Vivid Housing Limited (202007902)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007902

Vivid Housing Limited

25 February 2022

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues, including asbestos works, structural concerns, and the thermal efficiency of her property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint including her complaint about staff conduct.

Background and summary of events

Background, including policies and procedures

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her property is a flat in a house conversion. The Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) for the property is dated September 2013.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s obligation to:
1. “Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the Property (including drains, gutters and external pipes).
2. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the Property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity).
3. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the Property for space heating and heating water.
4. Consider the age and character of the Property and how long it is likely to last when assessing what repairs or maintenance are reasonable.
5. Carry out repairs for which we are responsible within a reasonable time of becoming aware that a repair is needed. The length of time will depend on how urgent the repair is and our service standards in force at the time”.
The landlord’s Asbestos Management Plan and Procedures recognises that, “generally as there is no risk from ACM’s [asbestos containing material] if people are not exposed to the released fibres, we manage them in situ”. However, where remedial actions are advised, there are various options including “Protecting/Enclosing, Encapsulation, Repair (patching/sealing small areas) and Removal… All works should be carried out by suitably qualified and competent contractors”.
The information regarding the type, location, and condition of ACMs at surveyed properties is held within the asset management database. “In the event of an incident or issue involving asbestos the persons involved will report this immediately…” then the landlord “will conduct a full and thorough investigation into the incident, reviewing the processes involved, actions of the people affected. Interviews and statements will be taken and used as part of a review to help identify the root cause behind the event”.
The landlord’s customer information leaflet states that “activities such as drilling, cutting, sanding and scraping could result in asbestos fibres being released” and with regards to artex specifically, “artex is a textured decorative coating that was widely used on interior walls and ceilings. Some older types of artex contained a very small amount of asbestos. Artex is safe as long as it is not disturbed i.e. sanded or scraped”.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint states, “matters that are not considered as complaints under this policy are: A claim for damages or personal injury which will be dealt with as an insurance claim”.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint had two stages:
1. At Stage 1 the landlord aims “to carry out a full investigation and communicate our findings to our customer within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged by the investigating manager. If this isn’t possible, we’ll inform our customer within these 10 working days, to advise when we expect to deliver a full response”.
2. At Stage 2 the landlord aims to “to have completed and provided the outcome of the review to our customer within 20 working days of the complaint being referred for review. If this isn’t possible, we’ll make contact within these 20 working days, to advise when we expect to deliver a full response”.
The landlord’s repairs policies in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint state:
1. “We’re legally responsible to maintain the structure and exterior of our dwellings in good repair, together with supplies and fixtures for the main services provided. An outline list of all repair obligations, both VIVID’s and our customers, is explained in tenancy and lease agreements”.
2. “We’re committed to delivering high quality services to all our customers and to making sure that their homes are safe and maintained in good repair. This will include:
  1. Services are delivered with certainty, flexibility and to the customers’ expectations.
  2. Keeping customers informed of the progress of their service request”.
The landlord’s Lettings Policy at the time of the resident’s complaint states: “Properties in need or major repair or disposal – Where we have identified that major works are required or a property is being considered for disposal or demolition, customers will be advised and provided with reasonable, alternative temporary or permanent accommodation”.

Summary of Events

In September 2018 the resident emailed the landlord to express her dissatisfaction that, having reported a rat infestation in her home the previous week, the landlord had sent a carpenter. The landlord replied saying that the carpenter was there in relation to the resident’s reports of issues with her kitchen, and that it would raise a job with its pest control contractor. In reply the resident said that ‘my house conversion flat has many health and safety issues, without the rat urine and droppings, which I previously, on numerous occasions reported to [the landlord] and they weren’t addressed…’. She said that she had booked a ‘…complete structural, fixtures and fittings H&S surveyor’. She also requested the landlord to address several other repairs: loose tap, kitchen light, seals on the toilet, and bathroom light.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 November 2018 stating that the Repairs Manager had failed to action any repairs to her property. She explained that the property was freezing and she was unable to heat it adequately, there was no sound proofing, and a lot of structural movement. She also did not believe that the property was fireproof. There was an infestation of rats and mice, and the landlord’s contractors were attending for this. She said that her kitchen floor and units needed to be replaced, and the bedroom ceiling was ‘blown’. She said that the Repairs Manager was aware of all these issues but was ‘…choosing not to be accountable’.
The landlord emailed to acknowledge the complaint on 27 November 2018 providing reference number 2387. It said that it would arrange for a surveyor to visit the property in relation to all of the issues reported, who would also carry out a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment.
The surveyor attended along with a Neighbourhood Officer on 7 December 2018 to carry out an assessment of the concerns the resident had raised. The resident sent several emails to the landlord following on from this asking for a written report of the findings. The landlord replied on 17 December 2018 explaining that the surveyor was on annual leave but would return shortly and their report would be shared with the resident. A further update email was sent on 20 December 2018 explaining that the landlord was considering how best to resolve the resident’s concerns but as it was now closing for Christmas it would be back in touch in the new year.
In the meantime, the landlord agreed to replace the kitchen, have the windows and heating system assessed for efficiency, and carry out a noise test. An email to the resident from a Contracts Manager following on from a telephone conversation on 9 January 2019 sets out the works the landlord had agreed to carry out:
1. Obtain an update from Pest Control on the prevention works and any further works they have planned to do.
2. Replace kitchen complete.
3. Survey whole block for new glazing.
4. Fit soft door closer to communal front door.
5. Replace the carpet in both the bedroom and hallway as these have been ruined by the rodents.
6. Carry out a noise test.
7. Check the efficiency of the heating and carry out any recommended works, which may include additional radiators etc.
The landlord said ‘…if I’ve forgotten anything or you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me’.
The pest control contractor, which had found evidence of mice but not of rats, completed its works on 21 January 2019, declaring the property ‘pest free’ but that it would be back in touch about clearing clear the loft space.
On 24 January 2019 the surveyor emailed the resident saying that following on from the Contracts Manager’s email, they would attend with a flooring contractor, an energy performance consultant (an accredited EPC assessor) who would review the thermal performance of the building, and a Neighbourhood Officer on 1 February 2019. This went ahead as planned and the landlord’s kitchen supplier also carried out a kitchen survey that same day.
The resident sent a number of emails over the next couple of days with her concerns about the property. In response the landlord said ‘as you know, we are currently looking into all these issues and more to make sure your home is safe, secure and warm for you. I understand that this whole process is making you feel really anxious, but please rest assured that we are currently doing everything we promised you we would do’.
On 5 February 2019 the resident emailed the surveyor to ask if he was aware that:
1. the bay window was coming away from the external wall and the internal walls look and feel damp.
2. the communal stairs were coming away from the wall.
3. internal load bearing walls had been removed.
4. all rooms slanted inwards towards the stairway.
5. there were signs of rising damp.
6. there were cracks and bulges on walls and ceilings.
7. the external wall leading down to garden was splitting open.
The resident sent a number of further emails over the next couple of weeks with a number of concerns, such as the communal staircase not meeting regulations, her property being cold, the entire building showing movement and damp, gas pipes being unsafe, electric meters located in an unsafe place, and all the floors and ceilings slanting. She asked for ‘risk assessment’ and ‘fire safety’ appointments for her property.
The landlord replied on 14 February 2019 saying that it was taking the issues she had raised seriously, although some of these things ‘don’t happen overnight’. The landlord noted that it had agreed with the resident the level of investigation at the start and asked if she now felt it had missed something. The landlord said it was happy to arrange another visit to go through the resident’s concerns, and suggested the resident have someone with her to offer support, or that it could arrange for support if required.
On this same date the energy performance consultant emailed the landlord noting that the resident reported that she was unable to achieve a satisfactory level of warmth and that her energy bills were very expensive due to this.
The consultant noted that there were effectively three external walls at the property, which had no insulation and would contribute to heat loss. The radiator sizing was found to be appropriate and the boiler a modern condenser type, but the layout of the property ‘gives rise to some extremely difficult pipe runs’. This meant long pipe runs, up to 20m, of poorly insulated copper pipe resulting in a significant drop in temperature between the boiler and the largest radiator. The consultant made several recommendations, including:
1. creating a separate zone for the living room alone controlled by an additional room thermostat, with insulated pipework of a larger diameter.
2. fitting a heavy duty insulated, self-closing door at the main entry area.
3. applying PIB backed plasterboard to the left-hand wall of the common access area.
The consultant also suggested installing a well–insulated suspended ceiling in the main living room and carrying out an insulation survey of the external walls to establish whether there was a cavity which could be insulated.
The resident sent a further email to the surveyor on 14 February 2019. She said, ‘in the capacity of a surveyor, I’m inclined to believe that you have witnessed the structural concerns within my flat, also the electrical and gas safety concerns’. The resident questioned why she was not being provided with any information and asked why the landlord was treating her in such ‘a disgusting manner’. The resident referenced her mental health issues and asked for copies of the reports on her property.
In reply the landlord emailed the resident on 15 February 2019 and suggested that the surveyor visited again so that the resident could talk though her concerns, and also suggested that in light of the mental health issues the resident had referenced, someone that was supporting her could attend also. Alternatively it could arrange for its tenancy support team to do so.
The resident agreed to an appointment of 21 February 2019 and declined the offer of support. She said ‘I also feel that a structural engineer should be attending and a risk assessment put in place, not only structural concerns but to include gas and electrical safety… I would like us to discuss heating, windows, and flooring and to be given a time bound resolve, replacement/fitting dates. My flat is freezing, I can’t keep warm, I can’t function in my home as I’m so cold’. The resident also referenced the noise issues and the communal staircase. She said, ‘if a structural engineer’s report can’t be provided and legally binding risk assessments, fire, gas and electrical safety tests can’t be completed on Thursday, then will have to agree on another date’.
Also on 15 February 2019, the resident emailed the landlord stating ‘…pest control are awaiting a response from VIVID. They require the go ahead, permission to gut my pitched roof loft space, infestation may still be active up there. Can you please give them the authority to check behind my bath panel’.
In further emails the resident said that she had been reporting structural issues for six years, this was now worsening, that she had not agreed on the level of investigation, that the landlord was failing to mention the structural issues, and had ignored her requests for a risk assessment, fire safety report, gas and electric safety reports and a structural engineer to be appointed.
On 20 February 2019 the resident emailed the landlord cancelling the following day’s appointment stating this was because of a lack of information such as a report on the 1 February 2019 inspection, and the fact that no EPC had been registered online. She was also unhappy that no risk assessment, fire safety or gas and electrical reports have been made.
In reply the landlord said that one of the reasons for the visit was to look into structural issues that the recent emails had raised, and it would be very difficult to move the case forward if the resident refused to meet. However, the landlord would continue with the work and investigations that were originally agreed from previous visits, although there was no update on these at present. It would notify the resident if a new EPC was produced and submitted.
The resident replied stating that the landlord was ignoring her requests still, and that this had been the reason that she had cancelled the appointment. The resident then emailed the landlord saying that the Contracts Manager who had been dealing with her case was disgraceful and negligent and asked that he did not deal with her case any longer.
On 25 February 2019 the landlord emailed the resident to say that the Contracts Manager’s manager ‘…will be looking into both of your ongoing complaints’. This was logged as complaint reference 22069.
The landlord visited the resident at home on 15 March 2019, and in attendance were the surveyor, a gas supervisor, and the Head of Repairs. After this the resident emailed the landlord on a number of occasions about her concerns and expressing her dissatisfaction at staff members’ decisions not to carry out the investigations she had requested. She said of the meeting in an email to the Head of Repairs, ‘you have refused me a full health & safety, fire safety risk assessment and refused to supply a structural engineer/chartered surveyor … As I’m sure you are aware this is illegal, under many Acts of law’. Her emails contained a large number of concerns about different issues such as some of the windows not being of ‘FENSA [The Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme] quality’ and the trees next door ‘imposing/falling on our premises’.
On 19 March 2019 the resident again asked the landlord to authorise the pest control contractor to carry out further investigations and gutting/sealing of the loft.
In a follow up letter sent to the resident, dated 21 March 2019 (the landlord has referred to this letter as its ‘resolution’ to complaints 2387 and 22069, which was delayed so that it could conduct a face-to-face meeting with the resident) the landlord explained that the boiler required an upgrade and extra radiators to be fitted to achieve the required heat output. It would try and fit this work around the kitchen replacement to cause minimal disruption. The manager responsible for fire risk assessments had visited the building to check that the works identified in the communal fire risk assessment carried out on 19 March 2019 had been completed, and had confirmed that they had.
There was no evidence of subsidence and so the landlord would not be engaging a consultant structural engineer to investigate further. It stated, ‘as we said at the meeting we would need to see some significant signs of movement such as cracking’. In relation to the bedroom ceiling, it said this required some further investigating so would like to arrange to undertake an intrusive survey of the area. In relation to the complaint the resident had made about a Contracts Manager’s tone with her, the landlord apologised for any upset caused.
The resident continued to send a large number of emails to the landlord stating that it was ignoring the clear movement and subsidence occurring at the building, and advised that Environmental Health would be conducting an inspection of the property. On 22 March 2019 she said that as the landlord had failed to acknowledge the structural movement, she had investigated this herself and had all the evidence ready to show to Environmental Health when it conducted its inspection. She asked for a copy of the building consultant’s report (referring here to the energy performance consultant). She asked that the Head of Repairs no longer be involved in the case.
On 25 March 2019 the resident emailed saying that she wanted ‘a full investigation into my six year case’. She detailed many issues she wanted this to include, such as why the complaints procedure had failed, all structural/movement related repairs and maintenance, and the reason why the landlord had refused to provide a structural engineer and for it to ‘…perform a full health and safety, fire safety risk assessment after viewing my flat…’. In a further email that same day she reported that the electric fuse board/cupboard needed repositioning, she needed extra plug sockets, the plug socket in the lounge was distorted due to wall movement, and she needed replacement fire doors.
On 12 April 2019 Environmental Health carried out an HHSRS inspection, which found no category 1 hazards. However, it did write to the landlord with a schedule outlining the deficiencies in the property and the measures required to reduce the risks to an acceptable level, as follows:
1. Ensure the electrical consumer unit is suitably located in accordance relevant legislation and current codes of practice.
2. Make good the hole to the wall at the rear of the property below a window of the basement flat.
3. Have a professional pest controller assess the extent of the rodent infestation and the property and as a result of that report carry out any works, as far as is reasonably practical.
4. Investigate the cause of the high moisture meter readings on the chimney breast in the bedroom.
5. Carry out works to the windows.
6. Have the decorative ceiling covering in the bedroom, which was rippling, tested for asbestos content. If found to contain asbestos the covering should be removed or other action taken to stop it deteriorating to a condition where it may crack or split.
The boiler was replaced on 15 April 2019.
On 25 April 2019 the landlord asked the resident to meet so that it could discuss how it could move forward with the works that had been agreed. An appointment was made for 10 May 2019, but the resident questioned the need for this and asked that the works agreed just get booked in. An appointment was offered for the works to replace radiators for 13 May 2019, but these could not go ahead that day due to the floorboards needing to be lifted and belongings moved.
There followed a large number of emails from the resident asking the landlord to get the works agreed booked in and expressing frustration that this had not happened and the landlord’s lack of organisation. She asked who was overseeing the works, and that the landlord decant her and her belongings while all works were completed. The landlord replied on 17 May 2019 explaining that it was ‘…very difficult for me to keep track of everything when you have sent multiple emails in one day. Please can you try to put everything on one email for the attention of me and I will come back to you. The difficulty is when multiple messages are sent, other teams may be picking these emails up and they won’t be aware of your individual case’.
The email went on to confirm that new radiators were being fitted next week, and once this was down the flooring would be replaced. The window contractor had attended on 15 May 2019 and provide a quote for the necessary work which the landlord had approved. Asbestos contractors had attended that day for a scheduled check and would report back shortly. Another contractor would attend to inspect the roof space and seal any holes that might allow pests in. The email stated that it was the resident’s choice should she want to stay somewhere else whilst the work was being carried out but the landlord would not cover the costs of this.
On 17 May 2019 the resident called the landlord to say that the asbestos contractor that had attended to test the ceiling that day had been very ignorant, she was not happy with their attitude and not convinced they knew what they were doing, and were only there for a couple, of minutes. The landlord checked with the asbestos contractor who confirmed that they had taken a sample of the ceiling and the job has been marked as urgent for the results. This was relayed to the resident.
On 20 May 2019 the resident emailed with a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs naming several members of staff and stating, ‘please explain to me why no person/employee involved in my case processes the leadership skills required to organise what was agreed between themselves, in person, in my flat’. In a further email she said that the level of distress that the landlord had caused her meant that she needed time away from the property and cancelled all appointments for that week. There is no indication that a formal complaint was raised by the landlord following receipt of the emails.
The asbestos contractor’s report, dated 28 May 2019, detailed that the textured ceiling in the bedroom contained asbestos, and recommended that this was monitored and managed.
The resident sent a number of further emails asking for the works to be re-booked and coordinated so as to cause as little disruption as possible, and also raising other concerns such as trees next door, lack of a window cleaner and issues with her taps.
The landlord responded acknowledging her preferred dates and provided new appointments to coincide with these, with 29 May 2019 for a repairs supervisor and electrical manager to look at the chimney breast (as per Environmental Health’s recommendation), and the consumer unit. That afternoon the works on the windows would be completed. On 5 June 2019 the gas team would carry out the works to replace and add additional radiators to the property.
The resident replied saying that if the landlord wanted her to limit her emails then she wanted the surveyor and the Head of Repairs to apologise ‘…for their disgusting conduct in my home’. There followed a number of emails between the resident and the landlord booking and re-booking a variety of works at the property, including radiator replacement, kitchen flooring, consumer unit and sockets, lounge vents, therma-board the chimney breast and skim over and plaster bedroom ceiling (the bedroom work would be done under asbestos conditions) and re-fixing pipes in the bedroom. The resident asked for the asbestos test results.
From the mid-June 2019 the resident sent in a very large number of emails, as well as Facebook messages and photographs, expressing her dissatisfaction and said that she would be claiming compensation for lengthy, disorganised administration and communications about the works on her property. The landlord directed the resident to its Compensation Policy on its website.
The resident’s correspondence included emailing the landlord on 20 June 2019 raising concerns about a contractor drilling holes in an asbestos ceiling and treading in the dust/debris in the flooring in her property. The resident has advised this Service that she asked the contractor to leave on 21 June 2019.
Due to the content of some of the resident’s communications the landlord expressed its concern to the resident about her wellbeing and said that it would be making a referral to its tenancy support services, and also told the resident it would make a referral to adult services. At the resident’s request it did not make a referral to adult services, but did make referral to its tenancy support service.
On 21 June 2019 the landlord logged a formal complaint about the outstanding works and the resdent’s request for compensation. A landlord record from 24 June 2019 states, ‘I have spoken to [the resident] and she is unwilling to allow access for the works until she is feeling better. I have advised that this will delay things by weeks. She has said that she is unwilling to allow access for them to collect the items as well and has put the phone down’. A formal complaint was logged with reference number 53514.
In an email dated 24 June 2019 the resident said that she did not accept that the works that were happening in her bedroom currently were being carried out correctly, and that the ‘piles of dust and bits in and around my bedroom from drilling need to be tested for asbestos content’. The resident has advised this Service that the landlord’s contractor drilled into her ceiling on 20/21 June 2019. The resident repeated her request for asbestos testing by Facebook on 30 June 2021.
While the landlord was engaging with the resident via Facebook in June 2019, it was not until 4 July 2019 that it emailed her apologising for the delay in responding to her 21 June 2019 complaint. It said that it had looked into the outstanding works and proposed the following:
1. Additional sockets to be installed in bedroom on either the 10 or 12 July.
2. To visit on 17 -19 July to finish off the agreed work to the bedroom (thermo-board and plaster the chimney breast and to skim the ceiling).
3. Contractor was provisionally booked in to attend on 20 July to fit acoustic underlay and carpet in the lounge and bedroom and vinyl in the hallway.
4. It had asked the pest control contractor to inspect the loft area above the kitchen to make sure there were no signs of infestation or points of entry. The landlord would then consider any recommended remedial actions after their visit.
The landlord concluded saying, ‘I hope this covers all the outstanding works. Please can you confirm what date is best for you for the electric work to be completed and if you are in agreement with the other dates suggested. We can then get these scheduled in for you’.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that the kitchen refurbishment works were competed on 2 July 2019.
In a series of emails following this the resident asked why there had not been a full investigation into her complaint, and instead she had just been given a list of the outstanding work. She said there should been a full investigation of the entire case and four specific staff members that she had complained about, and a response to her requests for compensation. She said no further work would take place until the HSE (Health and Safety Executive) had investigated, mentioning ‘unsafe asbestos works’ and asked for any works booked to be cancelled.
The resident also noted in an email dated 27 June 2019 that she had been living out of boxes since November 2019 when she was advised flooring would be laid in all rooms.
The landlord replied on 9 July 2019 saying that it was sorry that the resident did not feel it had addressed the complaint fully, explaining that the dates sent for the repairs were just proposed dates for the outstanding works that it wanted to complete and that a full investigation was ongoing. The landlord further stated that the resident’s wellbeing was very important and before it proceeded any further a tenancy support officer would like to visit her to discuss all of her concerns, and suggested the 17 July 2019 for this.
The resident has advised this Service that the landlord reported her concerns about asbestos to the HSE on 15 July 2019. On 16 July 2019 the HSE contacted the landlord to discuss the works being carried out at the property, and the Ombudsman and the resident’s MP also emailed the landlord regarding the resident’s concerns.
The following day the Tenancy Support Officer and a repairs supervisor visited the resident at home and noted down all outstanding works. A note from the visit confirms that it had been agreed contractors would attend from 14-16 August 2019 to finish plastering in the bedroom, fit a socket, redecorate, clean and fit carpets. Once this was done furniture could be moved back into the bedroom and the outstanding works in the living room could be completed.
On 19 July 2019 an air reassurance test was carried out in relation to asbestos, the result of which were clear.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that the pest controller’s quoted works were completed on 19 July 2019 with other works completed on 29 July 2019.
In reply to the resident’s enquiry on 22 July 2019 as to who was dealing with her complaint, the landlord said ‘there’s a team of people managing your complaint because it’s quite complex. The Research and Insight team, who manage our complaints are taking the lead on this’.
On 17 July 2019, the HSE advised the landlord that the resident had reported that its contractor had drilled into an asbestos ceiling. In an exchange of correspondence on 25 July 2019 the landlord advised of the response of the contractor and provided the air test results. The HSE emailed the landlord stating that it had reviewed the information provided and deemed it satisfactory in addressing the concerns we received, and the case was closed.
The landlord responded to the MP on 1 August 2019 explaining that ‘as with most improvements, these things can take time to coordinate and I understand that arranging access…has not always been easy. Some of this has been due to VIVID having to arrange multiple visits for staff and contractors and some has been caused by [the resident] stopping the work’. It noted that its records showed that that all repairs since 2012 were raised and completed through its normal process. In November 2018 the resident raised additional repairs and it had carried out a large proportion of the work, including renewing the kitchen, renewing the gas boiler, and upgrading the heating system, and dealing with the rodent issues reported. The landlord stated asbestos containing material had been identified in the textured coating of the ceiling which was not unusual and it had taken all necessary precautions to manage any risk.
The landlord stated further works were booked for 14/15/16 August to carry out plastering work in the bedroom. It had agreed to decorate the room upon completion as a gesture of goodwill. Once the bedroom was complete and additional works to the lounge completed, it would supply and fit new acoustic underlay and new carpets in the bedroom and lounge. Its Repairs Supervisor and a Tenancy Support Officer had visited the resident on 17 July 2019 to discuss the outstanding works required and these staff members would now be the main points of contact going forward.
The resident continued to email the landlord about her complaint and request for compensation, and in response the landlord passed on her concerns to those staff members dealing with the works. On 13 August 2019 the resident noted damage to her dryer, freezer, cooker, rugs, and furniture.
The works planned on 14-16 August 2019 were completed and following this the bedroom was redecorated. Appointments were then booked for carpets and vinyl to be laid throughout. The resident continued to chase a response to her complaint and request for compensation in August and September 2019, and on 4 September 2019 the landlord’s records note that she was advised that this would be addressed once the works were complete.
The records indicate that works were ongoing throughout the last few months of 2019. The landlord’s records show that carpets were fitted on 19 September 2019 and the redecoration of the bedroom was completed on 25 September 2019.
A file note dated 27 September 2019 noted that a carpenter was to carry out boxing works, remedy a squeaky kitchen floor, and install a door draft excluder. The landlord’s repair records indicates that the boxing works were completed on 5 February 2020 and the flooring works on 7 February 2020. A file note states that the flooring would be finished in February 2020 and once that was done a decision would be made on compensation. A property inspection form dated 5 February 2020, signed by the resident, states that outstanding works were trees to be cut back, pointing around bay window, fill any possible pest entry points, decorate bedroom, underlay and carpet to bedroom, fix tap, and renew shelf under sink.
It is not clear what happened between then and May 2020, when a Stage 1 resolution letter for case reference 53514 was provided.

Stage 1 response

The Stage 1 response was dated 22 May 2020. In this, the landlord summarised the complaint as being about a lack of action to resolve a number of repair issues at the property, and the effect this had on both the resident’s physical and mental health. The resident had said she was seeking compensation for not being able to use her property fully and for damaged belongings. The letter said that while the resident had stated she had been reporting repair issues since 2012, there was no record of concerns raised until September 2018. In her original complaint the resident had asked for:
1. Fire safety certificate for the property and communal areas.
2. Reverberation and echo test results.
3. Evidence that the original conversion of the property met building regulations.
4. Health and safety report on the property.
5. Evidence of energy rating ‘E’ as the property was always cold.
The landlord also noted that the resident had reported a rodent infestation and said that its pest control contractor had attended to investigate and treat for pests, and that this work was finally completed in July 2019. The landlord had agreed to replace carpets in the hallway and bedroom that had been affected by the infestation. The surveyor and neighbourhood office had visited the resident at home on 7 December 2018 to assess the property and agree works. Following this it was agreed with the resident that the landlord would:
1. Replace the kitchen.
2. Repair windows.
3. Repair communal front door.
4. Replace carpets in bedroom and hallway.
5. Install acoustic underlay.
6. Upgrade heating system.
7. Thermal board chimney and replaster bedroom ceiling.
The landlord stated it had also decorated the lounge and bedroom as a goodwill gesture, in acknowledgment of the time it was taking to complete all the works. The resident had also raised concerns about the structural stability of the property, but this was assessed on two separate visits by two separate staff members, who found no evidence of structural issues.
The letter stated that there had been regular communication with the resident, and that she had raised additional issues along the way. The letter acknowledged that the resident had to chase for information, updates, and the outcomes of investigations regularly. The landlord said it could have done better and apologised for this, acknowledging that this was stressful for the resident.
Regarding the claim for damaged belongings, the landlord had replaced the cooker, but could not consider compensation for the other items such as the freezer as there was no evidence of these being damaged by operatives.
The letter concluded that in light of the length of time it had taken between the resident reporting the issues in 2018 and the works being completed, it was offering £200. The letter ended advising the resident she had 15 working days to escalate the complaint should she wished to.

Escalation to Stage 2

In reply on 28 May 2020 the resident said that the amount of compensation offered was inadequate for what she had endured, setting out the impact of her health and wellbeing and detailing damage to her belongings. The landlord responded explaining that the compensation offered was ‘…not meant to reflect the physical or mental anguish you say VIVID has contributed to or be derogatory in any way. It’s to reflect certain service failures only, as we cannot offer compensation for physical or mental wellbeing through our compensation process’. It advised that should she wish to pursue this she would need to make a written personal injury claim to its insurance team. However, she could still escalate the complaint.
On 3 June 2020 the resident said she wanted to escalate the complaint and was looking for £500 in compensation (the resident in later correspondence advised that she had intended to write £5000). The landlord asked her for details on why she remained dissatisfied, and the resident provided these on 11 August 2020. She said that she didn’t have a single room or space she could use for its intended purpose through the entirety of the case and her furniture and belongings were damaged and used as climbing apparatus by tradesman. She also said that asbestos dust was trodden all through the property.
She was unhappy that she was not decanted while the works were completed, and that the structural engineer that inspected (referring her to the energy performance consultant) pointed out he had many concerns about the property and would list his findings in a report and this should result in structural remedial works. However, the surveyor ‘…then proceeded to deny that this [was] said…’.
The resident noted that the pest control contractor was supposed to reattended after January 2019 to clear out the loft, but this still hadn’t been done. She had also requested the bath panel be removed to check for vermin or droppings.
The resident said that she reported her home being cold from 2012, could not heat it to 17°C but it took seven years to be addressed. She also stated that every window had to be taken out and repositioned to help eliminate drafts and to make opening and closing easier.
The resident said ‘I would like my case to be escalated for three reasons, my destroyed furniture and appliances, for VIVIDs lack of concern for my health and overall wellbeing during my case, my lengthy, prolonged case. Thirdly I was passed from pillar to post by vivid management as each refused to act on my case’. The resident further stated that the landlord had not adhered to its Repairs and Maintenance policy or its Complaints Procedure. She said that she was subjected to ‘unacceptable verbal abuse by Vivid management both in person and remotely via phone…was mocked, I was belittled and humiliated’. She was seeking financial remuneration in relation to the above points.
The Stage 2 complaint was logged and the senior member of staff that was assigned the complaint at the landlord contacted the resident to provide the opportunity to discuss this. The landlord kept the resident updated regularly over the coming weeks on progress with the complaint, providing some suggestions and arranging some works during the course of the investigation to help resolve the outstanding matters. The resident continued to maintain that a structural engineer assessment had been carried out at the property and that she wanted a copy of the report, saying that when in attendance that day the energy performance consultant ‘…openly expressed concerns about structural movement to which [the surveyor] tried to hush him…’. She said, ‘there was no complaints procedure or structure, no one took charge of my case, no one organising agreed work and no time scale for works to commence or completed’.
In expressing her concerns about structural issues, the resident advised that her rooms were on a slant with ceilings not straight, possibly from the removal of load bearing walls when the building was converted, although she believed ‘recent house movement has since settled/halted’.
During the course of the Stage 2 investigation the landlord arranged for the outstanding pest control works (loft and bath panel) to be done, commissioned an independent structural surveyor to attend to carry out a visual inspection of the building and property and have a new EPC carried out to help understand the impact that the boiler replacement, pipe insulation and additional radiators had to the efficiency rating. Dates for mid–October 2020 were arranged. The landlord also advised that it had referred the claims for damages / personal injury to its insurers and would await advice on the correct course of action, before concluding the complaint response.
The resident sent a number of emails raising concerns about the landlord’s contact with the insurers, repair issues in her home, and contact from the landlord’s solicitor. She also described an incident where the Head of Repairs had mocked her mental health saying, ‘…I was humiliated, I was overpowered, I was ignored, insulted, bullied and I was not given opportunity to speak let alone be heard. Four VIVID personnel were in attendance at my flat…This is an actual remark [the Head of Repairs] repeatedly hammered home to me, ‘I suggest you go back to mental health as what ever their doing is clearly not enough’’.

Due to her unhappiness with the investigation, the resident cancelled the appointments made for mid-October 2020. She also said she was making a new complaint against the member of staff dealing with her Stage 2 complaint for breaching policies on confidentiality, complaints, and discrimination. She asked that he was removed from the case.

Stage 2 response

The landlord’s Stage 2 response was dated 15 October 2020 (although does not seem to have been provided to the resident until 23 October, seemingly at her request) and acknowledged that this was outside of its published timescales due to the duration and complexity of the complaint. It noted that the resident was seeking financial compensation and provided the following reasons for her dissatisfaction with the previous response to her complaint:
1. The resident did not have a single room or space in her home that could be used for its intended purpose, for the duration works were being carried.
2. The heating/boiler had been inadequate since moving into the property.
3. Damage was caused to furniture and belongs by tradesmen.
4. Her health and wellbeing were not important to the landlord during its handling of the case and it did not decant her when asked.
5. There was a lack of asbestos monitoring and repair to the bedroom ceiling, despite this being reported as damaged for over 6 years.
6. The contractor undertaking works to the bedroom ceiling were not undertaking their work safely.
7. The resident had to involve her councillor and MP in the case.
8. The landlord had been made aware of structural concerns about the property, following the energy performance consultant’s attendance, but ignored these.
9. The landlord had failed to carry out the professional cleaning, clearance and insulation of the kitchen loft void or respond to the request to check behind the bath panel, following a pest infestation.
10. The resident was passed to pillar to post by management, who refused to act on the case.
11. The landlord did not adhere to its repairs and maintenance policy or complaints procedure.
12. The resident was subjected to unacceptable verbal abuse and belittled by management.
Regarding the resident’s complaint that she was unable to insure her home for the duration of the repairs, the landlord noted that there had been a lot of work carried out. It said that the works carried out during the period were:
1. Pest treatment and entry point filling.
2. Kitchen replacement.
3. Heating upgrade (including boiler replacement and additional/larger radiators).
4. Window repairs.
5. Thermo boarding bedroom chimney breast.
6. Installing a suspended ceiling (including skimming and painting).
7. Decoration of bedroom.
8. Laying new carpet and acoustic underlay (lounge and bedroom).
9. Laying new flooring (bathroom, hallway, and kitchen).
10. Draft excluder to flat door (as well as the main entrance door).
11. Additional electrical socket in the bedroom.
12. Renew shelf under sink.
13. Fix leak from tap.
14. Relocate electrical consumer unit and move back cooker point.
The landlord said that it had actively tried to work with the resident and manage the disruption caused, which had included arranging work to be at times and dates suitable to her, letting her manage the pace/speed between each piece of work and breaking works down into smaller tasks where possible (i.e. replacing radiators one room at a time, carrying out floor/carpet replacement one room at a time). This had meant that the timeframe to complete all the required work was longer than it would normally anticipate,… ‘but was done to take into consideration your individual needs’.
However, the landlord did acknowledge that there were times where it could have been quicker at moving between one completed piece of work to the next and that it could have been better earlier on at coordinating this work with the resident. It felt that this improved once the resident was provided with a single point of contact, to oversee all the works and the resident was being supported by a member of its support services.
The landlord also accepted that it underestimated time needed to carry out the works to the bedroom ceiling, initially feeling this would be two days’ work, but then finding that six days was required.
The landlord advised it was ‘sorry for any delays caused by us, any confusion caused over how we were delivery the work in your home and that we did not identify first off that the works to your bedroom ceiling would have taken longer’. In light of this the landlord planned to put in place new processes to ensure customers with multiple works in their home have a single point of contact. It was also educating its repairs teams about how to make referrals to its support services, and how they could help delivering repairs to more vulnerable customers.
The landlord concluded, ‘I would however like it noted in this outcome that there are occasions where work was delayed due to us not being able to gain access. This was either due to how well you were feeling on the day of the appointment but sometimes due to you being unhappy with how work was being undertaken. This was particularly impactful when we were undertaking the works to your bedroom ceiling, as work was suspended by you from 21st June to 14th August, prolonging the time that you did not have use of this room’.
The landlord also stated that a goodwill gesture had already been provided in relation to the delivery of the bedroom ceiling repairs via the decoration of the bedroom, but it also wanted to offer compensation in recognition of the failings identified.
The landlord explained that the EPC that was commissioned in 2012 gave an energy efficiency rating of 64 (band D). The heating system and controls were also deemed to be a good, both with a 4-star rating out of 5, meaning there were no recommendations or flagged need to replace the heating system. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s contention that she had been reporting concerns about the heating system since she moved in but there were no records of this until her contact in late 2018. It had then arranged for its energy performance consultant to review the property’s thermal performance, which resulted in the work to upgrade the heating system, carry out some boxing of the pipework in the communal hallway and improvement works to the windows. As there was no failing here the landlord would not be offering compensation but had offered another EPC so both the landlord and resident had a more accurate and timely energy rating for the property. This was scheduled to be carried out on 21 October 2020.
The landlord noted that as the resident was aware, the alleged damage to furniture and belongings by tradesmen had been referred to the landlord’s insurers, and the insurers had been in contact with the resident to acknowledge receipt of the claim.
The landlord noted that the resident had previously been advised that her claim that her health and wellbeing had been impacted would be referred to its insurers as a personal injury claim. The landlord was aware that the subsequent contact from the insurers and requests for information had concerned the resident and explained that the process for liability claims is for the claimant to provide supporting evidence such as information about health records. The landlord also acknowledged that the resident had been concerned about the involvement of the insurer’s legal team and explained that this normal practice for these types of claims, and the resident had the right to seek her own legal representation/advice, or that she may benefit from support from the Citizens Advice Bureau.
The landlord noted that the resident asked her Neighbourhood Manager for a decant in May 2019, which was declined. The landlord advised that this decision was made based on the knowledge at the time, and wherever possible it tried to accommodate customers to be able to remain in their home, as temporarily moving to another property can be disruptive. The landlord said, ‘at this point some of the most disruptive work had been done (i.e. kitchen replacement), work had been planned in a staggered approach (i.e. heating upgrade, flooring replacement) and further work scheduled’.
The landlord said that in retrospect a decant may have been a better way to have reduced the duration of the works and may have provided the resident with a better experience. However, in July 2019, during the resident’s concerns over the bedroom ceiling repairs, the possibility of a decant was discussed with the resident so that work could recommence, but the resident declined this as ‘too little too late’.
The landlord noted that efforts were made to offer the resident additional support during these works as demonstrated by involving its support services and making a referral to its specialist wellbeing service. The wellbeing service reached out to the resident in July 2019, but she did not engage with the service. The landlord did not find failings here and so did not offer any compensation for this element of the complaint.
Regarding the concerns about asbestos the landlord said that it held an asbestos management survey for the property, which was maintained, and monitored in its asbestos register. This was used to inform whether intrusive asbestos surveys were needed prior to starting work that was likely to disturb asbestos containing materials and was shared with those working within the landlord’s properties.
The landlord stated it had reviewed the repair history dating back to the start of the resident’s tenancy in 2012 and was unable to find any evidence of repair reports until October 2018, which was to check the ceiling as it appeared blown. The attending engineer’s notes stated that the ceiling was found to be solid, secure and without cracks. Following this visit, the resident had expressed her unhappiness with these findings resulting in further investigations and more intrusive surveys being carried out, leading to the ceiling work to install the skimmed suspended ceiling. The landlord stated that as there was no failing here it would not be offering compensation.
The landlord stated that the resident had raised her concerns about the safety of the asbestos work that was carried out with the with the HSE (as well as her MP), and the landlord had subsequently interviewed the asbestos contractor. The contractor provided assurances that their work was carried out under the required asbestos controls, though did acknowledge that they were cutting plasterboard inside the property and were not using dust screens when installing it, creating non-asbestos dust. To provide further assurances that the dust generated was of no harm, the landlord stated it had commissioned an asbestos air test to be carried out, and the results came back clear.
The landlord noted that the HSE was informed of these findings, and it deemed the matter to have been satisfactorily addressed and the matter closed. This outcome was also communicated back to the local MP. As a result of the complaint the landlord noted it gave formal instructions to the contractor that it undertake any further plasterboard cutting outside of customer homes and use dust screens when installing plasterboard.
However, the landlord acknowledged that there was no indication that it had communicated the outcome of these investigations and the air test to the resident and apologised for this. It said ‘based on the importance of your enquiry and our failure to respond back, I would like to offer you compensation in recognition of this’.
The landlord said that it was sorry that the resident needed to involve the local authority and the local MP to support her. It noted that following the resident’s contact with Environmental Health it conducted a HHRSH assessment in April 2019, which resulted in some recommendations for the landlord. The landlord noted that these were all Category Two and so at the discretion of the landlord to carry out. It had completed all of the agreed recommendations.
In relation to the resident’s assertion that the landlord was aware of structural concerns at the property following the energy performance consultant’s inspection, the landlord explained that as the resident had previously been advised, the consultant was commissioned to advise on the thermal performance of the property and not to undertake a structural survey. The consultant had not produced a formal report of his visit, but the landlord acknowledged that the resident had asked several times for the report and it had failed to clearly respond. It said ‘I’m sorry that we did not advise you earlier. In recognition of the above I would like to offer you compensation’.
The landlord said that it had previously conducted visual inspections of the property which had not found any structural concerns. However, given the resident’s ongoing anxiety about this the landlord had arranged for a visual inspection of the property and the wider building by a structural engineer, and this would be carried out on 21 October 2020.
The landlord stated that from reviewing the complaint, it had seen that the resident had communicated on several occasions that she was expecting the pest control contractor to reattend to carry out these works to the kitchen loft void, and had also requested a check was carried out behind the bath panel. The landlord said that it was sorry that the resident had not got responses to these requests and would be offering compensation.
The landlord explained that the contractor that originally attended to carry out pest treatment had not informed the landlord of the need for these follow–on works and only invoiced for the treatment. The landlord said ‘I’m sorry that there was this breakdown between our contractor and us’. The landlord noted that it had raised and agreed with the resident for these works to begin on 15 October 2020, however as she had requested this had been put on hold until she received a response to the complaint. The landlord asked the resident to let it know when she was comfortable to progress these works.
Regarding the resident’s complaint that she was passed from pillar to post the landlord acknowledged that there had been several managers involved in the complaint, and that most of these changes were instigated by the resident requesting that the manager no longer be involved. The landlord said ‘I feel that these changes have impacted the consistency of our management of your complaint and the works in your home. I also feel that we have been too quick to change your point of contact without first undertaking investigations into your concerns and responding to these’. It apologised for this, though would not be offering compensation. It said that as a ‘lesson learnt’ it would be making sure that such matters were raised as new complaints for investigation, with point of contacts with customers not changing unless identified as an outcome of these investigations.
The landlord said that the concerns about a failure to follow its Repairs and Maintenance Policy had already been addressed in the body of the letter, and it agreed that there were times where it had not met the statements within its Complaints Policy, in particular a failure to:
1. raise the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction formally as complaints.
2. to take her continued expressions of dissatisfaction as her wish to escalate to Stage 2.
3. advise her that it would be unable to conclude its investigations within is timescales.
4. consistently provide regular (weekly) updates.
The landlord stated that it would feedback this learning through its complaint manager’s training and communications, and also offer compensation.
Finally, in relation to the resident’s complaint that she was subjected to unacceptable verbal abuse and belittled by management, the landlord said that it understood from her recent communications that this referred to the conduct of the Head of Property Services when he attended a home visit in March 2019. This person no longer worked at the landlord and so it was not possible to investigate this formally with him, however other staff that were present at the visit had been spoken to and they raised no concerns about the staff member’s conduct. The landlord said ‘…however that is not to take away how you feel. As such I would like to say I’m sorry that you were made to feel this way by a member of staff’.
The landlord also noted that many staff members had made efforts to try and help the resident to get the required works carried out. The landlord said ‘I appreciate that there have been times where we have not responded in a prompt manner or have not been able to manage the volume and frequency of your communications with us at times. I’m sorry if this has come across as belittlement and can assure you that this was not our intentions’.
The landlord noted that the resident had previously been offered £200 at Stage 1, and that when the resident escalated her complaint on the 3 June 2020 she advised that she would be comfortable with a figure of £500 compensation. The landlord concluded ‘taking into consideration the nature of the failures listed within this outcome response, I would like to combine the previous offer of £200 with the figure you expressed, making an offer of £700. In addition to this, taking into consideration the length of time that this complaint has been ongoing, I would like to add to this offer with an additional recognition offer of £200, making my overall financial offer to you £900’.
The landlord finished the letter by advising the resident of her right to refer the matter to the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman understands that the £900 compensation offered by the landlord was paid on 12 February 2021, and that as of November 2021 the EPC, structural review, and pest control attendance remain outstanding as the resident has not yet been able to agree a date due to poor health.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role when considering complaints is to assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation, and followed good practice when reaching decisions. In considering the timeframe of a complaint it is also pertinent to note paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states, “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. In this case, although the resident has stated in her correspondence to the landlord that she had been reporting issues for several years prior to her complaint, there is no evidence of this nor of previous formal complaints being raised. Therefore, this investigation has focused on the matters that were considered within the complaint procedure that completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 2020, which are those repair and maintenance issues that were raise from September 2018.
In accordance with the landlord’s Repairs Policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. As a result, it was necessary for it to take appropriate steps to resolve any issues identified. Therefore, once on notice, the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s repair reports and carry out the works it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is, this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
It is not within the role and expertise of this Service to carry out technical assessments of disputed repair and maintenance issues and reached definitive conclusion on these issues. Similarly, it is not the role of this Service to determine whether the landlord’s contractor released asbestos dust in the resident’s property or whether there was a regulatory breach in this regard.
It is very difficult to follow the course of the repairs that the resident reported, in part due to the volume of emails that the resident sent and the number of complaints and reports she made in these, but largely because the landlord, aside from the correspondence between it and the resident, has only provided a table that shows when some repairs were logged in 2019 and when they were completed. It is also very difficult to determine why some of these repairs took so long, and to what extent the delay was reasonable or not. For instance, the inspection form of 5 February 2021 indicates that flooring works were still not completed but there is no evidence that explains why the works was outstanding at that time.

General handling of Repairs

The resident reported several repairs in September 2018 along with raising structural concerns and a rodent infestation. There is no evidence that the landlord dealt with all issues raised with it at this time, prompting the resident to email an initial complaint on 23 November 2018. However, she confirmed that the landlord had commissioned its pest control contractor to attend, thereby taking appropriate action to tackle this issue. In response to the complaint, the landlord agreed to arrange an inspection by a surveyor which was appropriate as the resident had suggested that there were major structural issues, including movement and related concerns such as coldness and noise transference. Moreover, the resident had requested a new kitchen which are works that would usually be carried out under a planned programme of works not on a responsive basis. By sending a surveyor, the landlord took steps to reach an informed decision on all the issues raised by the resident at that time, which also included a blown ceiling.
The landlord has not provided a report of the surveyor’s visit of 7 December 2018; therefore, it did not keep a full contemporaneous record of its actions and decision making process at this time. However, it communicated the outcome of the inspection on 9 January 2019. Insofar as it agreed to carry out a range of actions, – including to pursue the pest controller and make good damage to the resident’s carpet, test for noise and thermal efficiency, replace the kitchen, and assess the need to replace or overhaul the windows – the landlord demonstrated an intention to meet its repair obligations and resolve the complaint raised at the time. In fact, it acted over and above its obligation by agreeing to install new carpets as its repair obligation does not extend to install floor coverings. The kitchen survey and review of the thermal performance by the consultant was subsequently carried out on 1 February 2019.
However, the landlord missed an opportunity to confirm its position on the resident’s concern about structural issues. She subsequently sent many emails over the next month reiterating and expanding her concerns about the building’s structure, including stating that there was movement and damp, an external wall was splitting, gas pipes were unsafe, and the location of electric meters was unsafe. She asked for the landlord to produce formal reports encompassing health and safety issues, fire safety, gas safety, and electrical safety. Furthermore, she sought timeframes for the heating, window, and flooring works. Given the resident’s concerns which contained major issues, it was appropriate that the landlord sought to carry out another inspection for 21 February 2019 although this appointment was subsequently cancelled. The resident had cited concerns about the lack of information provided on the issues she had raised and the conduct of a member of staff in cancelling the appointment. As these were new expressions of dissatisfaction, it was appropriate that the landlord raised a new complaint.
The landlord visited the resident on 15 March 2019 with three members of staff in attendance therefore taking steps to make an informed decision on the issues raised. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional judgement of suitably qualified and accredited staff who have decision making responsibilities for the areas complained of. However, again the landlord has not provided a report of the surveyor’s visit of 15 March 2019, therefore again it did not keep a contemporaneous record of its actions and decision-making process at this time.
The landlord confirmed its position in its response of 21 March 2019. It addressed some issues that remained unresolved insofar as it stated it would install a new boiler and radiators concurrently with the kitchen refurbishment that had been agreed, and would need to investigate further what works were needed to the bedroom ceiling. However, the response had shortcomings which added to the resident’s frustration. For instance, its explanation that it did not consider there was subsidence and that it was not necessary to employ a structural engineer was brief and did not address specifically the areas of the property cited by the resident. The landlord also simply advised that works that had been identified in the communal fire risk assessment had been completed without advising what these works were. Nor did it explain what its obligations were or explain how the resident’s concerns about the fire safety of her property should properly be considered. The landlord also apologised for the actions of the Contracts Manager without indicating it had investigated the particular concerns of the resident. It therefore did not take sufficient steps to demonstrate that it had fully heard the resident and resolve her complaint at that time.
Furthermore, while the landlord advised it would address the resident’s concerns about heating by installing a new boiler and radiators, it did not relay to the resident the findings that the energy performance consultant emailed or explain whether it would be acting on the recommendations. The resident also expected that a new EPC would be produced but the landlord’s response was uncertain and non-committal stating it would notify her if one was produced. Therefore, the landlord did not take sufficient action to resolve the resident’s concerns about the temperature in her property at that stage.
The resident remained dissatisfied, as is evident from her email of 25 March 2019 contending that there were structural issues that the landlord had failed to deal with, did not carry out full health and safety and fire risk assessments, and did not complete electrical works including moving the fuse board. She also raised a new issue stating that she wanted replacement fire doors. Furthermore, again she again asked for the staff member dealing with her case to be removed, the Head of Repairs. She also commissioned Environmental Health which made recommendations including supporting her requests for the landlord to move the consumer unit, carry out window works, test the bedroom ceiling for asbestos, and take action to prevent the ceiling cracking or splitting if necessary.
The landlord accepted the recommendation of Environmental Health. By deciding to act on the recommendations of Environmental Health in addition to carrying works it had identified itself from inspections of the property, the landlord demonstrated an intention to meet its repair obligation and ensure that the property did not have hazards. However, given the number of works that were required, some of which were major and disruptive, along with the need for further inspections, for instance for electrical issues, it was important that the landlord manage the works so as to ensure all parties understood what needed to be completed and when, and that disruption was minimised. It is not evident from the correspondence that the landlord organised the works effectively insofar as there was no clear programme for the works, with works being proposed in a piecemeal and reactive way, and the resident repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction that the works were not coordinated. There were mitigating circumstances insofar as the volume of correspondence took up resources, the fact that many repairs were booked and re-booked, further repairs were requested, and the resident was at times unavailable / did not provide access. Nonetheless, having accepted responsibility for the works, the landlord had a responsibility to maintain oversight and effectively manage the works.
Ultimately, some works remained uncompleted culminating in the resident making a formal complaint, registered by the landlord on 21 June 2019. In fact, the landlord had failed to raise a formal complaint earlier, such as on 20 May 2019 when the resident indicated she wanted to make a complaint. In line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, a landlord should raise a complaint when requested. With regards to the outstanding works, the landlord listed the works it intended to complete in its email of 4 July 2019 and completed the main works in September 2019, the bedroom ceiling works having been completed in August 2019 after which redecoration and flooring works could take place. It is noted that during this period there was a delay that was out of the control of the landlord as the resident did not provide access. It is also acknowledged that this delay was due to her concerns about asbestos which is addressed separately.
However, there was then a significant delay on the part of the landlord. It had previously advised that it would respond to the complaint and make a compensation offer after works had been completed. The landlord’s records, including the property inspection form of 5 February 2020, indicate that there were some still further works to be completed. This included the redecoration of the bedroom and installation of a carpet to the bedroom, and pest control works and indicates that the works had not been carried out satisfactorily previously or not at all. Ultimately, the landlord did not send its complaint response until May 2020, indicating that the works it had committed to were not completed 11 months after it registered the resident’s complaint. Due to the insufficient details in the records kept by the landlord, it is not possible to fully ascertain the reason for the further delay and to what extent there was service failure by the landlord.
In summary, the landlord took steps to respond to the resident’s reports of disrepair and meet its repair obligations as it sent surveyors and staff to inspect, arranged for a consultant to test the thermal performance, and took into account the recommendations of Environmental Health. It then agreed works as result, including works that would ordinarily be completed as planned works such as the kitchen refurbishment and works that were outside its repair obligation. However, there were shortcomings in its communication with the resident as it did not satisfactorily address the resident’s concerns about the structure and safety of her property, including fire safety, and the temperature of her property, specifically the outcome of the survey by the energy performance consultant. It is also not evident that the landlord organised the works effectively adding to delay in the completion of works. Whilst the works were largely completed by September 2019, the fact that the landlord was not in a position to review its handling of the works until May 2020 indicates there a further significant delay before the works were fully completed, adding to resident’s distress and inconvenience.

Asbestos

The resident’s concerns about asbestos related to the condition of the bedroom ceiling. The landlord’s correspondence indicates that it arranged an inspection after the report of October 2018 and then arranged an intrusive inspection after the resident expressed ongoing concerns. However, there is no contemporaneous records of these visits. It is not disputed that the landlord ultimately decided to install a skimmed suspended ceiling. This was in line with the options outlined in the Asbestos Plan and Procedures which state that ACM’s can be encapsulated.
The resident first raised concerns about the landlord’s contractor releasing ACM’s by drilling into her ceiling on 20 June 2019 and in fact suspended works in her property whilst this matter was dealt with. Her concern was understandable as the landlord’s customer information leaflet on asbestos specifically notes that drilling into artex may disturb asbestos. However, it is not evident that the landlord took prompt action to investigate or reassure the resident. It did not ask her for further details, such as confirmation of the amount of dust that was released. It stated that it interviewed the contractor but there is no evidence of the interview notes or that the landlord relayed the contractor’s version of events for her comment. The landlord also did not arrange an air test until 19 July 2019, four weeks after the initial report and it is not evident that it advised her of the outcome at the time. Even if the effects of asbestos are not immediately apparent, the resident remained anxious and uncertain during the interim. Taken together with the fact she had suspended the works at this time, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not respond more promptly to investigate and reassure the resident.

Pest Control

The landlord’s website states that residents should “deal with any pest problems in your home and garden” although it will “block up holes and mesh vents that pests may be using to get into your home”. In this case the landlord has provided evidence that it assumed responsibility to deal with the rodents reported by the resident by employing a pest control contractor. The pest controller advised the landlord that it needed to clear the loft space in the building then proof it on 21 January 2019. The resident herself pursued further works from pest controller to treat the loft space and check behind her bath panel, both of which required the landlord’s permission, on several occasions, including 15 February 2019 and 19 March 2019. However, there is no evidence that the landlord arranged the works at the time it responded to the complaint despite advising in July 2019 that it would contact its pest controller. As such there was a significant delay by the landlord in fully dealing with the resident’s reports of pests.

The resident’s health and wellbeing / damaged items

The resident in her complaint to the landlord stated that her and her dog’s health and wellbeing had been detrimentally affected by the condition of her property, exacerbated by effect of rodent waste in her property and asbestos. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on matters in the same way as the courts, such as the impact on health and liability for damages, as this is not in our expertise and jurisdiction. In considering this aspect of her complaint, this Service has considered how the landlord responded to the concerns raised by the resident.
Insurance protects a landlord’s financial standing by the insurer paying compensation claims as opposed to this coming from the landlord’s finances. In this case, it was reasonable that the landlord referred the resident to its insurers as it had the expertise and authority to determine whether there was negligence and breach of duty by the landlord and therefore whether it was liable for damage to health.
The resident also claimed that the landlord’s contractor had damaged furniture and belongings. Similarly, it was reasonable that the landlord referred this aspect of her claim to its insurers which can also decide on the landlord’s liability and therefore whether to offer payment for damaged property / belongings.

Decant

The correspondence on the case indicates that the resident asked for a decant in May 2019. The landlord was not obliged to offer the resident a decant under the Lettings Policy as this was a discretionary decision. However, as the resident had an expectation that the landlord would decant her and given the extent of works that it had accepted, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not explain why at the time it would not offer her one, or at least be clearer on how it intended to progress all the works. Moreover, the tone of its response of 17 May 2019 was unempathetic and dismissive which did not serve to further the landlord/tenant relationship.

Conduct of Staff

The resident in her complaint of 20 May 2020 named several members of staff whose conduct she was unhappy with. She repeated her complaint about staff conduct in further emails. The purpose of a complaint procedure is for a landlord to hear a resident’s dissatisfaction, including complaints about the conduct of staff, and to put matters right. Responding to complaints about staff conduct allows landlords to provide their version of events, apologise if deemed appropriate and clarify any misunderstanding. Early complaint resolution is more effective, in particular in cases of complaints about staff conduct where the recollection of events can change over time, and therefore make the investigation more difficult. Therefore, it was a failure on the part of the landlord that it did not seek to obtain details of the staff behaviour complained of and investigate accordingly at the earliest point.
There were also no good reasons for the resident’s complaint about staff to be delayed as the outcome of this complaint was not dependent on completion of works. At the time the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint about staff conduct, it focused on one member, thereby omitting to take into account the resident’s concerns about other staff. Furthermore, by that point the member of staff whose conduct was investigated had left which meant that the landlord could not carry out a comprehensive investigation. This exacerbated the resident’s frustration.

Complaint Handling

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint of 21 June 2019 until May 2020. The landlord advised that it wanted to send the complaint response after works were completed. In cases, where a complaint response is sent outside the procedural timeframe, as stated in the Complaint Handling Code, landlords should adhere to arrangements agreed in terms of frequency and method of communication and keep residents regularly updated and informed even where there is no new information to provide. It is not evident that the landlord consistently did this prior to the complaint responses or otherwise provided a timeframe when it would conclude its investigations into the complaint and send the response.
Irrespective of the lack of consistent updates, ultimately it took 11 months for the landlord to send the Stage 1 response which was unreasonable as a complaint should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity. In addition to the resident not having an outcome, such a delay in responding to a complaint risks the details of the original complaint being overlooked and more difficult to investigate. There is also the risk of the parties having a different understanding of the complaint and/or important details being missed as circumstances change.
After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord maintained contact with the resident and sought to understand why she remained dissatisfied. Nonetheless, it took the landlord over four months to respond which was unreasonable and exacerbated the previous delays.
When the landlord did respond it broke down specific issues of the complaint and assessed whether or not there was service failure in its view. However, the response was not sufficiently specific as it did not identify all the works that were completed, and did not provide dates of the works and inspections and establish firm timelines. This shows that the landlord’s handling of the complaint lacked reasonable focus and therefore that it missed the opportunity to establish the full circumstances of the resident’s complaint and the extent of service failure (and mitigating circumstances).
There were other failings in the landlord’s complaint handling such as not registering the resident’s complaint of 20 May 2019 or recognising other correspondence where she expressed dissatisfaction as complaint or complaint escalations. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged these failings as effective dispute resolution also includes demonstrating that it has learnt from outcomes, in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
As noted, the landlord accepted that there were certain service failures and offered compensation totalling £900 in order to resolve the complaint. In our Remedies Guidance, the Housing Ombudsman Service sets out three compensation ranges to take into account when determining cases. The total financial remedy of £900 provided by the landlord falls in the highest range, reflecting cases where there has been maladministration or severe maladministration and a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both. The landlord also provided redress by carrying out works that it was not obliged to carry out such as carpeting works and redecoration, which were to the resident’s benefit. It is further acknowledged that the landlord in responding to the Stage 2 complaint, exercised its discretion by agreeing to obtain a new EPC (as the current EPC is still within the 10-year validity period) and commission a structural engineer in order to resolve the resident’s concerns about these issues. Apologising for accepted service failures provided redress too.
However, the landlord did not break down its offer of £900. The landlord had broken down the complaint and accepted that it should pay compensation for separate key issues in its complaint responses. Therefore, it was unreasonable that the landlord’s compensation offer was not broken down and sufficiently clear. There were also issues where there were service failures which the landlord did not acknowledge and/or offer redress. In reaching this finding the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about structural and safety issues, including fire safety, and the delays and shortcomings in its complaint responses which includes its failure to investigate the resident’s complaint about various members of staff. As such, although the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has sought to offer redress to resolve the complaint, it did not offer compensation that was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports repair issues, including asbestos works, structural concerns, and the thermal efficiency of her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s formal complaint including her complaint about staff conduct.

Reasons

In summary, the landlord took steps to respond to the resident’s reports of disrepair and meet its repair obligations. However, there were shortcomings in its communication with the resident as it did not satisfactorily address the resident’s concerns about the structure and safety of her property, including fire safety, and the temperature of her property, specifically the outcome of the survey by the energy performance consultant. It is also not evident that the landlord organised the works effectively adding to delay in the completion of works. Whilst the works were largely completed by September 2019, the fact that the landlord was not in a position to review its handling of the works until May 2020 indicates there was a further significant delay before the works were fully completed, adding to resident’s distress and inconvenience. There were also service failings in other matters raised by the resident including asbestos in her property, pest control and the handling of her formal complaint.
Whilst the landlord has sought to offer redress to resolve the complaint, it did not offer compensation that was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation in acknowledgement of the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble she experienced as a result of its service failures, comprising:
  1. £150 for its handling of the resident’s reported concerns about structural issues.
  2. £50 for it handling of the resident’s reported concerns about fire safety.
  3. £150 for its handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the thermal efficiency/temperature of her property and the production of an EPC.
  4. £500 for the management and delay in completion of all works to the resident’s property.
  5. £100 for its handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos issues.
  6. £150 for its handling of pest control issues.
  7. £300 for its complaints handling.

This offer supersedes the landlord offer made within its complaints procedure of £900. It is understood that the landlord has paid £900, therefore it should now pay £500.

Contact the resident to make appointments to obtain a new EPC, complete the pest control works and to carry out a structural survey, if these actions have not already been completed.
Review its record keeping practices for responsive repairs. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of works raised and completed and of resident contact.
Consider how it can best manage cases where several sets of works are required to a resident’s property. This should include consideration of scheduling the various works, monitoring of and adhering to agreed timescales, completing work to appropriates standards, and keeping residents and contractors informed.