Vivid Housing Limited (202228847)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228847

Vivid Housing Limited

29 February 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. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of garden drainage works including the replacement of the resident’s shed.
   2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder and moved into the property in 2018. The property is a terraced house with a back garden. The property was built in 2018. The landlord is a housing association.
3. On 13 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and her neighbours about repairs it needed to carry out in their gardens. The repairs were to improve the drainage in the gardens and included installing soakaways. The landlord said once the soakaways were installed, it would carry out additional works to bring the gardens back to a decent standard. This included installing new paving and fences, laying new turf, providing new sheds, and shed bases, and jet washing paved areas. The landlord said the works would start in May 2022 and would be carried out by its contractor. It estimated the works to take approximately 5 weeks to complete. It asked the resident and her neighbours to clear their gardens before the works began.
4. On 3 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord. She was concerned that the contractor told her they would not renew her paving. The landlord’s staff discussed this internally. It said that the contractor did not need to renew the resident’s paving, and this had already been explained to the resident. In June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord with concerns about the contractor’s fencing installation. She also asked the landlord for an update on the works.
5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 July 2022 because she was unhappy with the replacement shed. The resident said she was not receiving any updates on the works and that the works had now been ongoing for 10 weeks. She also said she was still waiting for her paving to be jet washed. On 5 July 2022, the resident raised a complaint. Her complaint included that:
   1. There was no need for her to clear her garden before the works began.
   2. The contractor was not being supervised and the quality of work was poor. The resident had to chase the contractor in person for updates on the work.
   3. The turf had not been laid. The shed replacement was poor quality and smaller than what she had before.
   4. Other neighbours had been given bigger sheds or had their gardens attended to first.
   5. The resident wanted compensation, a bigger shed, and the paving to be jet washed. She also wanted an apology.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 July 2022. It’s project manager responded and said:
   1. It was fortunate that the contractor had managed to allow for a small area in the resident’s garden to be used. However, the clearance of the garden before the works began was still necessary.
   2. It was sorry that the works had taken longer than it first thought. This was because of a shortage of materials. Materials had also been stolen which further delayed works. The landlord said it should have been clear in its communications with the resident about this.
   3. Its contractor’s fencing operatives did not attend when they should have which caused further delays. The contractor’s fencing operatives were then removed from site for poor performance. There was a delay with sourcing replacement fencing operatives.
   4. It had agreed outstanding defects with the resident which included replacing the felt on the shed roof, adjusting the shed door, further works to the fencing, and making good the concrete in front of the shed. The dips and gaps in turf would settle over time. It had tried to jet wash the resident’s paving last week, but the resident had refused access.
   5. It had tried to be accommodating when other residents had requested items or services that went beyond the set schedule of works. However, it had received negative feedback about this and would refuse these types of requests in future.
   6. The resident’s previous shed had been 6 feet long and 4 feet wide. It had replaced this shed with a new shed of the same dimensions. If the resident’s shed measurements varied slightly, the landlord was not at fault.
   7. It agreed that its communication could have been better, however its contractor’s site manager had visited many times. Its contractor said that the resident had verbally abused them in their office recently. The landlord asked the resident to contact it directly about the works from now on.
   8. It offered £1,000 compensation for the inconvenience and delays in completing the works.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 July 2022. She said that the stage 1 response was not impartial because the project manager had failed to answer her concerns before she complained. She had previously refused the jet washing as she had not been notified. She had not been told when the site manager would attend. She accepted the compensation but wanted the landlord to provide her with a new shed and concrete base.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 September 2022. It said it was satisfied that its compensation offer at stage 1 was fair. It also said that the offer to replace the resident’s shed was reasonable. The landlord said that the jet washing was now complete, and the resident needed to contact its contractor to arrange the works to the shed base.
9. Five days after the stage 2 response, the resident asked the landlord for further details about the works to the shed base and the shed replacement. The landlord issued a stage 2 review response on 27 October 2022. It said it was not replacing the resident’s current shed and apologised for any confusion it had caused. It gave the resident details to contact its contractor about the works to the shed base.
10. On 25 November 2022, the resident’s partner contacted the landlord and its contractor to arrange the works to the shed base. Over the next 6 months, the resident’s partner chased the landlord about the works. The works to the shed base were carried out on 9 May 2023.
11. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 24 May 2023. The resident was unhappy with the time the landlord took to complete the works. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication during the works. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not replaced her current shed. To resolve her complaint, the resident wants her shed to be replaced.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of garden drainage works including the replacement of the resident’s shed.

12. The resident’s leasehold agreement says the landlord is responsible for maintaining footings and ancillary structures under the property. It says the resident is responsible for maintaining the boundary fences. The landlord’s repairs guide says that residents are responsible for sheds.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy offers discretionary compensation for inconvenience, distress, and delays. It offers a maximum of £400 where it believes a resident has had to put in a high amount of effort to get an issue resolved and it has deeply impacted them as a result.
14. Between May 2022 and July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times for updates on the works. The evidence does not show that the landlord responded to the resident. This was a failure in communication.
15. The landlord was comprehensive in its stage 1 response about the reasons for the delays with the works. It apologised and offered £1,000 compensation for inconvenience and delay. This was beyond the maximum amount in the landlord’s compensation policy. This was a reasonable offer which the resident accepted.
16. The landlord also replaced the resident’s fencing, turf and shed. This goes beyond its obligations in the leasehold agreement and its repairs guide. Although it was not obliged to replace the shed, the resident was unhappy with the replacement. It was reasonable that the landlord replaced the shed with the same standard size that she previously had. The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractor measured the replacement shed as being 25 millimetres smaller than the resident’s previous shed. The resident contested this and said it was approximately 60 millimetres smaller. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the slight difference in measurement between the sheds. It is not reasonable to expect the landlord to install a new shed for a difference of less than 10 centimetres in size.
17. The resident also said the quality of the replacement shed was not as good as her previous one. The Ombudsman cannot make a decision on whether the replacement or original shed was better quality as it does not have the expertise to comment on this.
18. The landlord accepted in its complaint responses that its communication with the resident about the work could have been better. Although it acknowledged this, its communication with the resident and her household did not improve after the end of its complaint procedure. 
19. The resident’s partner asked the landlord to complete the works to the shed base in November 2022 and had to chase the landlord a further 2 times for the works to be arranged. It was almost 6 months before the works were completed. This was not reasonable and caused frustration and unnecessary delay for the resident. The landlord evidenced service failure on this point. Although the length of time was not reasonable for the works to be done, the wait for the works to be done did not impact on the resident’s use of her shed or garden. The landlord should be monitoring and chasing outstanding works. It should advise the resident and the Ombudsman on the steps it will take to improve communications about repairs with its residents.
20. The landlord evidenced service failure through its poor communication with the resident before the start of its complaint’s procedure. It also failed to communicate with the resident and its contractor in good time to complete the works to the shed base.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

21. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code says that landlords should have a 2-stage complaint procedure. It says that landlords should not have a pre-complaint stage as this lengthens the complaint process for residents.
22. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will try to fix an issue at ‘front line resolution’ before progressing a complaint to stage 1. This goes against the Code. It aims to resolve stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It aims to resolve stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
23. The Code also says that landlords should be impartial when dealing with complaints. The Code recommends that landlords have a separate complaint team to deal with complaints. The landlord’s project manager investigated and issued its stage 1 response. As the project manager was directly involved with the ongoing works, their response may not have been completely impartial. If it has not done so already, the landlord should consider whether it should form a separate complaints team to investigate its complaints. This will ensure impartiality in the future.
24. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that if the resident accepted the compensation, it would be the final settlement of the matter. Its wording was inappropriate and suggested that the resident could not escalate the matter if she wanted to accept the compensation. The landlord should review the wording of its complaint responses to ensure it is not suggesting that it will not consider an escalation request if compensation is accepted.
25. When the resident escalated her complaint, she provided detailed reasons why. The landlord accepted the escalation request the next day and told the resident she would get a response. Several days later, it then asked the resident to again explain why she wanted to escalate her complaint. This caused unnecessary delay and indicated that the landlord either did not read through the resident’s initial escalation request or failed in its record keeping. It then accepted the escalation request a second time and took a further 7 days to allocate it to a member of staff to investigate. This was not reasonable.
26. The landlord took 37 working days to issue its stage 2 response. This was 17 days outside of its policy timeframes. It did not explain why there was a delay in issuing its stage 2 response. It should have done so to manage the resident’s expectations.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 response indicated that it would provide the resident with another new shed. When the resident asked for further details about this, the landlord did not provide a response for 39 days. This was an unreasonable delay and evidenced further poor communication. The landlord told the resident in its further response that this was a mistake in wording and apologised. Although the landlord apologised, it should have checked its stage 2 response thoroughly before issuing it to the resident to avoid this mistake. By not doing so, it unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations.
28. The landlord’s compensation policy offers a maximum of £150 for complaint handling failures. Although the landlord failed to issue its stage 2 complaint response within its set timeframes and its wording caused confusion and detriment to the resident, it did not offer compensation for its failures. It should offer £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
29. The landlord evidenced maladministration with its complaints handling. This is because of its failure to ensure impartiality when investigating the complaint. It unnecessarily delayed its responses. Its wording about compensation was inappropriate in its stage 1 response. Its wording in its stage 2 response caused confusion and unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of garden drainage works including the replacement of the resident’s shed.
    2. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

31. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures.
32. The landlord should review the wording of its complaint responses to ensure it is not suggesting that it will not consider an escalation request if compensation is accepted.
33. The landlord should advise the resident and the Ombudsman on the steps it will take to improve communications about repairs with its residents.
34. The landlord should carry out the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report. It should provide evidence of its compliance to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

35. If it has not done so already, the landlord should consider whether it should form a separate complaints team to investigate its complaints. This will ensure impartiality in the future.