Vivid Housing Limited (202421917)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421917

Vivid Housing Limited

18 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs and pest access.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. In February 2023, the resident reported rats accessing her property from a hole in the roof. At the same time, she also reported a further repair to a ducting pipe on the roof following a repair to an extractor fan. On 30 June 2023, the landlord raised work to fill in holes in the loft, fit vent on gable end, and for an electrician to fit a hose on a vent connecting to the extractor fan. In October 2023, the resident told the landlord rats had returned and the hole needed to be fixed.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 December 2023 about the outstanding repairs and failed appointments.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 22 December 2023. It acknowledged the resident had waited too long for the repairs, she had chased repairs, and it had incorrectly marked a repair as complete. The landlord said it was unable to complete repairs on 6 December 2023 as planned because it needed scaffolding and it did not have the correct tool. The landlord said a repair was scheduled for 15 January 2024. It offered the resident £60 compensation for 2 failed appointments, and £70 for the time to complete repairs. It applied the compensation to the resident’s rent account.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 2 January 2024. She said the compensation was not enough. The resident said she had been waiting for the repairs to the roof and the extractor fan for nearly a year.
  6. The landlord issued its final response on 13 February 2024. It said that following a call with the resident on 31 January 2024, it had arranged an inspection due to the resident’s concerns about repairs completed. The landlord confirmed it had raised additional work to be completed on 26 February 2024 to windows, fill in the hole to the front tiles, clear back gutters, mould wash and stain block in the bathroom, install a new bath panel and kitchen fan. It also raised works to its contractors for pest control in the loft, and to renew the front gully. It offered the resident £700 compensation. This was broken down as £100 for additional visits to complete repairs, £200 towards a pest control bill, £50 for the redecoration of the bathroom due to water staining, £300 for effort in getting the issues resolved, and £50 for complaint delays.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident told us the issue remained unresolved and the rats had returned.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident raised further reports about rats entering her property after the end of the complaints process. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord in January 2025 about its handling of these further reports. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 17 February 2025. However, the further reports about rats after 13 February 2024 have not been considered as part of this investigation. This is because the further complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s 2 stage complaints procedure. This investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint in December 2023 and responded to by the landlord in its final response on 13 February 2024.
  2. In raising her complaint, the resident has referenced the impact of the rat infestation on the health of the household. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report

Repair to the extractor duct pipe

  1. The evidence shows the resident reported the repairs to an extractor duct pipe on the roof, and rats in her property due to a hole in the roof on 12 February 2023. She told the landlord the operative who replaced an extractor fan said the pipe was full of water and damp and mould would continue if the issue was not fixed. The landlord responded the following day and advised it would try and get roofers out and the repair was still with its planners. The landlord’s records showed it completed a roofing inspection on 24 April 2023. This was 71 days after the resident contacted the landlord.
  2. Furthermore, the landlord’s response to the resident on 13 February 2023 confirmed it was already aware of the issue with the extractor duct pipe. Its records show the repair to the extractor itself was completed (for invoice purposes) on 3 February 2023. The time it took to inspect this follow-on repair did not meet the timeframes in its published repair standards. This says it will complete all non-emergency repairs within 28 days. It also states that where it is not able to fix at the first visit, it will explain if any more work is needed and complete this within 10 days.
  3. The landlord raised the repair to the ducting pipe and filling in holes to the roof on 30 June 2023. This was 67 days after the inspection. The reason for the delay here is unclear. There was no evidence of the landlord scheduling the work until after the resident contacted it again on 15 October 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response confirmed that it had marked the roof work as complete in November 2023 in error. As a result, the electric work to the extractor pipe could not be competed at an appointment on 6 December 2023. While this explained the failed appointment in December 2023, it did not explain its delay in scheduling the work prior to this.
  4. The repair to the ducting pipe was completed on 30 January 2024. This was an overall time frame of almost a year. Complex repairs and investigations may require additional time for the landlord to complete them. In this case the landlord completed a roof inspection and required scaffolding to complete part of the work. However, the evidence shows the landlord did not request a quote for scaffolding until 19 December 2023. The landlord had provided no explanation for this delay. The timeframe here was excessive and the landlord failed to retain an oversight of this repair.
  5. The landlord’s delayed repair to the extractor ducting pipe caused continued water ingress into the resident’s bathroom. This resulted in subsequent repairs to the bathroom. The landlord raised repairs to damp and mould and the replacement of a rotten bath panel on 5 February 2024. It completed this on 26 February 2024. However, the landlord already had constructive notice of the potential damp and mould issue in the bathroom as a result of the outstanding repair to the ducting pipe following the resident’s email in February 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord following its damp and mould procedure at the time of the resident’s initial report. This was unreasonable given that she explained damp and mould would continue if the repair was not completed. The procedure states all cases will be visited by a damp and mould specialist within 2 weeks, and it would remain in contact with residents every 6 weeks to check on the condition. This was a failure. Had the landlord initiated its damp and mould procedure it would have retained an oversight of the repair and mould growth.

Multiple repairs during the complaints process.

  1. During a call with the resident about her complaint on 31 January 2024 she raised concerns about the repairs completed and the landlord agreed to inspect further repairs. The landlord inspected the property on 5 February 2024. The landlord then raised further repairs to windows, a new kitchen fan, renewal of front gully, and to clear gutters. There was no evidence that the resident had raised issues with the windows, kitchen extractor fan, gully, or gutters prior to 1 February 2024. The landlord completed all the additional repairs by 26 February 2024, apart from the gutter clean which was completed on 11 March 2024. This was within the 28-day timescale in its repairs policy.

Repairs to pest access

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and as stated in the landlord’s repair responsibilities matrix, the responsibility for pest control within the property fell to the resident. The information on the landlord’s website about pest control also says it is responsible for blocking up any entry points such as holes that pests may be using to get into a home. It was evident that rats were able to access the property again in October 2023 through holes in the roof. The landlord had failed to block these holes having been aware of the issue since February 2023. The reoccurrence of the rats entering the property in October 2023 likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. As well as the time and trouble to raise the matter again.
  2. The landlord’s records show it competed the repair, to fill up access holes to stop rats entering the property, on 30 January 2024 and then further repairs to proofing on 28 February 2024. Although internal emails show this repair was delayed until the following week due to weather. The overall timeframe here was over a year after the resident raised the issue. This timeframe was not in line with its repairs policy. The landlord again did not explain the full reasons for the delay.
  3. The landlord initially advised the resident on 13 February 2023 to purchase rat pellets. However, the resident told the landlord the rats were accessing the property through a hole in her roof. The landlord’s housing management policy says it will take responsibility for pest eradication where the infestation is due to an issue with the fabric of the building. While the landlord initiated the roof inspection and subsequently raised repairs to access holes, there was no evidence that it considered if it was responsible for eradicating the pest infestation at this point. This was a failure to initially follow its policy.
  4. It was evident the resident had treated the rat infestation herself following her contact with the landlord in February 2023. In its final response, the landlord offered the resident £200 towards a pest control bill. We have not seen evidence of this bill, or the time period it relates to. There is no evidence to suggest that this was not a fair contribution to this bill.
  5. The evidence shows that following the resident’s complaint the landlord took action to address pest control. Its final response stated it had raised works for its contractor to complete a survey for rats in the loft, extraction of insulation, disinfect and renew insulation, and inspect for entry points. Its pest control contractor completed this at its first visit on 4 March 2024. This was over 4 months after the resident’s report on 15 October 2023 about rats returning. The timeframe here was excessive and did not meet the 28-day timescale for routine repair.
  6. It is noted the resident raised further reports about rats and a further stage 1 complaint after the end of this complaints process. The summary of works by the pest control contractor completed on 8 March 2024 did not note any further proofing to access holes. It noted the job as completed. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord failed to complete the work it said it would in its stage 2 response.

Communication

  1. The landlord’s repairs standard states repairs that more complex repairs may take longer and it will keep a resident updated. The evidence shows the resident had to follow up with the landlord in October 2023 for it to schedule both repair to the extractor ducting pipe and the pest access. She also chased for updates on this work in December 2023 and January 2024. There was no evidence that the landlord kept the resident appropriately updated on the delays or progress. Its communication about the repair work was not inline with its repairsstandard or basic customer service. It is noted the communication improved during the stage 2 complaint investigation. For example, the landlord followed up with the resident on 31 January and again on 5 and 6 March 2024 to check repairs were complete.
  2. The landlord’s communication around repair appointments was also poor. The evidence shows the landlord missed an appointment in November 2023, and a failed appointment on 6 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged these failed appointments in its stage 1 response and offered the resident £60 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy which says it may compensate £30 where it fails to attend an appointment.

Overall summary

  1. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged the delay to the repairs to the ducting pipe and pest access. To remedy the complaint, the landlord offered the resident compensation and completed the repairs. It is essential for landlords to break down any offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent it had acknowledged the impact of each individual failure. In absence of a full breakdown of this calculation by the landlord, we were unable to determine what proportion had been attributed to each repair issue in the complaint. However, the total compensation offered in relation to the repairs of £780 did not go far enough to reflect the excessive delay, its failures to follow its policies and procedures, and poor communication about both repair issues.
  2. Overall, the compensation was not enough to account for the failings we have identified. The landlord also had not explained the full reasons for the delays to the repairs. As such, it failed to demonstrate that it had taken learning from the resident’s complaint. A further amount of compensation has been ordered in line with our remedies guidance for where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right but this was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs and pest access.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 4 weeks of this report:
    1. apologise to the resident for the further failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £1080. This amount includes the £830 offered during the complaints process. This is broken down as:
      1. £770 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about repairs and pest access.
      2. £200 as previously offered towards a pest control bill.
      3. £60 as previously offered for the failed appointments.
      4. £50 as previously offered for complaint handling.
    3. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Service.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident about her concerns raised to us about a reoccurrence of pests at the property.