Vivid Housing Limited (202502075)

Background

1. The resident bought a new-build flat in 2023. In summer 2024 the resident told the landlord that there was excessive heat within the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Reports of excessive heat within the property.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of excessive heat within the property.
   2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of excessive heat within the property

4. The landlord acted in line with its obligations in the lease. It sought information from appropriate sources to ensure it responded correctly to the resident.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

6. The resident told us that the temperature within the property in the summer months had worsened her chronic migraines. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident told us that the temperature within the property gets up to 30 degrees centigrade in the summer months. We are not able to investigate what is and is not an appropriate temperature for the property. We can only determine if the landlord responded appropriately and fairly in the circumstances, in line with its obligations.
8. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it stated that it was not responsible for repairs and maintenance within the resident’s property. It reiterated this in its stage 2 response.
9. The resident’s lease states that the landlord’s obligations for repairs and maintenance are for the common parts of the building. The lease states the resident is responsible for repairing and maintaining the inside of the property. Therefore, the landlord correctly advised the resident.
10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised that the building was built to the required regulations for its build date and it passed building control sign-off. The landlord said that it had already sent the resident documents to verify this but could re-send the documents if necessary. Providing the resident with documents that evidenced what it was saying was appropriate and reasonable.
11. The landlord also stated in its stage 1 response that it did not need to upgrade the property to meet the newer building regulations introduced at a later date. It reiterated this in its stage 2 response where it referred to “Part O” of the building regulations. The evidence showed the landlord contacted relevant parties to source the correct information. This included contacting the developer and the employer’s agent for the building project. These were appropriate steps to take to get the correct information to answer the resident’s questions.
12. The resident thought there was a potential defect with the property. The evidence showed the landlord took reasonable steps to address this such as referring to the end of defects period inspection report and checked if it had received complaints from other residents. Although the absence of complaints or repair issues from other residents cannot be considered as evidence, the landlord did show a willingness to investigate any  wider impact. This was a positive action to take. In its stage 1 response, it appropriately signposted the resident to the steps she could take if she thought there was something defective in her property.
13. The resident and the landlord had different interpretations of the quiet enjoyment clause within the lease. Therefore, the landlord took legal advice on this matter. The landlord was reasonable to rely on the advice of an appropriate expert, to make sure it responded to the resident’s concerns lawfully.
14. In both the landlord’s complaint responses it referenced it would be happy to consider any requests from the resident that she made under the home improvements policy. The landlord also said it would review the information it provided to shared owners about repair responsibilities. These were reasonable actions for the landlord to take in response to the resident’s complaint.

15. The landlord’s complaints policy, including complaint definition and timescales, were compliant with the Code.
16. The landlord requested an extension at stage 1 as it was awaiting legal advice on the resident’s complaint. The extension request was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
17. All acknowledgements and responses were issued within the correct timescales in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) & communication

18. The evidence showed good practice from the landlord in respect of record keeping and communication. The landlord made good use of records and communication with other parties to provide the resident with accurate answers to the points she raised in her complaint.