Vivid Housing Limited (202222069)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222069

Vivid Housing Limited

19 April 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

1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould within the resident’s home.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident has multiple sclerosis and other health conditions that affect his breathing.
3. The resident contacted the landlord about damp and mould several times between August 2021 and April 2022. The landlord’s records indicate it attended the property on various occasions to complete surveys, a mould wash, and some remedial works.
4. On 12 April 2022, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. He said a recent survey determined the damp issues were external and the main problem was the render. He explained the damp and mould within the property was having a serious impact on his health.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 April 2022. It said following a site visit, it decided the rendering to the entire property needed renewing. Due to a backlog, it anticipated the works would start in the next 3 to 6 months. It identified that the surveys previously completed did not identify the root cause of the damp. It offered £150 compensation for its failings.
6. In October 2022, the resident escalated his complaint as the rendering work was outstanding. The landlord issued a ‘stage 2 early resolution’ response on 14 October 2022. It said:
   1. Due to operational factors, it was prevented from completing the works.
   2. It would not be practical to complete the outstanding work during the autumn/winter.
   3. In the interim, it arranged for the kitchen to be treated for damp and mould.
   4. It had assurance from its assets team that the rendering would be done between April 2023 – July 2023.
   5. It offered £300 compensation to recognise its failure to deliver on its original timescale.
7. The resident escalated his complaint in February 2023. The lack of communication and broken promises dissatisfied the resident. He said the landlord had still not replaced the rendering. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 March 2023. It said:
   1. The project to re-render the resident’s home in April – July 2023 was superseded by a larger insulation project in the area to replace the external rendering, improve the thermal quality of the walls, replace the windows, and upgrade the ventilation.
   2. The project was at the planning permission phase and the team was prioritizing for the resident’s home to be one of the first properties improved.
   3. It could not confirm exact timescales, however it hoped for the external wall insulation to be completed within the next 18 months.
   4. The resident had told the landlord he wanted to remain in the property.
   5. It would attend the property on 9 March 2023 to assess and discuss any temporary work that may assist with the current issues experienced.
   6. It offered an additional £2500 to recognise the length of time this matter had been ongoing, the lack of communication and the inconvenience caused by any necessary interim work.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies, procedures, and laws

8. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
9. The landlord’s responsive repairs and maintenance policy sets out that it is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of its dwellings. Its website explains responsive repairs should be done within 28 days. It also says sometimes complex repairs are needed which can be very disruptive. If this happens, it will clearly explain what is needed, how long it will take, who is managing the repair and how to contact them.
10. The landlord’s planned and cyclical maintenance policy states it will design and manage planned works in a way that meets its statutory obligations, maximises the performance of its assets and delivers value for money.

Scope of investigation

11. The resident said the landlord’s actions impacted his health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, as this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on the health of a resident. Nor can we calculate or award damages. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
12. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner – usually within 6 months of the issue occurring. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address the issues. We have used our discretion in this case to consider events from August 2021 (when the landlord completed a damp survey) up to the landlord’s complaint response dated 8 March 2023.
13. The Ombudsman is aware the resident has complained to the landlord about more recent issues. This complaint is limited to the definition above. It is open for the resident to make a separate referral to this Service should he remain dissatisfied once the landlord has completed its internal complaint procedure into his more recent complaint.
14. The resident referenced personal items damaged by damp and mould. From the evidence available, the landlord did not consider this as part of the initial complaint in April 2022. If the resident wants to pursue this matter, he should contact the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould within the resident’s home

15. We provide a dispute resolution service which is an alternative to a legal route. We frame our approach by three principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
16. Following a resident’s report of damp within a property, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to conduct an inspection to understand the extent of the problem, the probable cause, and decide an appropriate course of action.
17. Neither party disputes that the landlord failed to diagnose the root cause of the damp at the earliest opportunity or that the rendering of the property required replacement.
18. Given the substantial nature of the works required, it was appropriate for the landlord to refer the repair to its assets team in the first instance. It is evident that following the stage 1 response, the landlord followed up with the relevant team on several occasions to obtain an update and check the position with the outstanding work. This was reasonable in the circumstances and shows that at the time, the landlord was monitoring the commitment made within its stage 1 response.
19. On 21 June 2022, the assets team explained they did not have capacity to deliver the rendering replacement work just yet but would seek to retrieve quotes within 8 weeks. Alternatively, it said the responsive repairs team could arrange the works if they obtained at least 3 quotes. This demonstrates the landlord explored another option with a view to completing the work as soon as possible. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord contacted other contractors/networks to try to arrange quotes. While the Ombudsman finds the landlord acted fairly in its actions here, it was a failing that it did not keep the resident updated throughout.
20. A landlord can only make decisions based on the evidence available at the time. When the landlord responded to the complaint in October 2022, records show the assets team had taken responsibility for the work order and added the replacement render job onto its list for the following financial year. Therefore, at the time of responding, the landlord had provided the correct information to the resident.
21. It is unclear when the landlord decided to include this property in the major retrofit project – the earliest record of this identified by the Ombudsman is in December 2022. The landlord failed to demonstrate that it communicated this to the resident at the earliest opportunity or managed his expectations.
22. Evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions while matters remained outstanding. There is little evidence that the landlord gave the resident’s concerns the appropriate attention in the circumstances. It is clear the resident spent more than a reasonable amount of time chasing for updates and trying to progress works, as the property was still affected by damp and mould. The Ombudsman determines that the communication failings exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on the resident.
23. Within the landlord’s complaint submission, it said that it offered a move to the resident. Considering the issues within the property and the resident’s concerns about his health, broadly speaking, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide the option of a move. The resident told this Service he wanted to remain in his home. The landlord provided little evidence about what happened here, such as when it offered the move, how it communicated this or how many times it discussed this with the resident. As such, the Ombudsman is unable to fully assess whether the landlord acted satisfactorily in this respect.
24. While it was unable to progress the major works, the landlord had an obligation to ensure the current condition of the property did not pose a significant health and safety risk, and to carry out responsive repairs where necessary. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord for its records relating to the interim damp and mould repairs. The landlord provided some information, but this does not fully evidence its decision making or actions at the time. It is of concern that the landlord has not evidenced active management of the interim repairs.
25. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. Based on the evidence received, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted fully in line with its repairing obligations or that it managed the resident’s expectations throughout.
26. Through its complaint responses, the landlord identified and apologised for its failings. It offered the resident a total of £2950 compensation to recognise the length of time the matter was ongoing, the poor communication, and the inconvenience caused. It also set out learning from the complaint and said it would ensure all front-line staff were aware of the retrofit project.
27. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) sets out what we consider when determining cases. The £2950 compensation offered by the landlord is appropriate for situations where there has been a severe long-term impact on the resident where the failures accumulated over a period. In the Ombudsman’s view, the compensation provided by the landlord was in accordance with our guidance for the landlord’s failures. As such, the landlord offered appropriate redress.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould within the resident’s home.

Recommendations

29. If it has not already done so, the Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £2950 compensation it offered within its complaint responses. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the landlord paying the resident the redress it previously offered.
30. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities within his household and ensure its internal records reflects said vulnerabilities, subject to any data protection requirements.