Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) is a new government policy that came into force on 1 October 2026, find out more.

Vivid Housing Limited (202402563)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402563

Vivid Housing Limited

21 March 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:
    1.     Reports of repairs to the roof allowing entry for pests.
    2.     Reports of repairs to the driveway.
    3.      Fire safety concerns.
    4.     Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord with a shared ownership lease. She purchased a new build house in December 2019. The defects liability period for the property ended in September 2020. The property remains under National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty cover. The resident has autism.
  2. The resident first reported mice in the loft on 14 January 2020. An inspection was carried out by the landlord on 22 January 2020. It found that there were birds (starlings) nesting in the roof. Starlings are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which makes it illegal to intentionally kill, injure or take a starling, or to take, damage or destroy an active nest or its contents.
  3. On 23 January 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it could not disturb the nest. It asked her to monitor the situation and let it know once the birds had left.
  4. On 12 June 2020, the resident advised the landlord that the birds had left, and a repair was raised in relation to a hole in the roof. The repair log shows that this was completed on 5 August 2020.
  5. On 3 September 2020, the resident provided the landlord with a snagging list which included internal repairs to the stairs, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. On 7 September 2020, the landlord sent an email to the resident to confirm the defects she had reported, which included “roof repairs and nesting starlings”. It then raised a repair on 16 September 2020 for the roof repair and starlings. The repair log shows this was completed on 7 December 2020.
  6. A document in relation to a schedule of defects that was prepared at the termination of the defect liability period was signed by the resident on 23 November 2020. This said that the work in relation to the removal of the birds’ nest and blocking up of holes in the roof was completed “satisfactorily”.
  7. Over 3 years later, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 24 January 2024. She said that the roof repair had not been properly carried out and the birds had been coming back “every year”. She also raised concerns that the roof breached fire regulations due to “holes in the roof”. She went on to say that the driveway had subsidence, thought to be caused by a faulty downpipe.
  8. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 7 February 2024. It explained that it had a sign-off sheet that confirmed the necessary roof repair was completed satisfactorily. It also said that the driveway would need to be investigated by making a claim on the building warranty, and it would assist her in doing so.
  9. The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 9 February 2024. She said that the roof was a breach of fire safety, and the roof and driveway should be the landlord’s responsibility to repair as they formed part of the original snagging list.
  10. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 April 2024 requesting permission to share her contact details with its building surveyor so that an inspection could be carried out. The resident responded the same day confirming her agreement.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 April 2024. It reiterated that the resident would need to raise a claim with the NHBC if she felt the defects were as a result of the original build.
  12. The resident sent emails to the landlord on 26 April and 9 May 2024 chasing the building surveyor inspection. The landlord contacted the resident on 16 October 2024 advising that it did not receive a response in relation to the building surveyor inspection.
  13. The landlord sent the resident further correspondence on 23 October 2024. It said that as a result of reviewing information, it had identified failures. It offered the resident a total of £400 compensation, which was broken down into:
    1. £30 for the delay in providing a stage 2 response.
    2. £370 for the delay in arranging the building surveyor’s inspection.

Assessment and findings

Repair responsibilities

  1. The landlord’s website says that shared owners are responsible for repairs to the property after the defect period ends, and that residents will need to refer to their lease. The resident’s lease agreement sets out that she is responsible for keeping the premises in good and substantial repair and condition.
  2. During the first 2 years following completion of a new build property, the builder, not NHBC, is responsible for rectifying problems arising from the builder’s failure to meet NHBC requirements. Any defects identified in the following 3 to 10 years are covered by the NHBC warranty.
  3. The landlord’s pest control policy says that it is responsible for treating communal areas such as bin stores and shared hallways.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the roof allowing entry for pests

  1. The evidence shows that the resident reported mice in the loft on 14 January 2020. The landlord advised the resident that it would pay the costs of treatment and carried out an inspection on 22 January 2020. It identified that starlings were nesting in the loft, having gained access through a hole in the roof. The landlord attended to the report promptly, which was appropriate, as the resident did not have a repair responsibility at this time.
  2. Following the inspection, the landlord advised the resident that it could not carry out any repairs immediately as starlings were a protected species and she should contact it when the birds had left. This was a reasonable response as the landlord needed to act within the parameters of the law.
  3. On 16 June 2020, the resident advised the landlord the birds had left the nest, and a repair order was raised. There was a target date set for 19 June 2020, but this was not evidenced as complete until 5 August 2020. It was not appropriate that the landlord took 54 days to attend to the roof repair given it had set a target of 7 days. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect a routine repair of this sort to be addressed within 28 days.
  4. On 7 September 2020, an inspection was carried out following the end of the defect period. The inspection form noted the need to “remove old bird nest and block up holes”. This contradicts the repair log that shows that the roof repair and bird’s nest removal was completed on 5 August 2020, which is of concern.
  5. A further roof repair was raised on 16 September 2020. A document signed by the resident on 23 November 2020 was provided to this Service. This confirmed that the works in relation to the roof repair and removal of the bird’s nest was carried out satisfactorily. Nevertheless, the landlord’s repair log does not show this as complete until 7 December 2020. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. If it were not for the signed document from the resident confirming the works as complete, this Service may not have been able to conclude that the repair took place. This is because the evidence the landlord relied upon was not accurately recorded.
  6. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, highlights the importance of good record keeping practices. Therefore, a recommendation has been made in relation to this.
  7. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 24 January 2024 in relation to the roof repair allowing entry for birds. She said that the birds had returned every year since her first report. However, there is no evidence to show that this had been repeatedly reported to the landlord.
  8. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 February 2024. It explained that it had investigated the complaint by liaising with the developer and the insurance teams. It said the resident had signed a sign-off sheet at the end of the defect period confirming that the roof space works were completed satisfactorily. This was reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint.
  9. The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 7 February 2024. The landlord responded on 25 April 2024, saying that the property was inspected and signed off by both the building control and building warranty provider. Furthermore, it had attended to the reports the resident raised at that time. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of the building control and warranty provider, and therefore it appropriately responded to the resident’s complaint.
  10. In the main, the landlord’s response was reasonable. However, this Service has identified a recording keeping failure, and has therefore made a recommendation in relation to this so that the landlord may take learning from the failure. The concerns regarding record keeping have created some uncertainty with respect to when the repairs were actually done however, as the signoff sheet was signed by the resident, the Ombudsman is unable to determine maladministration. As such, service failure has been found with the landlord’s handling of this aspect.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the driveway

  1. There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that the resident raised a repair in relation to the driveway prior to the stage 1 complaint. Therefore, this Service will assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s response to the issue raised based on the information available.
  2. In the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 24 January 2024, she explained that the driveway was affected by subsidence due to a faulty downpipe that allowed water to pool. The landlord responded on 7 February 2024 saying that as the property had been signed off, any defect would now have to be investigated by making a claim under the building warranty. This was appropriate and in line with the NHBC warranty. This is because the issue was raised after the 2-year builder’s responsibility requirements, and therefore covered by the NHBC warranty.
  3. The resident had explained to the landlord that the situation was causing her stress due to her autism. The landlord offered to assist the resident with any insurance claim made under the NHBC warranty. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord was making reasonable adjustments to assist the resident in resolving her complaint.
  4. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 9 February 2024. She said that the driveway was raised as part of the original snagging list and therefore was the responsibility of the landlord. This Service has not had sight of any evidence to show that the driveway formed part of the snagging list email of 3 September 2020. An email of 16 April 2024 was provided to the landlord, including photos of the driveway that appeared to show it was defective.
  5. The landlord responded on 25 April 2024. It reiterated its stage 1 response, and again offered to assist the resident to make a claim to NHBC. It also offered the resident the opportunity for the property to be inspected by an independent building surveyor. These were reasonable and proportionate actions in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord went on to say that it had not received a response to its emails of 18 and 22 April 2024 in which the offer of an inspection was made. The evidence shows that the resident replied to the email of 22 April 2024 and sent a further chaser on 9 May 2024 in relation to the surveyor’s inspection. However, this was to a ‘no reply’ email address, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord did not see the response. While the use of ‘no reply’ email addresses is not necessarily unreasonable, landlords should ensure their services are accessible and avoid barriers to contact wherever possible.
  7. In summary, the landlord appropriately advised the resident of her options in relation to the driveway repair, which was to raise a claim with NHBC. It also offered to assist the resident in making the claim and offered an inspection of the property. This was resolution focused. Therefore, as outlined above there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the driveway.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s fire safety concerns

  1. The resident first raised concerns about fire safety in her stage 1 complaint of 24 January 2024. She explained that a local fire officer had advised that the hole in the roof constituted a breach of fire regulations. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 February 2024. However, it failed to directly respond to the resident’s concerns. Instead it said that the roof had been signed off at the end of the defect period. This was not appropriate and did not demonstrate that the landlord was taking a sympathetic and understanding approach to the resident’s concerns.
  2. The resident again raised fire safety concerns in her stage 2 complaint of 9 February 2024. An internal email of 5 March 2024 said that the fire safety breaches were “spurious” (false), and that the roof must be ventilated to prevent condensation which was why it had vents in the eves and soffits. Although this email was intended for an internal audience, the language used was concerning and had the effect of minimising the resident’s concerns. Since the resident had explained these concerns were raised by a fire officer, and as they evidently caused her some worry about her safety, the landlord should have demonstrated that it treated them seriously.
  3. Nevertheless, the landlord again failed to address the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 response or provide her with any meaningful explanation in relation to her fire safety concerns. While it did offer to inspect the property, which was appropriate, it should have gone further to clarify that the inspection would address fire safety issues.
  4. After the complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord contacted the resident on 23 October 2024. It said that it had specified in its stage 2 response that it would send out an independent building surveyor and that the inspection had been arranged for 7 November 2024. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £370 compensation for the delay in arranging the inspection.
  5. While it is acknowledged that some steps were taken to investigate the resident’s concerns, it was not appropriate that these actions were delayed and did not happen until the end of the complaints process. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of fire safety concerns. The offer of compensation was, however, reasonable, and this Service has not made a further order for compensation.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy allows 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. This was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy timescale.
  3. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 9 February 2024. The landlord contacted her on 16 April 2024 requesting to extend the deadline for a response, in order to review the additional information she had provided. It said it would aim to provide a full response by 23 April 2024. While it was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident with a revised timeframe, it did not do so until 46 working days after the escalation request. This was not appropriate and contrary to its policy. The policy says that if it is not possible to provide a response within 20 working days, the landlord will make contact within those 20 working days to agree a date to deliver a full response.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 April 2024. This was not appropriate as it failed to adhere to the revised timescale of 23 April 2024. Though the delay was not excessive, it likely caused some distress and inconvenience to the resident as well as undermining her confidence in the landlord.
  5. As mentioned above, the landlord subsequently contacted the resident 6 months later on 23 October 2024. It accepted that there had been a delay in providing its stage 2 response. It apologised for this delay and offered the resident £30 compensation. While this was a positive step to put things right, it cannot be considered reasonable redress as it took place several months after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and following the involvement of this Service.
  6. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint and £80 compensation has been awarded to her. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where there were “delays in giving a response”, as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. To further explain this, the landlord did not advise the resident of the revised response timeframe until after the response was due, and it failed to adhere to the extended response timescale.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs to the driveway.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of repairs to the roof allowing entry for pests.
    2. Fire safety concerns.
    3. Associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination (adjusted to allow for the Christmas period), the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £550, made up of:
      1. £370 previously offered for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to its handling of her reports of fire safety concerns.
      2. £100 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused for the delay in the repair and taking into consideration the inconsistencies within the landlord’s records which suggest the repairs were not completed correctly.
      3. £80 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience she experienced due to the complaint handling delay.
    3. Arrange for staff directly responsible for handling complaints to complete this Service’s free online dispute resolution training for landlords, if this has not been done recently.
    4. Provide the resident and this Service with an update on its proposed action following its inspection of 7 November 2024. Should it decide no action is necessary, it should provide details as to what considerations it made in coming to this decision.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord assesses its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This should include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM for landlords and relevant staff, if this has not been done recently.