Vivid Housing Limited (202412944)

Background

1. At the time of the complaint the resident was a shared owner of a property with the landlord. She has since moved out of the property. She raised issues with the communal grounds maintenance and is unhappy the landlord failed to improve its services despite committing to do so in its complaint responses.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal grounds maintenance.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about communal grounds maintenance
   2. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Communal grounds maintenance

5. The landlord acknowledged in both complaint responses that the service it provided was below the expected standard. It failed to fulfil its commitments to improve this at both stages of the complaint.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy timescales at both stages.

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.

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.

7. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 February 2023 and told it the grounds looked ‘like a jungle’. The landlord acknowledged her email and said it had passed it to the relevant member of staff. We have seen no evidence it made further contact or took any specific action at that time.
8. The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 August 2023 to say it had still not resolved the issue and asked it to refund some of her service charge. It said it visit the following week. On 8 September 2023 she contacted it to say a visit had taken place 3 weeks earlier but nothing had been done. It responded to say that its contractor was not doing a good enough job and that it was chasing this up with them.
9. On 20 September 2023 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy it still had not taken any action. It again said it had passed her email to the relevant member of staff. It told her service charge accounts were due soon and once received she could claim for missed visits. It also said it could raise a formal complaint for her if she wished. She responded on 25 October 2023 to confirm she wanted it to raise a complaint.
10. In its stage 2 response of 9 November 2023 the landlord said its contractor attended on 21 September 2023 to cut back shrubs and remove dead ones. It said they had also attended on 18 October and 31 October 2023 when they had tidied shrubs and cut grass. It said the contractor had recently hired new staff and it hoped to see an improvement in the number of appointments being attended. It reiterated that she could request a refund for missed visits once she received her annual service charge statement. Its compensation offer was reasonable and proportionate at that time, given its commitment to improving the service.
11. On 15 March 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as she said nothing had changed since its stage 1 and the grounds were not being maintained. It spoke with her on 5 April 2024 and agreed the quality of the grounds maintenance was not good enough. It said it would be sending its own internal team on 15 April 2024 and fortnightly thereafter. It said it would call her on 7 May 2024 to find out how the first 2 visits had gone. We have seen no evidence it did this. Its additional compensation offer was not proportionate, given its failure to improve after its stage 1 response.
12. The landlord wrote to all residents on 9 May 2024 to say it would be bringing the communal grounds maintenance in house after feedback from residents about the contractor. It said it was putting together a new team and aimed to be meeting expected standards by the end of August. It was positive that the landlord recognised the problems with the contractor and made a significant change to its processes, and that it set expectations with residents of how long it would take to embed the new process.
13. However, the landlord’s records from September 2024 onwards do not show that the grounds maintenance began to meet the expected standard of its grounds maintenance policy. The resident moved out of the property on 16 April 2025. There were no visits at all in October 2024, January 2025 or February 2025. We have seen no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident to explain these missed visits, which would have been appropriate, given her concerns.
14. The landlord has confirmed that adjustments have been made to the 2023/24 service charges in relation to missed appointments. However, it is not clear from its record whether this has been clearly communicated with the resident.
15. Considering the circumstances of the case, the £100 compensation awarded by the landlord did not reflect the distress, frustration, time and trouble incurred by the resident. It acknowledged the service it provided was below its expected standard but repeatedly failed to bring the service up to that standard despite commitments to do so, and despite the resident’s repeated requests. To address this, we have awarded £300 to replace the landlord’s offer.

16. As can be seen from above the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at both stages. It sent its responses in line with its complaints policy timescales.

Learning

17. The landlord did raise and deal with the resident’s complaint promptly once she formally requested this. However, she expressed dissatisfaction on 20 September 2023, and the landlord could have been more proactive in raising a complaint at that time rather than asking her to confirm this was what she wanted to do.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was adequate for it to make an informed decision and effectively investigate the resident’s complaint.

Communication

19. The landlord’s records do not show that its overall communication was good. It did not keep her updated with ongoing issues with contractor and in house visits and did not follow-up following visits as it promised to do. It should have been more proactive in keeping her updated and making the follow-up call as promised.