Vivid Housing Limited (202100151)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202100151
Vivid Housing Limited
10 November 2021
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 Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom door in the resident’s property.
Background and summary of events
2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a new–build flat. The resident reported that the developer of the property had initially identified several defects there during their handover of the property in October 2018, prior to her purchase of this in March 2019, including a defective bathroom door. Although the project surveyor who inspected the property did not record this at the time on their defects procedure sheet for this.
3. The landlord’s records showed that it contacted the developer regarding the defective bathroom door in the property on 30 May 2019, following contact from the resident on that date, as this had not been replaced. The developer advised via the landlord that the resident would need to contact the former’s carpenter for this. The landlord therefore shared the carpenter’s details with the resident, and she advised it that she would make the call to them.
4. The landlord’s evidence showed that the resident subsequently continued to pursue this matter, and that she was in regular communication with the landlord and the developer about this. The repairs history provided by it showed that the landlord logged a repair request for the resident’s bathroom door that had expanded at the bottom on 22 May 2019, with a target completion date of 18 June 2019. Its records showed that this repair was completed on 2 July 2019. The developer, however, informed the landlord on 23 July 2019 that they would not carry out the replacement of the door.
5. On 24 July 2019, its records showed that the resident spoke to the landlord to inform it that the developer had also stated to her that they would not carry out the work to replace her bathroom door, as the damage to this was caused by a leak. The resident said, however, that there had been no leaks in her property, and that the door was bubbling.
6. The landlord recorded that the resident called and emailed the landlord about her bathroom door multiple times in August 2019. On 23 August 2019, the resident emailed the landlord stating that the developer had recently had a contractor attend her property, and that pictures of the door were taken, but that no work was carried out to this, with the door unable to be closed at any time.
7. When an end of defects liability period inspection of the property was carried by out by the project surveyor on 30 October 2019, they noted in their report of the following day that, amongst other items, the bathroom door there was defective and needed to be replaced. The inspection was also attended by the developer and the landlord, as well as the surveyor. This information was noted in the schedule of defects at the end of the defects liability period. A letter by the surveyor, dated 31 October 2019, stated that the developer had until 12 December 2019 to complete the works.
8. On 11 November 2019, the landlord’s records showed that it logged another request for repairs to replace the resident’s bathroom door, which was marked as completed on 17 March 2020, as reflected in its repairs history. The landlord sent a follow–up email regarding this to the developer on 30 July 2020 to find out the status of the job, but there was no paper trail indicating a response to it from the developer about this. The landlord’s records showed earlier email communications from it with the developer regarding the replacement door on 11 November 2019, in which the landlord was advised that it could take eight to ten weeks to have a door delivered.
9. On 29 January 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating that the developer had sent a contractor to her property on 28 January 2020, but that they had turned up with the wrong door for her bathroom. The resident stated that she had been waiting for this for half a year. She reported that she had been told on 28 January 2020 that she would get a call back about this, and that she therefore took a day off work which she could have been paid for. She explained that she could not wait another six months for a replacement bathroom door, and she asked if this could be investigated by the landlord. Its records showed no evidence of further communication between the landlord and the resident about this from February to June 2020.
10. On 30 July 2020, an email was sent to the developer from the landlord to find out about the status of a work order to replace the resident’s bathroom door that had initially been raised in October 2019 at the end of the handover inspection. There was no evidence of a response to it from the developer.
11. On 3 September 2020, the resident sent another follow–up email to the landlord about the bathroom door replacement. She received a response from the landlord on the same date stating that this could not currently be carried out as this was a two-man job. The developer was described as having had advised that they were unable to do the job due to social distancing rules in place because of the corona virus pandemic.
12. On 8 October 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it had escalated the bathroom door matter with the developer, and that the landlord would engage another contractor if the developer did not respond with a date to complete the work. This would be “deducted from retention”, according to the landlord’s internal records.
13. On 14 October 2020, the developer informed the landlord that they would attend the property on 3 December 2020 to complete the work and replace the defective bathroom door there.
14. The resident called the landlord on 7 December 2020 and asked when the work to replace her bathroom door would be carried out, as she had been advised by the developer that there might be no door available for them to replace this on 9 December 2020, which had been the previously agreed appointment. This was due to supply issues, and so the landlord recorded on 8 December 2020 that it had left her a message that the developer was exploring the possibility of providing her with a temporary bathroom door until the new one was delivered.
15. The landlord’s internal communication dated 22 December 2020 indicated that a contactor had turned up at the resident’s property with a water–damaged replacement bathroom door. This led to the original door not being replaced. The landlord noted that it therefore had to contact the developer on that date to find out the next steps following this.
16. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 December 2020 and asked for a stage one complaint to be raised about her outstanding replacement bathroom door. She said that the door was once more due to be replaced on that day, but this was not done as the developer had again provided a water–damaged replacement door. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that this issue had been ongoing for over 18 months, and she said that this had impacted her emotional and financial wellbeing. She requested compensation for this in the form of a rent refund, as she had not been able to close her bathroom door or entertain guests during this period.
17. On 24 December 2020, the landlord emailed the resident and acknowledged that the aftercare by the original developer had been poor, and that she had been in regular contact with it about her bathroom door. The landlord explained that it had spoken to the developer, which had advised it that there had been issues with suppliers providing incorrect or damaged doors, and with delays due to the corona virus pandemic. It noted that this was outside of its control. The landlord had continued to communicate with the developer, and it said that it would arrange for a sub-contractor to complete the work if the developer was not able to provide a replacement bathroom door by January 2021, as they had proposed.
18. The landlord advised that the developer had stated that they would not be willing to compensate the resident for her outstanding bathroom door, as their responsibility was to repair the defect that had been identified. The landlord, however, confirmed that it would continue to ensure that the work was carried out, or that it would alternatively reimburse her for sourcing her own tradesperson to do so. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by this, and it offered the resident £50 as a goodwill gesture.
19. The resident nevertheless asked for her complaint to be escalated by the landlord on 30 December 2020, and she explained that she was dissatisfied with the length of time that it had taken to replace the bathroom door of over 20 months. She said that the door was previously due to be replaced twice, but on both occasions the developer had supplied warped or damaged doors. The resident said that this matter had caused her significant inconvenience in that she had not been able to use the bathroom privately, as the door did not close, and she had needed to take time off work for appointments for this. She added that she did not feel that she should have paid rent for the property for the time that this matter was unresolved.
20. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 11 January 2021, and it explained that it had contacted the property’s developer on the resident’s behalf. It said that the developer had responded and stated that they had quality control issues with doors, and that this had affected replacements that were outstanding. The developer had also stated that the supply of incorrect doors or sub-standard doors was beyond their control. The developer had additionally apologised for the inconvenience and mentioned that the corona virus pandemic had contributed to the delay.
21. It was mentioned in the stage one complaint response that the bathroom door would be replaced on 13 January 2021. The resident was re-offered £50 for this by the landlord as a goodwill gesture, and she was advised that she would receive a response regarding her request to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process.
22. On 20 January 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that she wished to escalate her complaint, and she explained that the original complaint dated to the previous “snagging list walk around” at the property, where the bathroom door defect was highlighted as an outstanding issue. She mentioned that she had been informed that this would immediately be repaired as a matter of urgency. The resident stated that this had been explained to her in the presence of the developer, the landlord and the surveyor who was carrying out the inspection. She further explained that it was unreasonable to expect her to pay rent on property that she had not been able to enjoy.
23. On 25 January 2021, the landlord responded to the resident and explained that the above goodwill gesture that it had made to her for her outstanding replacement bathroom door had been revised from £50 to £200, in light of the developer’s failed works appointments for this. An apology for the delays and inconvenience was also offered by it to the resident. The landlord pointed out, however, that the complaints policy did not offer refunds for rent. It additionally confirmed that the complaint could be escalated to stage two if the resident refused its revised offer of compensation.
24. On 26 January 2021, the resident explained in an email to the landlord how the “unserviceable” bathroom door had an impact on her emotional welfare, as she was unable to entertain friends and family at her one-bedroom flat. She requested that her complaint was moved to the next stage of its complaints procedure, unless the landlord was willing to review its above offer to her substantially.
25. The landlord called the resident on 5 February 2021 to discuss her complaint in more detail. The resident said that she wanted a 50% rent rebate for a lack of facility in relation to her bathroom as a resolution to her complaint. The landlord expressed disappointment that at no time was a suggestion made by it for adjustments to be done to the bathroom door while a replacement was being sought. It also explained that the resident could look at the policy on its website regarding compensation for service failure. The landlord acknowledged that the work to replace the door had been completed on 21 January 2021, but that there were delays in resolving the issue.
26. On 15 February 2021, a revised offer of compensation was made to the resident from the landlord for the sum of £250 following on from the above call on 5 February 2021. This was a further revised offer as indicated by it in a complaint note dated 15 February 2021.
27. The landlord issued its stage two final complaint response to the resident on 15 February 2021, and it explained that it had noted that the bathroom door defect was originally reported to the landlord soon after she moved in to the property in 2019, and that a defect order was issued to the developer to complete the work. It expressed disappointment about the delays experienced by the resident.
28. The landlord noted that the resident had made repeated attempts requesting that the work be completed, but that this remained outstanding despite the landlord issuing a record of the fault to the developer. It explained that the developer had apologised for the delays and the missed opportunities to complete the work. The previous replacement doors supplied were also incorrect and damaged in transit, which the landlord had stated was outside of its control. It offered an apology stating that it could have handled the enquiry better.
29. Furthermore, landlord acknowledged that, given the delays from the developer with ordering and supplying a replacement bathroom door, the landlord could have arranged for the original damaged door to be temporarily eased and adjusted. This could have given the resident an opportunity to have a fully functioning door while waiting for a replacement. The landlord understood how the lack of a fully functioning door could have had an impact on the resident, as this did not enable her to have privacy when guests or visitors attended.
30. The original offer of compensation to recognise the delay in resolving the issue was £50, but this had been increased to £250 by the landlord. This was to recognise the delay in the completion of the work to replace the resident’s bathroom door, the inconvenience caused to her by missed appointments by a third-party contractor, and the landlord’s missed opportunity to undertake temporary repairs while a replacement door was sought by the developer.
31. On 15 February 2021, the resident responded to the above final offer of compensation by the landlord, and she stated that her complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the issue and not the developer’s. The resident stated that she would take her complaint to the Ombudsman, and she expressed her dissatisfaction with the compensation offer made. She explained that she had experienced emotional distress from the fact that the toilet was out of service to anyone visiting her because of the faulty bathroom door, which would not close properly. The resident also stated that the offer of compensation did not cover the numerous calls that she had made and the days off work taken by her for this, for which she sought a reimbursement of 100% of her rent from it and she subsequently this requested from this Service.
Assessment and findings
Policies and procedures
32. The landlord’s defects procedures state that, where there are defects reported by a resident, the developer will be informed so that an inspection is carried out within the 12–month defects liability period, and this can be made good by the landlord’s contractor where the developer is not able to do so.
33. The defects procedures’ timeline shows that issues regarding defective bathroom doors can be dealt with by the developer during the one-year defects liability period, when this is the time in which the resident raises such concerns to the landlord, as this is a period in which the developer can make good any defects. All defects must be fixed within the procedures’ specified timescales. The repairing of defects to doors falls under routine repairs to be completed within 28 days.
34. In the landlord’s your new home information, it states that “Defects are building flaws which occur after handover and during the defects liability period and for which the original builder is responsible.”
35. The landlord further goes on to state in its your new home information that, “during the defects liability period (usually 12 months but can be 2 years depending on the contract used) the [developer] is required to return to the property and remedy the defects. If the [developer] defaults, [the landlord] may, in extreme cases, use [its] day-to-day contractors to correct and contra charge the [developer]. At the end of the Defects Liability Period, an inspection is carried out and final defects are remedied.”
36. Under the landlord’s compensation policy’s compensation guidance framework, the policy states that “customers may be entitled to financial loss payments when the customer is unable to use complete parts of their home or its major amenities because of unreasonable delayed repairs or major works”.
37. The compensation policy goes on to say that “Payments are based on a percentage of the rental charge for each week, beyond reasonable timescales, that a room or major amenity could not be used by a customer. Customers must be without the use of a room or major amenity for a minimum of one week, in excess of reasonable timescales, before a financial loss payment can be considered.”
38. The landlord’s compensation policy also states that it will consider payments where practical actions alone are not able to restore a customer to their position prior to a service failure, recommending payments of up to £50 in recognition of a high degree of failure causing a high extent of hardship. It is additionally recommended to pay £30 per missed appointment, although losses such as ill health need to be dealt with via its insurance process.
The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom door in the resident’s property
39. During the initial project surveyor’s inspection and handover of the property in October 2018, it was noted in their defects procedure sheet that there were defects there, and that these would need to be rectified to the newly built property. The resident reported that the bathroom door there was identified as one of the defects that would need to be rectified, although this was not recorded in the defects procedure sheet. Its records instead showed that the landlord later explained to the resident on 30 May 2019 that the developer was responsible for remedying the defects, in response to her report of the defective bathroom door to the landlord on that date.
40. Its call logs, email correspondence and letters, from 22 May 2019 onwards, indicated that the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports and requests for information about the defective bathroom door. These also showed that the landlord was in communication with the developer from the time that the resident raised concerns on 30 May 2019 until the door was eventually replaced by the developer on 13 January 2021. The landlord acted reasonably in keeping the resident updated on the works to replace the door when she contacted it about this during this period, including on 24 July and 23 August 2019, and on 3 September, 8 October, and 8 and 24 December 2020.
41. The landlord kept the resident informed and made her aware that the bathroom door issue would need to be dealt with by the developer, as this was listed as a defect and reported to the developer as such during the defects liability period for the property, in accordance with its above defects procedures.
42. In the letter to the developer dated 31 October 2019 from the project surveyor who had carried out the defects inspection at the property towards the end of the defects liability period, it was made clear that the developer would need to complete the work to remedy the defects there, including to the bathroom door, by 12 December 2019. There was clarity in the way the landlord communicated with the resident about this by referring her to the developer to replace the door, and then liaising with them itself to seek this, and therefore the landlord acted reasonably in this regard since its defects procedures made the developer responsible for the door.
43. The landlord nevertheless acknowledged in its stage two final complaint response on 15 February 2021, that the resident had made multiple requests to have the bathroom door issue resolved from 22 May 2019 to 21 January 2021. It expressed an understanding of how the resident was affected by this, including her reports that this meant that she did not have privacy when guests or visitors attended the property, and it attempted to put things right by offering her £250 compensation, to recognise the delay in the developer completing the work. The landlord also acknowledged the missed opportunity on its part to undertake temporary repairs to the door during the above period to enable this to function until the door was replaced, contrary to its above your new home information.
44. The resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 23 December 2020 stating that the bathroom door issue had been ongoing for 18 months from when the property was handed over to her by the developer, and that this had still not been resolved. She stated that she was seeking compensation for a 50% rent rebate, as she considered that she was not able to have full use of the bathroom because she was unable to close the door. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about this from 24 December 2020, and it took reasonable action to ensure that the matter was further escalated to the developer from that date.
45. The landlord also explained that the bathroom door repairs were the responsibility of the developer as these fell within the defects liability period. It mentioned that the aftercare by the developer was poor and that it understood the dissatisfaction on the part of the resident. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused, and it acknowledged the issue with the quality of the new doors that were incorrect or too damaged for the developer to install during their previous attendances on 28 January, and 22 and 23 December 2020. It mentioned that this was beyond the control of the landlord. The landlord stated that it had done all it that could to resolve the issue and that it was disappointed with the developer’s handling of the issue.
46. The offer of compensation to the resident in the landlord’s stage two final complaint response on 15 February 2021 was raised to £250 from £50 to recognise the delay in the developer completing the bathroom door works, contrary to the above defects procedures’ 28-day timescale for these from 22 May 2019 to 21 January 2021. This was also to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to her by the above missed appointments for this by the developer’s third-party contractor on 28 January, and 22 and 23 December 2020, and the landlord’s missed opportunity to undertake temporary repairs while waiting for the developer to resolve the issue. Although it did inform the resident that it might do so on 8 October 2020, and it offered to reimburse her for replacing the door herself on 24 December 2020.
47. The offer of compensation was a demonstration of efforts being made by the landlord to put things right. The compensation offered to the resident was in line with the landlord’s above compensation policy, which referred to £50 as the maximum amount recommended to be offered by it for a high degree of failure causing a high extent of hardship, as well as £30 per missed appointment.
48. The £250 offered to the resident was therefore a reasonable amount under the compensation policy, given that the replacement of the bathroom door should have been carried out by the developer during the defects liability period, which ended on 30 October 2019 when the final inspection was carried out for this. This is because this amount was proportionate to recognise the above three failed developer’s contractor’s appointments to replace the door at the rate of £30 per missed appointment, as well as the landlord’s failure in obtaining this or arranging an alternative temporary door until 21 January 2021 at a higher rate than the £50 recommended by the policy.
49. While the resident instead requested a 50% reimbursement of her rent from the landlord, and subsequently a 100% reimbursement from this Service, the landlord’s above compensation policy did not permit it to reimburse her for a percentage of the rent unless she was without the use of her bathroom or the major amenities there. As she still had use of the bathroom during the above period and of the major amenities that this contained despite being unable to close the bathroom door, it could not reimburse her for being without these.
50. Although the resident also reported that she had been caused emotional distress by the landlord’s and the developer’s above repair delay to her bathroom door, and as a result of not being able to close this, this was additionally something that it could not compensate her for under the compensation policy. This is due to the above policy requiring it to deal with losses such as this, including ill health, via its insurance process. The landlord has therefore been recommended to do so below, as well as to re-offer the resident the above compensation if she has not received this already, and to review its communications procedures to seek to avoid a recurrence of the above failings in the future.
Determination
52. This decision is dependent on the below recommendations being followed by the landlord.
Reasons
53. The landlord initially took reasonable steps to attempt to ensure that the resident’s defective bathroom door was replaced. The work to be carried out was within the defects liability period for the property, which ended on 30 October 2019 when the final inspection was carried out. It was stated that all outstanding defects were to be remedied by the developer by 12 December 2019.
54. The landlord took measures to ensure that it communicated with the developer regarding the resident’s concerns. The resident was also frequently updated by the landlord in response to her communications with it. The landlord additionally apologised to her for the inconvenience caused by the subsequent repair delay until 21 January 2021, and it acknowledged that there were lessons to be learnt regarding missed opportunities for temporary repairs, which could have been carried out while a replacement door was being sought by the developer.
55. The landlord’s revised compensation offer to the resident, from £50 to £250, proportionately reflected the level of redress appropriate to the inconvenience experienced by the resident in line with its compensation policy.
Recommendations
56. It is recommended that the landlord:
- Re-offer the resident the £250 compensation that it previously awarded to her, if she has not received this already.
- Provide the resident with details to enable her to submit a claim to it for losses such as her emotional distress via its insurance process.
- Review its communication procedures with developers and third-party contractors to ensure that residents are communicated with in a way that considers their circumstances, and enables the prompt resolution of repairs and complaints for defects.
57. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
58. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.