Vivid Housing Limited (202336673)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336673

Vivid Housing Limited

10 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports about the frequency of grounds maintenance.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a lease with the landlord, which began on 16 July 2019. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, mid-terraced house. The resident has no known vulnerabilities.
The landlord is the freeholder of the property, but not the estate. It pays service charges to the owner of the estate, which employs a managing agent to maintain the communal grounds. The resident then pays a service charge to the landlord, which includes expenditure reasonably incurred for cultivation and provision of services for the estate.
On 16 August 2019, the resident reported that the grounds around the car park in front of her home were overgrown. The landlord raised this with the managing agent, who it said was responsible to maintain the area. On 6 September 2019, the resident confirmed that grounds maintenance had taken place.
The resident next raised the issue of grounds maintenance on 11 April 2021. She said no one had attended for 2 years. She then contacted the landlord almost every month for the next 18 months during which maintenance took place on 2 occasions. The landlord raised the issue with the managing agent on numerous occasions before arranging for its own grounds maintenance team to attend on 13 September 2022.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord raised the matter for its senior management to pursue with the managing agent.
The resident next contacted the landlord on 25 May 2023 due to the managing agent not completing grounds maintenance for over 15 months. She then contacted the landlord about this on numerous occasions.
On 11 August 2023, the resident formally complained to the landlord about grounds maintenance; the key points were as follows:
1. She had pursued maintenance of the communal area outside her home since she moved into the property in 2019, but there had only been 2 visits.
2. She had spent ‘an extraordinary amount of time’ contacting the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 August 2023 and issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s husband on 5 September 2023; the key points were as follows:
1. It had contacted the managing agent, which said its contractor would attend by the end of the week and every 2 weeks thereafter. Visits would reduce to monthly during winter.
2. There had been a failure in service due to the grounds not being maintained as expected. It apologised for the managing agent’s contractor not realising that it should have maintained the area.
3. It would adjust the rent account at year-end to reflect any credit received from the managing agent.
4. It offered £30 for failing to respond to the complaint within its expected timeframe.
5. It had learned from the complaint and would ask the managing agent confirm its attendance in line with the maintenance schedule to avoid this happening again.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response due to a continued lack of grounds maintenance and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 12 September 2023. When the landlord phoned her on 18 September 2023, the resident agreed not to escalate the complaint until after the managing agent had the opportunity to attend on 20 September 2023. The landlord said it would phone on 21 September 2023 to check that work had been completed to the resident’s satisfaction.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 22 September 2023; the key points were as follows:
1. She did not receive a phone call from the landlord.
2. Although there had been some maintenance, this was incomplete. Shrubs and plants had been removed, which she wanted reinstating.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 16 October 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 1 November 2023; the key points were as follows:
1. Its stage 1 response did not consider how long the grounds maintenance issue had been ongoing and how many times the resident had complained.
2. The managing agent had offered a £25 credit to reflect the missed area, which the resident rejected and considered £25 per year more reasonable. The landlord had asked the managing agent if it would offer more.
3. The managing agent would replant the area.
4. It had learned from the complaint and would review how it managed its managing agents as well as consider designating resource to do this.
5. It offered £250 to acknowledge the resident’s effort.
6. The resident could contact this Service if she remained unhappy.

Events Post Internal Complaints Process

On 7 December 2023, the resident confirmed receipt of £280 compensation.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 18 January 2024. The complaint became one that we could consider on 11 September 2024.
In response to our request for evidence on 11 September 2024, the landlord said it had appointed a team to manage complaints about managing agents. It said it also had new policies in place.
The resident has reported that the issue remains ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reports about the frequency of grounds maintenance

The resident first reported an issue with grounds maintenance on 16 August 2019. She said the grounds around the car park in front of her home were overgrown. The landlord raised this with the managing agent, following which the resident confirmed on 6 September 2019 that grounds maintenance had taken place. We consider the landlord acted appropriately to ensure that the managing agent completed the expected work.
The resident next reported an issue on 11 April 2021 due to no one attending to complete grounds maintenance for 2 years. She then contacted the landlord almost every month for 18 months during which time maintenance only took place twice. The resident was unhappy with the work done on 1 October 2021 but said a ‘good job’ had taken place on 16 February 2022. Between the visits, the landlord attended to clarify the area to be maintained. The lack of maintenance meant the resident did not receive a service that she was paying for. Although the landlord repeatedly raised the matter with the managing agent, it failed to keep the resident updated, which likely caused her inconvenience and distress. It is also unclear why the landlord did not escalate the issue to the owner of the estate, which employed the managing agent.
The continued lack of work prompted the landlord to escalate the matter internally and arrange for its own grounds maintenance team to attend on 13 September 2022. This showed its willingness to provide the resident with a temporary solution while it continued to try to resolve the issue with the managing agent. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider sending its own team sooner, particularly as the resident had contacted it so many times over a prolonged period.
On 10 October 2022, the landlord raised the matter for its senior management to pursue. We consider this action appropriate to try to prompt a response from the managing agent.
The resident next contacted the landlord several months later, on 25 May 2023. By this time, the managing agent had failed to complete grounds maintenance for over 15 months. The resident contacted the landlord a further 6 times, which said she should contact the managing agent herself directly. However, she did not have a contractual relationship with the managing agent. Her agreement was with the landlord, which collected service charges that included managing agent fees. This Service’s spotlight report on managing agents says it is the Ombudsman’s view that the practice of signposting in this context is inappropriate. This is both inconsistent with the basic principle of privity of contract as well as the Ombudsman’s expectations that landlords own the relationship with their residents and are proactive in pursuing resolution on their behalf. Having contacted the managing agent so many times over an extended period, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider raising the matter with the owner of the estate.
Before the landlord re-raised the grounds maintenance issue with the managing agent on 12 June 2023, it asked the resident to clarify which area had not been maintained. This was not appropriate as the resident had explained this at the start and the landlord had since visited to check. The landlord’s request indicates an issue with its record keeping and a failure to keep an overview of the issue.
The landlord exchanged further contacts with the managing agent on 20 and 21 June 2023 before updating the resident 2 days later. Despite the resident then contacting the landlord 3 times during July 2023 and August 2023, it took no action. This showed a lack of empathy for her efforts to resolve the matter. The landlord’s failure to act also likely caused her further inconvenience and distress.
The prolonged lack of grounds maintenance prompted the resident to raise a formal complaint on 11 August 2023. The landlord pursued the matter with the managing agent on a further 14 occasions up to when it issued a stage 2 response. It asked the managing agent for details of its grounds maintenance schedule and liaised with its property manager. Despite the landlord’s efforts, a lack of response meant it had to repeatedly contact the managing agent. However, it is, again, unclear why the landlord did not consider escalating this to the owner of the estate. The continued failure to complete grounds maintenance likely frustrated the resident and meant she repeatedly pursued the landlord for an update.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the managing agent’s contractor had not realised that it needed to maintain the area that the resident had complained about. It said the contractor would attend by the end of the week and every 2 weeks thereafter until winter, when it would attend once a month. It is unclear when the landlord received this information, which indicates an issue with its record keeping. The landlord said any credit received from the managing agent would show on the resident’s year-end account. This advice was in line with its variable service charge process, which says it will send a letter in September each year to confirm what has been spent in the previous financial year and whether a credit or a debit balance has been applied.
The managing agent said it visited on 6 September 2023 to spray weedkiller to kill off roots before cutting the area on its next visit. On 12 September 2023, the resident complained about a lack of work. The landlord told her that the managing agent had visited and would return on 20 September 2023. It said it would phone the resident on 21 September 2023 to check that the work had been completed to her satisfaction. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
However, on 22 September 2023, the resident reported that she had not received a phone call and that grounds maintenance remained incomplete, which likely prompted her to escalate the complaint. The landlord unsuccessfully tried to contact her before confirming it would phone on 25 September 2023, but this call was also not forthcoming. The landlord’s failure to phone on 2 occasions was not appropriate and likely caused the resident further inconvenience and distress. This also demonstrated a lack of empathy for her concerns.
During October 2023, the landlord asked the managing agent for its complaints procedure, evidence of grounds maintenance visits and a credit for maintenance not completed. The managing agent offered £25 as its gardeners had ‘missed a few visits’ but provided no other information. The resident considered £25 per year more appropriate. The landlord said in its stage 2 response on 1 November 2023 that it would keep the resident updated regarding when the managing agent would replant the area and whether it would provide a higher credit. The landlord offered £250 compensation to acknowledge the resident’s efforts to resolve the grounds maintenance issue and said it had learned from this as it would review how it managed its managing agents. We understand that the resident has received this payment. However, the landlord failed to address the issue of when the resident could expect routine grounds maintenance and how it would ensure that this continued to take place, which was not appropriate and likely frustrated the resident. Also, despite exhausting its own complaints process, the landlord failed to escalate the grounds maintenance issue with the owner of the estate.
The landlord had a contract with the owner of the estate, which employed the managing agent. Therefore, the landlord should have raised complaints about the managing agent with the estate owner, not the managing agent. It is a significant failing that the landlord did not do this. This Service’s spotlight report on managing agents states landlords should be proactive in pursuing managing agents and freeholders to discharge their responsibilities, not only for their own benefit as a leaseholder but for the benefit of their residents. The expectation is that landlords take ownership for getting clear updates and action from managing agents and/or freeholders, and failure to do so is unsatisfactory.
We would expect a landlord to exhaust all avenues when trying to resolve a resident’s concerns. Overall, the frequency of grounds maintenance was almost non-existent despite its extensive efforts to pursue this with the managing agent over a prolonged period. However, as stated, when the landlord was unable to resolve the issue with the managing agent, it should have considered pursuing this with the owner of the estate. The landlord’s failings over such a prolonged period represent maladministration, and an order has been made for remedy below.
The landlord has since demonstrated learning by appointing a team to deal with complaints about managing agents as well as putting new policies in place. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make a further order regarding this issue.

Complaint handling

The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 11 August 2023.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint by the end of the next working day and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint 9 working days late on 25 August 2023, which likely caused the resident inconvenience. It then wrote to her husband to confirm how long it would take to issue a stage 1 response. The resident told the landlord that her husband was not dealing with the complaint and asked why it had provided 2 complaint numbers. Although the landlord then issued its stage 1 response dated 5 September 2023 within the timeframe set out in its complaints process, it also incorrectly addressed this to the resident’s husband, which was not appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response offered £30 compensation for failing to acknowledge the complaint within the timeframe specified in its complaints process, which the resident has since received. This amount was in line with its compensation policy for complaint handling where there is a minor delay in raising a complaint. However, it was not until 7 September 2023 that the landlord apologised for writing to the resident’s husband. It explained that it had incorrectly logged a complaint under her husband’s name, which meant it had to raise a new complaint under her name. The landlord’s error likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and its issuing of 2 complaint numbers also likely caused confusion.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 22 September 2023.
In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If this could not be met, it should have agreed an extension of up to a further 20 working days with the resident.
The landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement on 29 September 2023, which was in line with its process. However, it spelled the resident’s surname incorrectly, which she raised on 16 October 2023 and likely caused her further inconvenience. The landlord then issued a stage 2 response on 1 November 2023, which was 3 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy.
The landlord’s errors in incorrectly writing to the resident’s husband on 2 occasions and then mis-spelling the resident’s surname indicate an overall lack of care and attention to detail.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it would tell the resident when the managing agent would replant the area that it was responsible for maintaining. However, it provided no update regarding routine grounds maintenance. This meant it did not address the root cause of the resident’s complaint, which was not appropriate. The landlord’s complaint handling failings represent maladministration, and an order has been made for remedy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the frequency of grounds maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified.
2. Pay compensation totalling £530, comprised as follows:
  1. The £250 previously offered to acknowledge the resident’s effort.
  2. A further £150 for the distress caused by its handling of reports about the frequency of grounds maintenance.
  3. The £30 previously offered for failing to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint within the timeframe specified in its complaints process.
  4. A further £100 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Clarify service charges raised and any adjustments made in relation to failed grounds maintenance visits since August 2019.
4. Review its handling of this case and provide a timebound action plan detailing its proposals for resolution, including whether it intends to refer the grounds maintenance issue to the owner of the estate.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.