Vivid Housing Limited (202322040)

Background

1. The resident moved to the property, a 2-bedroom flat, in December 2022. She lives with her young child. Following this, she raised concerns with the landlord about a number of repair issues. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for her including that she has a long-term illness that affects her mobility.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp, mould and leaks.
   2. Other repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp, mould and leaks.
   2. Other repairs.
   3. The complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord delayed addressing leaks, delayed providing the resident with a dehumidifier and delayed completing the resulting repairs.
6. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and did not categorise all reports, contrary to its damp and mould policy.
7. The landlord delayed completing other repairs to the kitchen units and flooring.
8. The landlord’s complaint handling did not acknowledge the extent of its failings. It also failed to address all the resident’s concerns about her windows.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

9. The resident reported to the landlord on 22 March 2023 that skirting and boxing in her bathroom never seemed to dry. The landlord raised a repair on 24 March 2023. It attended on 17 April 2023 and then raised work to replace skirting and boxing. But it did not reattend to complete this repair until 10 July 2023. This is 72 days after the repair was reported by the resident. It is unclear why it delayed doing so. There is no evidence it made any attempt to book earlier reattendance. That is a failing given its repairs policy says it aims to offer appointments for non-emergency repairs within 28 days and complete any further work within 10 days.
10. The resident told the landlord on 5 July 2023 of her concerns of a leak affecting flooring and that there was mould.
11. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will triage the case within 24 hours. Triage is how we identify the most at risk and prioritise them accordingly. It says the risk level can’t be defined until a damp and mould specialist attends. Its policy indicates that some sort of assessment will be done at triage to determine how quick the specialist attends. For highest or high risk cases a specialist will attend within 2 working days. For medium or low risk they will attend within 2 weeks. In determining risk the resident’s vulnerabilities are considered.
12. In response to the report that day, the landlord said it would be attending on 10 July 2023. It said it would ask the operative to look at cleaning mould. There was no consideration of the risk category when the appointment was booked. At that time it does not appear that the landlord’s record of the resident’s vulnerabilities was up to date. It noted on 24 July 2023 that she was disabled. But there is no evidence it took any action on this until 25 August 2023, when it spoke to her about her complaint.
13. It says it was sending an operative. Its damp and mould policy requires a specialist to attend. When it attended on 10 July 2023, it identified water under the flooring. It also noted a dehumidifier may be needed. But we have seen no evidence it took any clear action to investigate the leak or that it addressed the mould.  It only acted to provide her with a dehumidifier after it attended on 7 September 2023. Its delay was a failing. Following this, it told her it had booked a damp and mould inspection for 7 September 2023. This was 64 days. Much longer than the 2 weeks’ time limit for a specialist to attend to medium or low risk cases.
14. Th landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will attend to the root cause within 1 week of the inspection if the risk is high and within 2 weeks of the inspection if the risk is medium or low. Other repairs will be done within the usual 28 days repair target.
15. Records show the landlord attended to resolve a leak to the communal cupboard on 7 and 15 September 2023. While this was raised by its tenancy officer on 24 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that the resident had previously reported a hissing noise in November 2022, when she viewed the property. We have not seen records showing how it responded to this earlier report. It should have done so. The landlord apologised to her for not addressing the issue earlier and that was appropriate.
16. The landlord noted on 7 and 15 September that it identified and resolved the separate leak affecting the resident’s hallway and bathroom floor. But we have seen no clear record of its damp and mould inspection on 7 September 2023. It should have appropriately detailed the issues it had identified. It subsequently raised work to mould wash affected areas on 18 September 2023 and recorded this was completed on 2 October 2023. But its damp and mould policy states that, even in low-risk cases, it will visit within 2 weeks, and complete and mould wash required within a further a week. The resident had reported her concerns of mould on 5 July 2023. Given this, its response to her reports was significantly delayed. 
17. The landlord delayed completing repair work following the leaks. The resident told it on 27 October 2023 she was still waiting for dates for this work. She told it how the issues were affecting her. But it did not complete work to replace bathroom flooring, skirting and boxing until 18 March 2024. That was an excessive delay given its 28-day target for non-emergency repairs. Its policy also sets out that it will communicate with the resident if repairs are going to take longer. But there is no evidence it did so between September 2023 and January 2024. That failing would have added to the resident’s concern about the progress of repairs.
18. We acknowledge the resident experienced a further leak during this time, which the landlord attended on the same day. We also acknowledge it completed a further damp and mould inspection on 2 December 2023. It categorised the report in line with its damp and mould policy. It recorded minimal damp and mould, but that there was property damage from the leak. This inspection identified work to install trim around windows and treat mould in the communal hallway. The landlord later told the resident it had not taken action to raise this work. However, records we have seen show the work had been raised on 4 December 2023. But it did not complete it until 20 February 2024 or keep the resident updated about it. That was a failing. Its low-risk category for damp and mould required underlying issues to be addressed within 4 weeks of the matter being reported.
19. The resident told the landlord in her complaint escalation that she had outstanding concerns about the window seals and that some windows were blown. The inspection of 2 December 2023 had not noted the windows were blown. But the landlord should have addressed this concern. It told her only that trim was to be installed around 4 windows.  Following this repair, on 20 February 2024, the resident raised concerns that it was insufficient to address the damp issues around the windows. The landlord responded the next day stating it would inspect her concern. But we have seen no evidence it did so. It did not raise any further repairs to the windows until 24 June 2024 when the resident told it again of her concerns that some windows were blown.
20. The resident has confirmed the landlord has since completed work to replace some glazing. But she should not have had to repeatedly raise this concern before it was addressed. Further, we have seen no evidence the landlord has addressed her concern that the trim it has installed around the windows is inadequate. She told us she remained concerned about this. She also told us of her concern that a wall near the previous leak in her bathroom may not have been fully repaired. Given this, we have ordered that the landlord contact her to inspect these issues.
21. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, mould and leak repairs. In its complaint responses, the landlord agreed to pay the resident a total of £450 for the time issues had been ongoing. It is unclear what aspect of this award related specifically to its handling of damp, mould and leak issues. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that it make a further award to the resident of £400. This is aimed at fully recognising the impact of failings we have identified in its handling of her damp, mould and leak reports.
22. The landlord noted the resident’s concerns that her flooring had been damaged. It said it would be replacing her kitchen and bathroom flooring but that the living room and hallway flooring fell outside its repair responsibilities. It directed her on how to make a claim to its insurance team for this. That was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy. The resident told us that this flooring is still in place. She also said other items had been damaged. She may still contact the landlord’s insurance team should she wish to pursue a claim for any damage from the leaks.
23. When it responded to her complaint in September 2023 the landlord agreed a payment of £150 for the cost of running dehumidifiers. That was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy. However, the resident has told us of her belief the actual costs she incurred were higher. We have seen no evidence the resident has communicated this to the landlord. However, it would be appropriate for it to consider evidence, such as bills, of increased costs she incurred during this time. It should then reimburse these. We have ordered that it do so.
24. The resident also told us that she believed her water bill was increased due to the delay resolving the leak. When it responded to her complaint at stage 1 the landlord offered to consider evidence of this. That was appropriate. We have not seen record that the resident responded providing this information. However, it would be appropriate for the landlord to consider evidence and reimburse her for any increase. We have ordered that it contact the resident to consider any evidence she has relating to this.

25. An occupational therapist (OT) contacted the landlord on 20 December 2022 about repairs to the kitchen floor and units. They said the resident had reported the floor was uneven and that she was at risk of falls due to mobility issues. It raised this work on 22 December 2022 but delayed completing any work to the kitchen units until May 2023. Given its 28-day target for non-emergency repairs, that was significantly delayed. Its repair to the kitchen floor took even longer. It did not complete work until 6 August 2023.  Further there is no evidence it communicated with the resident to explain the delay. That was a failing, particularly as it was aware of her mobility issues.
26. After the resident reported ongoing concerns about the floor and kitchen units at the end of August 2023, the landlord appropriately arranged an inspection. However, it later acknowledged that it had not attended to inspect her kitchen floor on 7 September 2023, as agreed. It awarded the resident £30 for this missed appointment and that was appropriate. However, it is clear this would also have delayed the progress of any work. It did not reattend to inspect the floor until 8 November 2023.
27. The landlord later recorded that it had attended on 8 November 2023 to refit trim and rectify sharp edges on kitchen cabinets. That work addressed issues the resident had set out in her complaint. But she had previously told it on 6 July 2023 of her concerns that the worktop had a hole in it. Following her escalation request, the landlord agreed further work to the kitchen, including replacing worktops and overhauling kitchen units. It later completed this work on 18 March 2024. But it should reasonably have taken steps to inspect and address these issues earlier.
28. The landlord inspected the resident’s kitchen floor on 8 November 2023. But there is no evidence it took appropriate action to raise work. This was a further failing and delayed the repair. It did not act until after the resident had escalated her complaint. She should not have had to do so before it raised appropriate work. It meant kitchen floor work was not completed until 18 March 2024. Its delay completing this work was unreasonable. That was particularly so as it was aware of the resident’s mobility issues.
29. When the resident escalated her complaint in December 2023, she said that a front door had been installed but that some boarding around it was missing. Records show it installed the door on 5 October 2023. The landlord subsequently acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it should have booked a further appointment for this work. Repairs were later completed on 18 March 2024. But the resident should not have needed to chase the landlord before it acted to finish the work to the door. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and apologised for this. The resident told us that while repairs had been completed, she remained concerned about exposed metal around the door. We have recommended that the landlord contact her to address this.
30. The landlord acknowledged delays raising appropriate repairs in its stage 2 response. It has awarded £120 for missed appointments. It has awarded her compensation of £450 for the time issues had been ongoing. As noted above, it is unclear what amount of this relates to damp, mould and leak issues and what amount relates to other repairs. However, we have referred to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We have also considered all the circumstances and the failings and delays we have identified. We have ordered that the landlord make a further award to the resident of £350 in recognition of the impact on her of these. This amount together with the award previously made by the landlord is in line with the range set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

31. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in August 2023, the relevant Code was the April 2022 edition. We have found that:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy compiled with the Code in respect of timescales.
    2. The landlord appropriately contacted the resident in line with its policy to discuss her complaint.
    3. Its stage 1 complaint was delayed by nearly 2 weeks. However, it communicated with the resident about this in advance. It also acknowledged and apologised for this in its eventual response. The £30 award it made in recognition of this was reasonable.
    4. Its stage 2 complaint response was delayed by around 3 weeks. It communicated with the resident about an extension for this. But it did so after the deadline for a response had already passed. In line with the Code, it should have agreed an extension in advance. However, it appropriately apologised to the resident for the delay and the £100 it awarded for this was reasonable.
32. As identified earlier, there were other failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not address the resident’s concerns that some windows had blown. This meant she had to raise the issue again. It appropriately acknowledged delays arranging repairs and responding to damp and mould. However, its complaints responses did not identify or acknowledge all its failings in addressing issues. This included its delay addressing the leak affecting the resident’s bathroom, and her reports of mould. Further it did not identify all delays in its handling of the kitchen and floorings issues. As a result, its compensation award did not appropriately recognise the impact of its failings.

Learning

33. The landlord should ensure it deals with repairs in accordance with its repair policy and particularly around raising timely repairs, and any follow up action. It should also consider effective steps to monitors outstanding repairs following a complaint.
34. The landlord should ensure it appropriately responds to reports of damp and mould in line with the timescales set out in its damp and mould policy. In particular it should ensure it categorises the risk, consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, make timely appointments for specialist inspections and address underlying causes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord should maintain clear records of its inspections of damp and mould concerns. This is so it can demonstrate it has responded appropriately to any issues it has identified.

Communication

36. The landlord did not communicate with the resident appropriately about repairs. As a result, she had to spend time and effort chasing these.