Vivid Housing Limited (202425383)

Background

1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 12 May 2022. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette. On 16 January 2024, the resident reported a stain on her ceiling from a leak in her roof. On 29 May 2024, the resident paid a contractor to clear the guttering on the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it found a failing in its response to the resident’s repair requests.
5. There was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acknowledged a service failing, apologised, offered redress which was appropriate to the failing, and put systems in place to reduce the likelihood of the same failing reoccurring.
7. The landlord handled the resident’s complaints in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), and the landlord’s complaint handling policy. It was fair and proactive in its approach and sought to put things right for the resident.

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.

What we have not looked at and why

8. When the resident brought her complaint to us, she reported several issues from the beginning of her shared ownership. When she raised a complaint with the landlord, she said that she reported 2 years previously that the roof was in a bad condition which meant that rodents were entering the roof space and causing a hazard.
9. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from 16 January 2024 onwards. This is when the resident raised a repair request for a roof leak. Reference to events that occurred prior to 16 January 2024 is made in this report only to provide context.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.  

Roof repair

10. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged a service failing in its response to a report of a roof leak. Its records show that on 16 January 2024, the resident reported the leak. The landlord found that this repair was abandoned on 19 January 2024 in error. It is considered that after the resident raised the initial repair, there were no further repair requests or chasers until she raised a complaint. In its complaint response the landlord apologised for the error, re-raised the repair request, offered £50 compensation, and implemented a system to monitor complex repairs through to completion. These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take when it identified a service failing.

Guttering

11. When the resident raised a complaint, she provided a copy of an invoice dated 3 weeks previously and images of the gutters with plants growing in them. Based on the evidence, this was the first notification of the issue to the landlord. It is not clear why the resident had not made a repair request or sent the images to the landlord before instructing her own private contractor.
12. The landlord investigated its repair history and found that it assessed the gutters in 2023 but found that a repair was not required at that time. When the resident brought her complaint to us, she said that she had attempted to contact them about the guttering repair in 2024 but was ignored. We have not been provided with any evidence that the resident contacted the landlord prior to arranging the contractor to clean the guttering. As such, we cannot establish whether or not the landlord was put on notice of the issue or had an opportunity to address the reported issue itself.
13. While it is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for guttering, it decided not to re-imburse the resident £120 for the cost of cleaning the gutters. In its complaint response, the landlord highlighted its compensation policy which states that compensation will not be awarded where “claims are made where service standards have been met or where services had not been requested”. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to choose to take and was in line with its compensation policy.

14. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and a response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
15. The landlord issued its responses within the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy. The resident complained on 17 June 2024. While the landlord delayed in acknowledging the complaint for 9 working days it issued its stage 1 response promptly 4 working days later, on 4 July 2024. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 September 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 17 working days later, on 4 October 2024. Each of these responses were issued within the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaint handling policy.
16. The landlord used its complaint process effectively to put things right for the resident. It considered its service failure and made an offer of redress which was adequate in the circumstances. It identified the reason for the service failure and implemented a system to reduce the likelihood of the same issue reoccurring. It re-raised the roof repair order and it explained clearly why it would not reimburse her for the guttering repair. These were all appropriate steps for the landlord to take.

Learning

Complaint handling

17. The landlord delayed slightly in acknowledging the complaint. While it ultimately issued its complaint responses within the required timescales, it should consider feedback to the complaint handler to ensure complaints are acknowledged within appropriate timescales.