Vivid Housing Limited (202207002)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207002

Vivid Housing Limited

21 July 2023

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs including mould, leaks, defective worktops and the resident’s request for it to replace the carpets in the hallway and a bedroom.

b. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and the tenancy began in December 2018. The property is a two bedroom ground floor flat. The resident’s daughter suffers with asthma.
The landlord has provided a copy of its repairs policy which says that a timeframe will be agreed between it and the resident to complete any repairs, but the policy does not give an indication as to how long this would be.
The landlord has provided a copy of its complaints policy which says that a stage one response will be provided within ten working days and a stage two response will be provided within 20 working days.
The resident has maintained that the issues affecting her property had a negative impact on her daughter’s health. It is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as these matters are more suitable to be dealt with through a personal injury claim. As such, the Ombudsman will not consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her daughter.
This investigation will only look into the events which occurred in the six months prior to the resident raising a formal complaint. Furthermore, this investigation can only determine issues which the landlord has had an opportunity to look into and therefore the Ombudsman will only assess the landlord’s actions up to the end of its complaints process.

Summary of events

On 9 January 2021, the resident reported several repairs to the landlord, including a leak from a radiator, mould in the kitchen under the sink and no locks on the windows. The landlord said it resolved the issues on 17 January 2021.
On 13 August 2021, the resident reported a leak with her boiler and an operative attended the property on the same day with the landlord’s notes showing that the job was completed.
On 19 September 2021, the resident reported another leak from her boiler and an operative attended on the same date. The notes show that a leak was found on the cold mains pipework and a fitting was replaced and the leak was sorted.
On 21 September 2021, the resident reported that a pipe under her boiler had leaked causing water damage to her property. An out of hours call was made and the boiler was fixed the same day. The resident said that her walls and carpets were ruined as well as her daughter’s bed. The repair notes said that a job was raised the previous month, when the resident was advised that a leak had been fixed but it had continued and caused damage. On the same date, the notes show that a complaint had been raised by the resident.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 28 September 2021 to inspect the boiler and damage caused by the leaks. The notes show that the resident was insistent that there was mould, but the operative could not see any.
The repair notes show that on 1 December 2021, the resident called to find out when her carpets would be replaced from two previous leaks which had occurred. The resident said she had mould in her bathroom as the vents did not work and her taps were constantly dripping. She also said that the kitchen cupboard doors had come off. The resident mentioned that she had a complaint open, but that the landlord had stopped bothering to contact her.
The notes show that on 4 January 2022, the landlord was visiting the resident but no further information was provided.
The resident sent the landlord photos on 6 January 2022 and mentioned that her bath panel had been damaged. On 7 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say she was not happy with repairs that were completed that day. She said her tap was wobbly and that the silicone around the bath had not been replaced properly.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 13 January 2022 which said the following:
1. The resident had complained about outstanding repairs in her home, damage to a wall caused by a leaking boiler, damage to flooring also caused by the leaking boiler and mould in the bathroom due to the vents not working properly.
2. There were two leaks reported from the pipework leading to the boiler in August and September 2021, which had been fixed. The landlord attended on 28 September 2021 to assess the damage caused by the leak and confirmed that there was no damage to report and everything had dried out.
3. There was a tap dripping in the kitchen which was fixed on 6 January 2022. The resident was unhappy with the works and the landlord reattended on 7 January to address the issue and it was now fixed.
4. There was an issue with the bathroom shower screen and the landlord said that it was waiting for the seal to be delivered and that a repair had been booked for 28 March 2022. The landlord said that it had resealed around the bath to stop water getting under, but the operative applied the silicone over the top of the previous silicone instead of removing it. The landlord apologised and said that this repair needed to be completed again.
5. An operative attended on 4 January 2022 to assess the mould and leaks from the boiler. It was reported that there was no damage caused from the leaks. Further repairs were however raised including to renew the bath panel, renew the vinyl flooring and overhaul the bathroom extractor fan.
6. The landlord said that it found there to be a service failure because although it attended to complete the repairs, it did not always get these right the first time which led to repeated visits to correct the work. It confirmed the silicone repair around the bath was to be completed on 19 January 2022. A new bath panel with a new frame work and skirting which would be sealed in would also be completed shortly and a date would be confirmed.
7. The bathroom flooring would be replaced and the landlord said it arranged with its contractors to contact the resident to do this. The kitchen work surfaces around the sink would be investigated by a carpenter and this was booked in for 19 January 2022. The landlord also said that it would be in touch to arrange a date for the extractor fan to be fitted following its damp and mould inspection.
8. The landlord said that as a result of the complaint, it would be reminding its operatives about getting the repair done correctly the first time to avoid repeated visits and to ensure its customers can enjoy their homes. The landlord said that its customer success team would be monitoring the resident’s repairs and ensuring they went ahead.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two on 15 January 2022.
On 4 February 2022, the landlord’s notes show that the bathroom extractor fan replacement was completed.
The resident reported repairs on 27 February 2022 which included a leaking pipe connected to the washing machine under the sink. The notes show that mould was also reported under the sink. The landlord advised the resident to wipe the mould away. It said that once the leak was fixed, if the mould was still there she should let it know.
On 4 March 2022, the resident called to say that she had been told by the Housing Officer back in November that her carpets could be replaced; however, she had been contacted by a carpet cleaning company and was worried that if she accepted the clean then it would affect her chances of having her carpets replaced. The landlord advised the resident to allow the clean whilst it looked into the new carpets.
On 7 March 2022, a damp and mould specialist visited the resident’s property, but said that there was no mould in the property. The notes show that the resident was worried about mould in between the walls and the landlord said that there was no evidence of mould on either side. The operative said that there was a drip from the stop cock or the boiler outlet and a repair was raised to inspect this. The landlord also said it would remove a section of plaster from the bedroom behind the boiler and check for mould between the walls.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 10 March 2022 which said the following:
1. A leak from the boiler was reported in August 2021 and September 2021. A repair was completed on 19 September 2021 and the damage caused by the leak was assessed on 28 September 2021. No damage was found to the exterior, but a damp and mould specialist was scheduled to inspect the wall to check for any repairs.
2. The outstanding repairs to the extractor fan, electrical sockets, kitchen work tops, door handles, kitchen tap replacements and window handles in the lounge had now been completed. The landlord offered some compensation for this (see below).
3. It had arranged for the resident’s carpets to be cleaned, but the resident declined this and wanted them replaced as she said the Neighbourhood Officer had informed her that they could be replaced through a welfare fund. The landlord apologised for any misinformation and said that the welfare fund was used to support customers without carpets, furnishings or essentials. Some compensation was offered to reflect this (see below).
4. It could not comment on the property having an effect on the resident’s daughter’s health and that she would need to seek independent legal advice.
5. Compensation of £170 was offered to the resident. This included:
  1. £50 in acknowledgement of the length of time taken to complete window handle repairs;
  2. £50 for the time taken to resolve the complaint at stage one and another £50 for the time taken to resolve the complaint at stage two;
  3. £20 for the misinformation about the welfare fund;
  4. Plus, an offer for it to clean the carpets in the hallway and the resident’s daughter’s bedroom.
6. The landlord said that as there were arrears on the resident’s rent account, the compensation would be paid directly to that account to reduce the arrears.
On 25 July 2022, the resident informed the Housing Ombudsman Service that there were still outstanding repairs, including ongoing leaks. The resident’s kitchen sink was replaced in the morning of 25 July 2022, but the resident said it was still leaking.
The resident said on 20 October 2022 that she had just had a new kitchen installed but there was mould due to a lack of sealant around the sink. The notes show that the sink was still leaking and a repair needed to be raised.
The landlord has not been able to confirm whether the resident’s carpets were in the property prior to her moving in and therefore ‘gifted’ to her or whether the resident had put the carpets in herself.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs including mould, leaks, defective worktops, drawers and a bath panel

On 9 January 2021, the resident reported several repairs to the landlord, including a leak from a radiator, mould in the kitchen under the sink and no locks on the windows. The landlord said it resolved the issues on 17 January 2021. It is not clear what the landlord did to resolve the issues as the notes only show they were resolved on 17 January 2021. The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide specific timescales to complete the repairs but the landlord recorded that it attended within a reasonable timescale. Given no further reports were recorded from the resident for a further six months, it is reasonable to assume repairs were completed albeit the landlord’s records should have been clearer.
On 13 August and 19 September 2021, the resident reported a leak with her boiler and, on both occasions, the landlord attended the same day to fix the issue. It was reasonable to assume that these would have been classed as emergency appointments and the landlord therefore attended within an appropriate timescale.
However, a further leak was reported on 21 September 2021. An out of hours call was made and the boiler was fixed the same day. The landlord’s notes suggest that this was linked to the issue in August 2021, where the leak had not been fixed properly and continued to cause damage. The landlord attended all of these repairs urgently, but three leaks coming from the boiler in the space of a month would inevitably have caused inconvenience. Furthermore, the landlord later acknowledged that it had failed to resolves repairs right first time and there were therefore missed opportunities on the landlord’s part to prevent further leaks.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 28 September 2021 to inspect the boiler and damage caused by the leaks. The notes show that the resident was insistent that there was mould, but the operative could not see any. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating the damage and checking if there was mould. Given it did not establish the presence of mould, it was reasonable for it to conclude that no further works were needed in this regard.
On 1 December 2021, the resident called to find out when her carpets would be replaced from two previous leaks which had occurred. The resident also said she had mould in her bathroom as the vents were not working and other repairs were needed in her property. The notes show that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 4 January 2022, to again check the mould and damage from the leaks. No damage was found, but other repairs were raised. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the issues raised by the resident and raise the necessary repairs. However, it could have attended sooner, as the inspection occurred more than a month after the resident had reported the issues. Whilst the repairs policy does not provide specific repair response timeframes, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acted more quickly, particularly given she had originally referred to damaged carpets in September 2021.
Further, the landlord failed to attend to repair the resident’s tap until 6 January 2022 and it is not disputed that the resident was not happy with the initial repair attempts and the landlord had to return on 7 January 2022. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to attend to complete the repair the following day, there had already been an unnecessary delay between early December 2021 and early January 2022 in it attending to this repair.
The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend on 19 January 2022 to investigate kitchen work surfaces. It is unclear when this was initially reported but it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection to check if they were damaged. The stage two complaint response suggests that any resulting repairs had been completed by early March 2022.
According to the landlord’s repair notes, it replaced a defective fan in the resident’s bathroom on 4 February 2022. This was also a reasonable action for the landlord to take in an effort to resolve the mould growth issues that the resident had reported to her bathroom. The landlord has a duty to ensure the property is adequately ventilated and its actions were appropriate to comply with this obligation albeit there had again been an unreasonable delay as the resident initially reported this matter two months earlier.
In February 2022, the resident reported a leak with her washing machine and mould under her kitchen sink. The landlord advised the resident to wipe the mould away until the leak was fixed but its repair notes do not provide any further information regarding when the leak was remedied and if this was related to later sink repairs that the resident reported. Although the subsequent survey in March 2022 found there was no mould present in the property, it is of concern that the resident continued to report problems with the sink in July and October 2022.
The landlord said it had arranged for the resident’s carpets to be cleaned and the resident raised a concern in March 2022 that the Neighbourhood Officer had informed her several months earlier that they could be replaced through a welfare fund. The landlord apologised for any misinformation it provided and offered £20 compensation for the misinformation.
Although offering a clean was not unreasonable, the evidence shows that there were several leaks which may have caused damage to the resident’s carpets. Given the resident believed the landlord was responsible for causing this damage and the landlord had acknowledged that it had not always completed repairs right first time, it should have signposted her to make a liability claim against its insurance. The landlord accepted that the Neighbourhood Officer may have provided misinformation and awarded £20 compensation. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to make a financial offer of redress, given the uncertainty caused to the resident and the delay between September 2021 and March 2022 in it attempting to remedy the damaged carpets, this offer was not proportionate.
On 7 March 2022, a damp and mould specialist inspected the area to determine if there was any mould, but could not find any in the property. As the resident thought the mould was between the walls, the landlord said it would remove a section of plaster from the bedroom behind the boiler and check for mould between the walls. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take as it demonstrated it was willing to investigate further to offer reassurance to the resident who was concerned about her daughter’s health.
Overall, the landlord said it found a service failure because although it attended to complete the repairs, it did not always get these right the first time which led to repeated visits to correct the work. This will inevitably have caused the resident distress and inconvenience as the repairs were not always completed properly first time and she had to chase progress. Although the landlord said it would remind its operatives about the need to get repairs right first time, it did not offer sufficient redress to the resident for the repeated boiler leaks, the delay in it answering her concerns about damaged carpets and the delays between December 2021 and February 2022 in it attending to a variety of repairs.
The landlord has said in its final complaint response that it completed all the outstanding repairs. However, further reports related to kitchen works were made by the resident during 2022 and an order has therefore been made below in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

According to the landlord’s records, the resident made a formal complaint to it in September 2021. However, a stage one complaint response was not provided until 13 January 2022. The landlord’s complaint’s policy says that it will respond within ten working days at stage one and there was therefore an inappropriate delay of more than three months in its initial handling of the complaint.
The complaint was escalated to stage two on 15 January 2022, and the landlord responded at stage two on 10 March 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide a stage two response within 20 working days. There was therefore a further inappropriate delay of more than a month in the landlord responding at the final stage of its complaints process.
In the stage two response, the landlord offered £100 compensation for the delays in responding to the complaint. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its complaint handling failings, the compensation award of £100 did not offer sufficient redress given its complaint handling delays totalled more than four months and the resident will inevitably have been left uncertain as to how the landlord was managing her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with regards to the landlord’s handling of repairs and the resident’s request for it to replace the carpets in the hallway and a bedroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not complete all repairs within a reasonable period of time and failed to carry out repairs to an adequate standard in the first instance, which meant that it had to return to the property. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s reports of damaged carpets, did not signpost her to make an insurance claim and acknowledged that its Neighbourhood Officer may have provided misinformation about its intention to replace them.
The landlord offered compensation for its delayed responses at stage one and stage two of the complaints process but this did not represent sufficient redress given the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord should pay the resident a further £350 compensation (on top of the £170 which was offered in its final complaint response). This should be paid directly to the resident (and not offset against her rent account) within four weeks of the date of this report and is made up of:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failures in its handling of her reports of repairs and her request for it to replace the carpets in the hallway and a bedroom.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failure in its handling of her complaint.
The landlord is ordered to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property within four weeks of the date of this report to ensure that all repairs relating to the complaint have been completed, including to her kitchen.
The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of the inspection to confirm a schedule of outstanding repairs, including estimated dates of completion if any repairs remain outstanding.
The landlord is ordered to assess the resident’s claim for damaged carpets (and any other possessions) and provide advice as to how she can make a claim for these within four weeks of the date of this report, including signposting her to its insurers.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.