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

Vivid Housing Limited (202407217)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202407217

Vivid Housing Limited

2 September 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s report of staff misconduct.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house.
  2. On 13 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to report a staff member’s conduct when they attended a path repair at her property. She said she had video footage on her ring doorbell. She said the incident had made her feel uncomfortable and upset, and she requested the staff member to be dealt with.
  3. The landlord initially sent the report to the line manager of the staff member but later logged a stage 1 complaint. It sent a response on 4 April 2024. There had been some difficulty with the resident being able to send the video footage due to the size of the file. However, the landlord apologised for the upset caused and confirmed there would be an internal investigation. It offered £100 compensation. This included £50 for the time and trouble spent trying to send the video footage, and £50 for the initial delay in logging the complaint. This was credited to her rent account.
  4. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response and said she wanted to take the complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord acknowledged this escalation request on 1 May 2024.
  5. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 21 May 2024. It confirmed it would be dealing with the staff member in line with internal procedure, but it was not appropriate to share further details. It confirmed that the compensation previously offered was in line with its own compensation guidelines. It upheld the complaint and confirmed the report was being taken very seriously and apologised for the resident’s experience.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman after the stage 2 response as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she wanted to know what had happened to the staff member, she did not want them to return to the property and wanted more compensation. She referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 October 2024.
  7. In October 2024 the landlord contacted the resident with an update following the stage 2 response. It confirmed it could have shared the disciplinary outcome, and the staff member no longer worked for the landlord. It apologised for the impact it had on the resident and confirmed the learning. The landlord also reviewed the compensation offered. It offered a further £400 for the impact, and a further £200 for the delay in updating the resident about the internal disciplinary actions.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of staff misconduct.

  1. The landlord’s repairs and contractor code of conduct confirms the standards staff should meet to ensure a good service for the residents. It states:

They will:

  1. Show respect to residents and other members of the household.

b. Always act in a polite manner, respecting privacy and personal property at all times.

They will not:

  1. Use bad language.
  2. Make any comments or gestures that could be considered discriminatory, offensive or distasteful.
  1. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary payments. This will include payments in respect of inconvenience, distress or other impacts of the service failure. Discretionary payments allow the landlord to ensure they compensate appropriately where things have gone wrong. It includes the following guidance:a. £0 to £49 for low impact, low effort.b. £50 to £149 for high effort, low impact or low effort, high impact.c. £150 to £400 for high effort, high impact.
  2. We will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is our role to decide whether the landlord investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord has a policy under which it investigates staff conduct, and that it would not be able to share any employment matters with the resident due to confidentiality reasons.
  3. The evidence shows that when the resident raised a concern about the conduct of staff on 13 March 2024, the line manager was requested to contact the resident. The manager phoned her the next day, which was reasonable to try and resolve the issue promptly. As part of the conversation with the manager the resident confirmed she had video footage from her ring doorbell, which showed the staff member’s behaviour. However, the resident experienced issues sending the file electronically, due to its size.
  4. Due to these difficulties and the lack of follow up from the manager, a stage 1 complaint was logged on 20 March 2024. It was appropriate that in the stage 1 response on 4 April 2024 the landlord said although the video footage had still not been received, the resident’s complaint had been taken very seriously, and a formal investigation was underway. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer an in-person meeting with the resident to help resolve the video sharing issue.
  5. The landlord confirmed it would not be appropriate to share the specific outcome of the internal investigation but provided reassurance it would follow its formal HR process. It apologised for the upset and experience. It offered £50 in recognition for the time and effort in sending the video footage, and £50 in the delay in logging the report as a stage 1 complaint. The response was appropriate in the circumstances and showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  6. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response, and wanted more information regarding the outcome of the disciplinary review with the staff member. She also said the compensation offered was not enough.
  7. In its stage 2 response, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the experience the resident had with the staff member. Whilst the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord was unable to disclose the outcome of any internal disciplinary steps, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with some reassurance. For example, the landlord could have explained that the staff member would not be attending the property to carry out further works while the matter was under investigation. Even though the resident did not specifically request this action with the landlord, it would have helped address the resident’s concerns and maintained her confidence in the landlords handling of the complaint.
  8. It was also appropriate that the landlord assessed the compensation offered against its own guidelines and confirmed that the compensation offered was in line with this. This level of award is also in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, for circumstances where there has been service failure.
  9. In this case, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord showed it had considered the resident’s concerns fairly. It provided a proportionate level of redress to the resident by apologising for the resident’s experience with the staff member’s conduct. Evidence shows the landlord investigated the report promptly, in line with its HR policy. It initially requested the manager to make contact but when there was a delay gathering evidence it was followed up correctly as a formal complaint. The landlord also acknowledged the frustration and inconvenience caused when sending the video footage, and offered financial redress for this aspect.
  10. Overall, the landlord had followed its policy, recognised its service failure and attempted to put things right. This Service has found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of staff misconduct.
  11. After contact with this Service the landlord reviewed its response and acknowledged it should have provided an update and awarded the resident a further £600. Whilst this Service has made a finding of reasonable redress, it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its approach and made further attempts to put things right. It is positive it reflected on its approach by reviewing our Spotlight Report on attitudes, response and rights to brief teams on the best practise approach to staff misconduct complaints.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the resident’s report of staff misconduct.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord should pay the resident £600 previously offered in compensation if it has not yet done so.