving into the property

  1. For clarity, the repair issues complained about have been addressed separately below.

Draught from the front door

  1. It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the front door. It made an internal note in its records on 18 September 2023 that a door was loose. The repair records we have been provided did not specify if this was the front door.
  2. The landlord subsequently marked the repair as complete on 2 November 2023. This was a period of 45 days after the report was made by the resident. Although the resident had reported a draught from the door we have not seen any evidence to suggest that it was reported as being insecure. As such, under the landlord’s repairs policy, this type of repair would fall within its ‘routine’ category. Such repairs should be actioned within 28 days. The evidence shows landlord failed to carry out the repair to the door in this timeframe and did not comply with its policy in doing so.
  3. In a complaint made on 16 November 2023, the resident said the gap between the front door and the frame had come back. This impacted her heating bills and she had to buy draught excluders. The landlord arranged another repair for 14 December 2023. It noted the resident’s dissatisfaction about the proposed time to compete the repair. The landlord told her that it had put her on its cancellation list, to try to carry out the repair at an earlier appointment if one became available. The landlord marked the work as complete on 15 December 2023.
  4. In its stage 1 response of 22 December 2023 the landlord confirmed it had competed the door repair. Although it did not specifically address the delay or provide an explanation for the length of time taken to complete the repair to the door, it did offer compensation for its overall delayed responses to all repairs.
  5. The resident said within her escalation request of 3 January 2024, that the work to the door frame had been a “quick fix”. She expected it to go wrong again. She subsequently reported another draught from the door on 16 January 2024.
  6. The landlord carried out work to the door beading on 12 February 2024. This was within its repair timeframe from the report made on 16 January 2024. It said in its stage 2 response of 26 February 2024 it had arranged further work to the door for 6 March 2024. It is not clear if this went ahead. However, the landlord’s records show that it carried out work to the door on 14 May 2024 as a planned repair.
  7. From the landlord’s records, we have seen the work to the door took around 8 months to be fully completed, from 18 September 2023 to 14 May 2024. During this time the landlord carried out a number of repairs to try to rectify the draught. All but the first of these repairs was done within the timeframe of its repairs policy. However, the overall length of time to make a permanent repair and the need to re-visit on multiple occasions is indicative of the landlord mishandling the repair. This failure to get things done right, first time, will have led to distress and inconvenience to the resident
  8. The landlord was aware of the reoccurring nature of this draught and the resident’s concern about the impact on heating bills. The failure to account for this was unreasonable in light of the delay to complete the repairs and the multiple visits required to bring about a resolution.

Fencing

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for fencing between properties and gardens. The landlord is responsible for fencing where it makes up part of the boundary to a public footpath or highway. This is mirrored in the landlord’s repairs policy. The policy states fencing works will not be carried out as a routine repair within 28 days, but instead be carried out as a planned repair. The fence in this case was between the resident’s and neighbour’s garden.
  2. The landlord’s empty homes standard says that although it is not responsible for replacing fencing between properties, it will make sure any existing fencing is left in a safe condition when a property is vacant.
  3. The landlord raised a fencing repair job for fence panels and posts on 21 September 2023. This was 4 days after the start of the resident’s tenancy. A contractor attended and carried out this work on 11 October 2023. Although the work took place after the resident’s tenancy started, the 4 day delay to complete it was reasonable. The resident confirmed within her complaint of 16 November 2023 that the landlord had repaired the fencing without issue.
  4. Within her escalation request of 3 January 2024, the resident said the fence panel the landlord had installed had blown down in high winds. She did not feel she should be responsible for replacing the damage and suggested the panelling had not been installed correctly.
  5. The landlord booked a repair appointment to fix the fence on 25 March 2024. It also made a commitment to try to carry it out sooner. It followed through with this commitment and carried out work to the fence on 28 February 2024. This demonstrates the landlord had taken her concern about it being responsible for the fence seriously. It made good the repair in a reasonable timeframe based on fencing works being required to take place as part of planned works.
  6. We have made a recommendation that the landlord clarify to the resident that she is responsible for ongoing repairs to the fence, in order to provide clarity and manage her expectations.

Garden gate

  1. The landlord’s empty homes standard says it will only replace a garden gate if it makes up part of the boundary to a public footpath or highway.
  2. The landlord raised a job on 21 September 2023 to replace the garden gate handles. It marked this as complete on 16 October 2023. This was within the timeframe of its repairs policy. The resident raised a concern about the position of the gate lock. The landlord raised a job on 18 October 2023 to see if this could be changed to a different type.
  3. Within her complaint of 16 November 2023 the resident said the gate handle had fallen off and she could not reach the bolt as it was on the outside of the gate. As such, she could not open the gate if it was locked from the outside.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 December 2023 and said it had arranged an appointment for the following day. Work to the gate went ahead as advised. This was within the timeframe set out in its repairs policy.
  5. The resident explained within her escalation request that her concern about the gate lock had not been resolved. The landlord explained within its stage 2 response  it had provided a garden gate which secured the garden. It said it had spoken to the resident and explained to her that it could not provide a dead-lock as she had requested. It noted the resident said she understood this.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the gate handle in line with its policy. When she clarified her request for a certain type of lock, the landlord explained that it had complied with its requirement, which was to provide a secure garden gate. In these circumstances, it was reasonable that the landlord told the resident it could not provide the type of lock she had requested and the evidence shows it handled her complaint on the matter appropriately.

Garden condition

  1. The tenancy agreement says the resident is responsible for garden maintenance. The landlord’s empty homes standard says it will make sure the garden is in a “manageable condition”upon moving in. It says it may not be able to carry out garden works prior to moving in. In such circumstances, it will contact the resident to arranged the necessary works.
  2. The landlord raised a job on 21 September 2023 to clear the garden of dog faeces. It marked this as complete on 2 October 2023 and astro-turf that was present was removed. This response was conducted with a reasonable time frame of the resident beginning the tenancy as per the expectations set out in the vacant homes standard. Following this, the landlord raised a job on 18 October 2023 to put down grass seed. It carried this out on 13 November 2023. This was within its repairs timeframe.
  3. Within her complaint of 16 November 2023 the resident said she was unhappy that dog faeces had not been cleared before she moved in. She described that garden as a “swamp” when it rained.
  4. The landlord apologised for the condition of the garden upon moving in, within its stage 1 response. It committed to follow up on the resident’s concern about the drainage.
  5. Evidence suggests contractors attended the property to inspect the rear garden. In her escalation request on 3 January 2024the resident said i she disagreed with the finding of contractors who had concluded there were no drainage issues in the garden.
  6. The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 response that it had arranged for the garden to be dug over and re-seeded. This was completed by 4 March 2024.
  7. The evidence shows the landlord took reasonable and timely actions in response to the resident’s concerns around her rear garden. It took action and conducted additional work which appeared contrary to its contractors advise following the resident’s concerns. The landlord demonstrated it reasonably complied with its empty homes standard. and it took the resident’s concerns about drainage seriously and carried out work to address this. It apologised for not having the garden works completed by the start of the tenancy. Its actions in relation to the garden were reasonable throughout.

Internal decoration

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is not responsible for internal painting and decoration. The landlord’s empty homes standard says it does not normally decorate. However, it will make sure the surfaces can be decorated. As an example, it says it will make sure there are no large holes in walls. Where a property is particularly in need of decoration, it may offer decoration vouchers at its discretion and in “exceptional circumstances”.
  2. Within her complaint on 16 November 2023 the resident said that dirty marks on walls had been painted over instead of removed. She state the £100 decoration voucher provided by the landlord was not enough to put this right.
  3. The landlord did not provide its rationale for its initial offer of decoration vouchers. However, it is appreciated that this offer was supportive to the resident. Despite not being required to provide decoration vouchers, the landlord said in its stage 1 response it was open to discussing the provision of further decoration vouchers. This demonstrated a resolution-focused approach and that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
  4. The resident told the landlord she had received an estimate for decoration costs between £350 – £400. Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered an additional £300 of decoration vouchers. This brought the total decoration vouchers offered to £400.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord’s offer of decoration vouchers and its consideration of the resident’s requested was over and above what the landlord was required to offer. As per the tenancy agreement and its empty homes standard, it was not required to provide any help towards decoration costs. It demonstrated a resolution-focused approach and that it had taken the resident’s concern seriously. Its actions were appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.

Summary

  1. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the  offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
  2. It is clear that the resident experienced a number of issues that required repair when she moved into the property. The landlord considered her concerns and offered a total of £740 in combined compensation and decoration vouchers during its internal complaints procedure. It did so as follows:
    1. At stage 1 it offered £100 compensation to acknowledge delayed repairs. It also offered an additional £80 for matters not progressed to stage 2. This £80 has not been considered in this investigation as it did not relate to the issues considered.
    2. At stage 2 it offered additional compensation in respect of the repair issues as follows:
      1. £150 to acknowledge delays in some repairs.
      2. £90 for the miscommunication of when works would be carried out.
      3. £300 decoration vouchers, in addition to the £100 previously offered.
  3. The total amount of financial redress offered by the landlord in this case was within a range we would expect where there have been failures which had a significant impact on a resident.
  4. The landlord did not always carry out the repairs in line with its repairs policy timescales. However, it appropriately acknowledged this and the effect of this on the resident. We have seen that the landlord went over and above its requirements in respect of works to the garden, fencing and decoration vouchers. This was in line with our dispute resolution principles of taking a resident and resolution-focused approach. Given the landlord’s overall handling of the matters, its acknowledgement of its failures and offer of appropriate compensation and vouchers, this amounts to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord made an offer which put things right for the resident.

Response to the resident’s concerns about rent arrears at her previous property

  1. The resident said in her complaint on 16 November 2023 that she had outstanding arrears on her previous tenancy. She said whilst on maternity leave she needed to change her rent payment date. This had caused her to be in arrears as the landlord had given her incorrect information.
  2. Within its stage 1 response of 22 December 2023 the landlord confirmed the arrears at the previous address were £286.39. It offered to discuss this with her and revisit the payment plan. Although this support was appropriate the landlord failed to address her concerns that it had mis-advised her, which had led to the arrears.
  3. The resident reiterated her belief that she would not be in arrears if she had been provided with the correct information by the landlord. She asked for the arrears to be wiped due to the “disgusting state” of the property. The landlord failed to address this aspect of complaint within its stage 2 response.
  4. The landlord failed to properly investigate this aspect of complaint at either stage of its internal complaints procedure. We have not seen evidence the landlord sought to understand what information the resident had been given or why she felt this had led to her being in arrears.
  5. As such, these failings lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rent arrears at her previous property.
  6. To acknowledge the effect of this on the resident we have ordered compensation of £150. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 20 working days. If additional time is needed, it will keep the resident informed.
  2. It took the landlord 26 working days, from 16 November to 22 December 2023  to respond to the complaint at stage 1. This was outside of its stated response timeframe. It failed to acknowledge this delay or the effect of this on the resident within its stage 1 response.
  3. It took the landlord 38 working days, from 3 January to 26 February 2024 to respond to the complaint at stage 2. Again, this was outside of its complaint response timeframe. The landlord acknowledged the response took too long and offered £100 for the delay and its communication issues. However, its compensation offer failed to address that the stage 1 response had also been delayed.
  4. As mentioned above, the complaint response to the arrears issue was poor at stage 1 and the landlord did not address this aspect at all at stage 2. This was contrary to our Code. The failure to address the issues will have cause frustration and undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s process.
  5. As the landlord’s complaint handling was delayed and it’s responses did not sufficiently consider the rent arrears complaint. The compensation offered was not sufficient to acknowledge the impact on the resident. The combined complaint handling failures amount to maladministration.
  6. To acknowledge the effect of the failures on the resident, we have ordered an additional £150 compensation. This brings the total compensation for complaint handling to £250. This is in line with our remedies guidance where a failure adversely affected a resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed upon moving into the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rent arrears at her previous property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman:
    1. Pay a total of £300 compensation to the resident. The compensation is made up as follows:
      1. £150 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about rent arrears at her previous property
      2. £150 to acknowledge the effect on the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. Provide an explanation to the resident and us detailing how the arrears were accrued. This should also explain if this was impacted by the resident changing her payment date due to being on maternity leave.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer £340 compensation offered during its internal complaints process. If this has already been paid, it does not need to be paid again.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord re-offer £400 decoration vouchers to the resident if these have not already been given.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord clarify to the resident that she is responsible for ongoing repairs to the fence.