Vivid Housing Limited (202211238)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211238

Vivid Housing Limited

11 July 2024

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. the reported defects to the property and the request for warranty information about the windows.
2. the complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a property with the landlord since March 2021. The property is a 3-bedroom new build house. The landlord’s home users guide for the property states that there is a builder warranty for a period of 12 months from the date the resident received keys for the property. This is known as the “defect period”. During this period the developer will repair defects that are not general wear and tear or maintenance issues.
The home users guide says that the resident should raise defects with the landlord, who will request that the developer attend to rectify the issue. It says an end of defects period inspection (the defect inspection) will be arranged approximately 11 months after the property was handed over. This is intended to pick up any outstanding defects so that the developer can be instructed to put them right. It does not provide a timescale for a defect to be remedied and says that most minor defects will be picked up at the defect inspection. It states that after this, shared owners are responsible for most maintenance to the property.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will make awards to recognise the distress, inconvenience or other impact of a failing. It provides that these payments may range between £0-£400 depending on the impact of the failing. It also states that a separate award for complaint handling failings may be made of between £0-£150. It says it may consider compensating a resident for excessive time taken off work due to repeated failings. The compensation policy says claims of damage caused to personal belongings as a result of alleged negligence should be considered by its insurer.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident moved to the property on 1 March 2021. On 24 March 2021 she reported defects, including lack of boiler housing and a manhole cover that was “loose” and “lifting”. In September 2021 the resident sent the landlord further defects including issues with loose door fittings, windows that were sticking and a window that was “broken”.
In February 2022 the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy with the number of issues with the property that she was still trying to resolve. Later in February 2022 the resident told the landlord that an operative had attended but only had 4 items on his list. She raised concerns about the shower screen that did not fit properly and the damage this was doing to flooring. She also asked that the landlord provide a copy of all the warranties.
At the end of March 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was “fed up” and had waited 12 months for defects to be resolved. The defect inspection completed on 11 April 2022 noted defects with the property, including:
1. a leaking shower screen.
2. a manhole cover that needed to be lowered.
3. missing boiler housing.
4. blown window that needed to be replaced.
5. door/windows that were difficult to open and close.
6. rear garden that needed to be re-turfed and vegetation in front garden.
On 14 April 2022 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It said that the developer had confirmed an appointment for 11 May 2022 for work. The landlord said it would monitor work until completion and that the time taken to put things right was not acceptable. It offered the resident £100 for this and the lack of communication. It said it was in weekly meetings with the developer to discuss and escalate outstanding issues.
In early July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord again. She said that nothing had been done since her complaint. She said:
1. she had repeatedly asked for defects at her property to be fixed.
2. she had repeatedly requested warranties, with no response.
3. she would be given dates for work, and no-one would attend, or an operative would attend on a different day.
4. nothing had been done to resolve the issues with the shower enclosure.
Later in July 2022 the landlord noted that none of the work at the resident’s property had been booked in. It spoke to her in mid-July 2022 about her complaint and said it would work to resolve issues and update her weekly. It noted the resident had agreed not to escalate her complaint on this basis. Following this, it wrote to the resident providing her with a point of contact and confirming it would update her weekly about booking and completing work. In August 2022 the resident told the landlord that contractors had attended to look at the shower enclosure. She said further tiles in the shower had been broken and needed to be replaced before the shower screen could be refitted. She told the landlord that she had mobility issues which meant that using the shower was better for her than the bath.
On 5 September 2022 the resident asked that the landlord escalate her complaint as she was unhappy with the progress to resolve defects. She said:
1. her shower still needed to be fixed and she had been given no date for this.
2. she wanted compensation for the unnecessary leave she had needed to take from work and the inconvenience.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 October 2022. It said it had found the resident had received a poor level of service and it was sorry issues had gone on for so long. It said:
1. the resident had taken time of work to accommodate appointments to resolve defects, and it had awarded her a further £500 for this (based on 5 days the resident said she had taken off).
2. it would look to learn from the complaint to build a process for escalating issues with the developer to improve customer satisfaction.

In January 2023 the developer contacted the landlord stating it was unsure whether certain work had been completed to the resident’s property. Following this, the landlord communicated with the resident, and she confirmed most issues remained outstanding. This included re-turfing the garden, boiler housing, replacing a blown double-glazed window and adjustments to the front door and windows. The resident also told the landlord that she believed her oven may be faulty as heat from it was burning the units. She said she had not been given details of who to contact about this.
In early February 2023 the landlord told the resident it was aware several issues remained outstanding and that it was working with the developer to resolve these. Later in February 2023 the landlord noted internally that it was having to re-raise jobs that had been closed in error by the developer. At the end of June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and us. She said she had been “messed around”, taken time off work and put to “extreme inconvenience”. She said the landlord had failed to uphold its agreement to resolve the outstanding issues.
At the end of July 2023, the landlord sent an email to the resident. It said it was still chasing the developer about the outstanding work and met with it weekly. The landlord queried whether the resident wanted to arrange the work herself and it said it would pay for this. The following day it noted that it had spoken to the resident about arranging the outstanding work herself, and that she was to obtain quotes and forward these for consideration.
In March 2024, after receiving contact from us about the investigation, the landlord contacted the resident. On 26 March 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident apologising for the issues that remained outstanding. It said it would arrange for the employer agent (who worked on behalf of the developer) to attend the resident’s property to discuss the defect list and the remaining outstanding issues. It said that if the developer did not engage to complete the outstanding work, it would then look to appoint a multi trade contractor to do so. The landlord awarded further compensation to the resident of:
1. £200 for its complaint handling failing. It said it should have passed the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process sooner.
2. £1,000 to recognise that the “majority of issues” remained outstanding and that the resident had taken a substantial amount of time off work as a result of this.

Assessment and findings

The reported defects to the property and the request for warranty information about the windows

Defects

Records we have seen show that the resident began to report defects, such as the lack of boiler housing and an issue with the manhole cover in March 2021. Records show that the landlord took timely action to raise these defects with the developer. However, it identified in July 2021 that the developer had recorded some of the issues as resolved when they were not. The resident raised further defects with the landlord in September 2021, such as uneven flooring under the washing machine, a broken window and windows that were hard to open and close. But there is no evidence the landlord raised any of these defects until 22 November 2021. The reason for this 2-month delay is unclear, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take earlier action to raise repairs. At this time, it noted that issues with the manhole cover, and the boiler housing also remained outstanding. But there is little evidence it was taking reasonable steps to ensure this work, which had been outstanding for 6 months by this time, was progressed by the developer. While the landlord was not responsible for repairing the defects, it was appropriate for it to take steps to adequately monitor the progress of the repairs, and to ensure the developer was acting to resolve issues reported. That it did not adequately do so was a failing.
By February 2022 the resident had raised her concerns about the number of defects still outstanding nearly a year after she had moved in. While it is apparent some defects, such as with the windows and doors, had not been raised until September 2021 the resident could reasonably have expected her reports would have been acted upon by this time. Later in February 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging that the number of outstanding defects was “unacceptable”. It said that an appointment had been booked for the following week to resolve a number of issues, and records note some of the outstanding work was completed on 25 February 2022. However, several of the issues remained outstanding such as boiler housing and issues reported with the windows and doors. The landlord should reasonably have monitored what was being done to resolve these issues, which had been reported in March and September 2021. But it did not chase what was happening about the boiler housing until March 2022, and there is no evidence it did anything to chase the other outstanding issues.
When responding, in April 2022, to the resident’s complaint about the time issues had remained outstanding the landlord said it would monitor outstanding work to completion. It said an appointment had been booked to complete some of the work on 11 May 2022. Yet, again, there is little evidence the landlord took sufficient steps to monitor the completion of the outstanding work. It failed to do so even after the resident told it that the appointment of 11 May 2022 had not been kept by the developer. In correspondence in May 2022, she said an operative arrived unannounced on 10 May 2022 to complete only minor work, and that no-one attended on the scheduled appointment the following day. The landlord took no apparent action to establish why the scheduled appointment was not kept by the developer. It should have done so, particularly in view of the length the issues had been ongoing. It only began to take any significant steps to chase the work after the resident made contact again at the beginning of July 2022.
Records show that the landlord chased the developer during July and August 2022. But there is more that it should reasonably have done at this time to ensure that the work that had been repeatedly raised and chased by the resident was completed as soon as possible. There is little the landlord did to establish a timeframe for the developer to complete the outstanding work. It had been outstanding for so long and the landlord had made repeated assurances that it would monitor the work to make sure it was booked in. That was not enough. It should reasonably have considered escalating steps it could take so that work could be progressed with minimal inconvenience to the resident. Instead, there is evidence that a further appointment on 30 August 2022 was cancelled by the developer at short notice.
When the resident requested escalation of her complaint on 5 September 2022, she said that an operative for the developer had attended to complete work to the manhole and resolve some minor issues. She said issues with her shower, windows, door fittings and garden turf still needed to be resolved. She questioned why none of these jobs were being actioned and why she had repeatedly had to make contact about them. The resident’s frustration at the lack of progress and the inconvenience she had been put to was understandable. She should not have had to repeatedly chase work and the landlord should taken more action to ensure it was done.
The resident told the landlord and the developer on 20 September 2022 that she was being “inundated” with calls to make appointments but that this was for work that had already been completed. She said she had heard nothing about the shower, or boiler housing.While we have seen that the developer sent an email to the resident on 21 September 2022 to ask her what work was outstanding, it is unclear whether the resident responded to this. The landlord should have recognised at this time that it needed to take purposeful action to clarify, both for the resident and the developer, what work was needed. There had been unscheduled attendances by operatives to complete some of the minor work, and there was clear evidence of confusion about what work was outstanding, leading to inefficient action to progress matters. The landlord had also previously identified issues with work being recorded as complete by the developer when it was not. It shouldreasonably have considered arranging a joint inspection with the developer so that all parties were clear about the work. The landlord later noted that it called the resident on 6 October 2022 to discuss what issues were outstanding. But not meeting with her and the developer at this time to inspect outstanding issues was a missed opportunity to ensure there was a shared understanding of what work was outstanding. It is apparent the developer remained unclear about what work was outstanding as it subsequently contacted the landlord in January 2023 to ask for this to be clarified.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the resident had experienced a poor level of service and that issues had gone on for too long. It said it had arranged for a single point of contact at the developer for the resident to correspond with to book outstanding work. But the landlord should reasonably have gone further than this. It was aware work to address the defects had not been progressed as it should have been, and it should have maintained close oversight to ensure it was now completed in a timely manner. While we have seen evidence that issues with the shower enclosure were resolved in November 2022 after further tiles were ordered, other work remained outstanding. The landlord failed to maintain any level of effective oversight of what was being done to resolve these issues. The resident told the landlord again in January 2023 of the issues that remained outstanding. This included the window issues, loose manhole covers, defective turf, boiler housing, and a front door that needed to be adjusted to reduce draught. While it told her at this time that it would work with the developer to resolve issues, it did not do enough. It noted in February 2023 that it was having to re-raise jobs that had been closed by the developer in error. But there is no evidence that it considered escalating steps it could take. It should have done so. It said in its earlier stage 2 response that it would learn from the complaint and look to build a process to escalate issues with the developer earlier. Its lack of action in February 2023 is evidence that it had not sufficiently embedded this learning.
After the resident made further contact at the end of June 2023 the landlord identified that 9 jobs were still outstanding. It noted the developer had referred the work to a subcontractor but that no dates had been set. In July 2023, the landlord asked the resident whether she wanted to arrange the outstanding work herself, and that it would pay for this. Later that month it spoke to the resident, and noted she was to obtain quotes for work and send these to the landlord. But records do not show it received any quotes. While it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this option to the resident, it should not have been the only option it offered to progress the work. Some work had been outstanding for 2 years by this time. The landlord should reasonably have offered to arrange this work itself, rather than put this responsibility and inconvenience on the resident. When it received no quotes from the resident, it should have followed this up to ensure work was completed. Instead, it took no apparent action. It was not until further contact from us that it spoke with the resident and established that work was still outstanding. The landlord failed to maintain oversight of the work and take appropriate escalating action to ensure the developer completed work to resolve identified defects. As a result, the resident has waited over 3 years since she began to report defects, and over 2 years since the defect inspection in April 2022.
The landlord has now said that it will appoint a multi trade contractor to complete the outstanding work if the developer does not engage with it. The resident has confirmed that an operative attended her property to assess the outstanding work in April 2024. This is a positive step forward, but she should not have had to wait until we began to consider the matter before the landlord took this appropriate action. The resident said that, since the inspection in April 2024, she has received no further confirmation of a timetable for completing this work. That is poor. She has already waited so long for this work, which the landlord had previously promised to monitor to conclusion in 2022. The lack of appropriate communication to clearly set out a timetable for work gave her no assurance that it was now committed to ensuring this work would finally be completed.
The resident told us that following the inspection in April 2024, an operative attended unannounced to complete work to fit her boiler housing. It is unclear whether this work was arranged by the developer or a multi trade contractor, but the poor communication about the appointment is evidence of a continued lack of appropriate oversight of the work by the landlord. It should have ensured that, following the inspection of April 2024, a clear schedule of work was provided and that appointments were appropriately agreed with the resident in advance. This is particularly so given the issues she had already experienced with unannounced visits and missed appointments. The resident raised concerns with us that the landlord should ensure a competent tradesperson complete the window work. It would be for the landlord or the developer to ensure that an appropriately qualified tradesperson is engaged. But it would be reasonable for the landlord to ensure that the resident is provided with details of who will be completing the work. In light of the above, we have ordered that the landlord do so and ensure that the resident is provided with a clear schedule for completing all outstanding work, including dates.
So far, the landlord has offered the resident a total of £1,600 to compensate her for poor communication, the time taken to put defects right and the time she has taken off work. The resident told us she does not consider this award adequately compensates her for the inconvenience she had been put to over 3 years. It is acknowledged that the resident has experienced significant inconvenience and frustration because of the landlord’s failings. She said that operatives have regularly attended without prior warning or did not attend when they were supposed to. It is also clear she has had to live with various unresolved issues to her property, which were reported or identified between March 2021 and April 2022 (when the defect inspection was completed). Clearly, she should not have needed to wait so long for this workand we have found repeated failure in the landlord’s monitoring of progress to rectify outstanding issues, and to consider appropriate escalating steps.
The landlord has not yet done enough to set out a plan for completing outstanding work. This can have done nothing to reassure the resident that issues would finally be resolved, and we have made an order that is aimed at providing this reassurance to the resident. Overall, with consideration to the landlord’s compensation policy, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the circumstances of the case, we consider the award already made to be appropriate. It is acknowledged, however, that work is still outstanding. The landlord told us that it will consider a further award to the resident if work remains outstanding for a protracted period beyond the inspection of April 2024. That is appropriate, and we have set out a recommendation that it do so upon completion of all outstanding work to the property.
It is noted that the resident has raised concerns to us that draught from the unresolved front door issues may have led to increased heating bills. While we acknowledge this concern, it is not clear what extent this would have increased heating costs. In view of this, we have ordered that the landlord contact the resident so that it can inspect her front door and any evidence she has of increased energy usage. It should then consider under its compensation policy whether a further payment is due for this.
The resident told us that her carpet has been stained by the mud and clay brought in by her dogs because work to re-turf her garden has been outstanding for so long. She said that she wanted the landlord to replace her carpet. It told her in March 2024 that it would look into whether it could offer to professionally clean the carpet once the turf had been replaced. But this provides the resident with no assurance about whether this will be done or not. In addition, she told us that she considers the carpet needed to be replaced because of the damage. The landlord’s compensation policy states that claims of damage to personal possessions should be considered by its insurer. As such, it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of its insurer, and we have ordered that it do so.
The resident told the landlord in January 2023 of her concerns that her oven may be faulty as it was burning kitchen units, and she asked for information about who to contact about this. She has reiterated her concern about the oven to us. While this was not noted at the defect inspection in April 2022, it would be appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident to obtain further information regarding her concerns about the oven so that it can direct her about who to contact. We have included a recommendation that the landlord do so.

Warranties

The resident told us she is still waiting for the landlord to provide warranty information for the windows. She has repeatedly requested this information from the landlord since February 2022. Yet despite saying on more than one occasion that it would supply this information, the landlord has not done so. Even when the resident raised this again in her escalation request of 5 September 2022, the landlord failed to respond to this point. If it was having trouble locating this information, or believed the resident should direct her request elsewhere, then the landlord should have said this. Instead, the resident has been left frustrated and given the impression that her request has been ignored. It has also meant she had to expend more time and effort chasing this information. The landlord is yet to acknowledge this. An order has been made aimed at recognising the time and effort and inconvenience the resident has been put to chasing this information. We have also ordered that the landlord either provide warranty information or appropriately direct her about who contact to obtain this information.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported defects to the property and the request for warranty information about the windows. We have found the award of compensation to recognise the impact of the delay in resolving defects to be appropriate, but the landlord has not taken reasonable steps to set out a schedule for completing outstanding work within a reasonable time. We have also found that it is yet to acknowledge or remedy its continual failure to provide warranty information the resident had requested.

The complaint

Each of the landlord’s complaint responses to the resident were outside its targets set out in its complaints policy. While there was only a slight delay with the stage 1 response, the stage 2 response was almost 2 weeks late. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), it would have been reasonable for the landlord to agree an extension in advance with the resident and to have apologised for this delay. That it did not do so was a failing. We have recommended that the landlord remind staff of the importance of doing so.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord told the resident that it would monitor booking and completion of work, but as noted earlier, it failed to do so effectively. It subsequently acknowledged, in March 2024, that it had delayed escalating the resident’s complaint when it would have been appropriate to do so. It appears the landlord was referring here to the contact the resident made in early July 2022, when she expressed dissatisfaction that work had not been progressed since the stage 1 response. At this time the landlord persuaded the resident not to escalate her complaint on the basis that it would work to resolve issues and update her weekly. But it could have done this while also providing a stage 2 response. That would have avoided delaying the conclusion of the complaints process unduly. It was also an early opportunity for the landlord to learn from failings in its handling of issues. While belated, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledge this in April 2024, and the level of compensation it awarded for this was reasonable. However, the landlord identified no other failings in its handling. But we have found that there was more it could reasonably have done to ensure outstanding work was completed. It would have been reasonable for it to meet with the resident and the developer to complete a joint inspection of outstanding issues after her complaint escalation request. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure it put in place measures that allowed it to maintain adequate oversight of the progress of work through to completion.
As a result of complaint handling failings, inadequate action was taken to monitor and take appropriate steps to escalate to ensure work was completed. The landlord is yet to identify or acknowledge this and that was a failing. Nor did the landlord identify or address the resident’s concerns that she had repeatedly requested warranty information without adequate response. That was a further failing. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the award of £200 appropriately recognises the delay in it escalating the complaint, it does not go far enough to recognise all complaint handling failings we have identified. As a result of poor complaint handling, the landlord missed the opportunity to take steps to ensure work was monitored appropriately through to completion and the majority of this work remained outstanding. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, a further award has been ordered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. there was maladministration in its handling of the reported defects to the property and the request for warranty information about the windows.
2. there was maladministration in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This apology should be made in line with guidance set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. pay the resident compensation of £2,150, made up of:
  1. £1,600 already awarded for the impact of the failings identified in its handling of the defects raised.
  2. £100 for the impact of its failure to provide the resident with warranty information, or appropriately direct her on how to obtain this.
  3. £450 for the impact of complaint handling failings identified. This includes the £200 previously awarded.
3. provide the resident with a clear schedule for completing all outstanding work, including dates and details of who will be completing the work.
4. provide the resident with details of how she can make a claim to its insurer for damage to her carpet.
5. contact the resident so that it can inspect her front door and any evidence she has of increased heating bills, and consider under its compensation policy whether a further award is appropriate.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, with reference to the failings identified, the landlord should review whether it has adequate processes and guidance in place:
1. for escalating issues when developers do not take timely steps to resolve defects.
2. to allow staff to make timely consideration of whether it is appropriate for the landlord to appoint its own contractor to complete outstanding work when a developer is not engaging.
3. to record and monitor defect work completed by developers and check the accuracy of this.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. contact the resident to obtain further information regarding her concerns about the oven so that it can appropriately direct her about who to contact.
2. remind its staff of the importance of agreeing extensions to complaint responses in advance, and of apologising for this delay.
Upon conclusion of all outstanding work, the landlord should consider whether any further award to the resident is appropriate to recognise the impact of any additional delay in the completion of this work.