Vivid Housing Limited (202329409)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329409

Vivid Housing Limited

14 July 2025

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding roof repairs.

Background

2. The resident has been a shared owner of the property, a 2-bedroom mid-terraced house since November 2011. The resident resides in the property with her partner and 2 children.
3. The landlord’s evidence did not indicate that it was aware of any vulnerabilities for the household at the commencement of the lease. However, it is evident that it became aware of mental and physical health issues for the resident as the complaint progressed.
4. On 25 October 2023, the resident reported a roof leak, which had affected the ceiling within the children’s bedroom. The landlord said that the resident was responsible for the repairs, but the resident questioned this as historically the landlord had completed repairs to the property.
5. On 28 November 2023, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The resident said:

a.     Following a leak, the landlord arranged for an inspection of the roof on 7 November 2023 but failed to attend. On 8 November 2023, a roofer attended and identified 2 slipped tiles.

b.     The landlord’s surveyor told her that following the roof repairs, the bedroom ceiling would be plastered and decorated. She had attempted to raise the plastering works but was waiting for the property to be unlocked on the landlord’s system to enable her to book a repair.

c.      The family have slept in 1 room as she felt the ceiling within the second bedroom was unsafe.

d.     She had paid privately to have the ceiling plastered and advised that the issue had caused her a lot of stress, which had made her ill.

6. On 12 December 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord:

a.     Clarified its position regarding a miscommunication between its employee and the resident. It said it had not agreed to complete the internal works following the leak, but acknowledged that there had been confusion, which led the resident to think that it would be completed.

b.     Acknowledged that the resident chased 7 times for the property to be unlocked on the landlord’s system, so that she could raise the repair.

c.      Confirmed that shared ownership properties will not have access to raise repairs. Requests received will be checked by the landlord and either declined or opened for 24 hours for the repair to be raised.

d.     Acknowledged that a lack of awareness within its customer experience team regarding shared ownership properties had caused delays in providing answers to the resident.

e.     Confirmed that the repairs team was aware that a leak was ongoing and said an update would be provided.

f.        Admitted there had been a service failure because it had not clearly informed and clarified its position regarding repair responsibilities. It said it was the shared owner’s responsibility for internal repair works as per the lease.

g.     Apologised and offered the resident £110 compensation, which comprised of:

1. £30 to recognise the missed appointment.
2. £30 for miscommunication and failing to clarify that it the shared owner’s responsibility to complete remedial works.
3. £50 to acknowledge the effort and impact this had on the resident.

7. On 19 December 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. The resident said:

a.     The roof had leaked again following the repairs that were completed on 8 November 2023.

b.     The landlord’s Surveyor told her that the bedroom would be plastered and decorated and she was upset that he had denied this.

c.      She called over 20 times to find out when the remedial works would be carried out and was consistently told to wait for the property to be unlocked so a repair could be raised.

d.     The children were unable to sleep in their bedroom due to safety concerns and as a result, she had paid privately for the ceiling to be plastered.

8. On 3 January 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It confirmed that:

a.     It was not responsible for either the external roof repairs or internal remedial repairs as per the lease agreement.

b.     It agreed it had confused the matter by historically completing repairs that were not its responsibility. As such it had failed to provide the correct information to the resident when she contacted the customer experience team.

c.      It appreciated how the resident must have felt and that it has learnt from the complaint. It said it will provide additional training with the customer experience team in relation to shared owners’ responsibilities.

d.     Confirmed that it was satisfied that it had provided a fair and reasonable resolution and compensation payment.

9. The resident told this service that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. She said that on 8 November 2023, the landlord completed the external roof repairs but by December 2023, the leak had re-occurred. Further, she said she had been told that the landlord would plaster and decorate the bedroom ceiling but it was confirmed within the landlord’s complaint response that the internal and external repair works were her responsibility as per the lease agreement. The resident said she wanted to be compensated for the upset and distress that the confusion had caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident said that the matter had an effect on her health, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue these concerns.
11. What we can consider is whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s requests for repairs and the landlord’s communication about the matter and whether this was timely, clear, and accurate. Where we find a failing, we may award compensation or order an apology.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding roof repairs

12. The resident’s lease says it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the property in good condition and to complete repairs which are not covered under the property’s building insurance. An annex to the lease says that even though the leaseholder does not own the house outright, they have the responsibility of a full owner. Meaning the leaseholder is responsible for costs required to keep the property in good repair.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it offers payments in a fair, consistent and proportionate way. It offers 3 types of compensation, these are statutory, financial loss and discretionary. Discretionary payments are offered where practical actions alone are not able to restore a resident to the position prior to the service failure. This will include payments in respect of inconvenience, distress, or other impacts of service failure. The landlord outlines a sliding scale of financial redress depending on the impact of the matter on the resident. This is up to £49 for ‘low’, £50 to £149 for ‘medium’, or £150 to £400 for ‘high’ impact. It also states that a standard £30 payment will be paid where it or its contractors fail to attend an appointment without notice.
14. On 25 October 2023, the resident reported to her landlord that she had a roof leak, which affected the children’s bedroom. On 2 November 2023,she reported that the leak had become severe and had damaged the ceiling and carpet. Between 26 October 2023 and 28 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord approximately 11 times to chase the repair.
15. On 25 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that it may not be responsible for the roofing repairs and on 7 November 2023 it agreed to complete an inspection. On 8 November 2023, the landlord’s Surveyor contacted the resident, apologised for the failed appointment, and said that 2 roofers would attend. The roofers identified and repaired 2 slipped tiles. It is noted that the missed appointment was inappropriate, however it was reasonable of the landlord, while it continued to investigate its repair responsibilities, to complete the repairs required.
16. On 16 November 2023, the landlord told the resident that the leak was her responsibility as the shared owner and this was in line with the responsibilities as set out within the lease agreement. The landlord confirmed this information again to the resident on 15 December 2023.
17. Within the resident’s complaint, she said that following the external roof works, the landlord’s surveyor said that it would complete repairs to the bedroom ceiling, which included plastering and decorating. The landlord said this was a miscommunication and that was not its position, however it understood the resident’s frustration around this. In conducting our investigations, we rely on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. In that regard, we are unable to find evidence of this agreement. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to acknowledge the confusion and offer compensation within its complaint responses.
18. The resident said that she could not understand why the landlord had attended historically to complete the repairs. The landlord said it has made a mistake and that it was sorry for the confusion but that it had reviewed the lease agreement and confirmed that both the internal and external repairs were the leaseholders responsibility. However, it is clear from the evidence available that the resident chased the outcome of the repair works several times between October 2023 and December 2023 before the landlord made a final decision that both internal and external repair works would not be completed. The lack of communication would have likely left the resident feeling unsupported, distressed, and her expectations left unmanaged.
19. While it would be disappointing for the resident not to have responsive and remedial repairs completed for them, there is no provision within the resident’s lease which obliges the landlord to do so. The landlord has identified its error and provided the resident with a formal response that it is not responsible for the repairs.
20. On 24 January 2024, following the end of the internal complaints process, the resident said that she pays building insurance to the landlord and requested clarification on why this did not cover the roof leak. The landlord provided a link to its insurer, where it listed causes of damage that are covered by the policy and said that leaseholders are entitled to claim directly. It is noted that within the resident’s stage 2 escalation on 19 December 2023, she told the landlord that the repair to the roof on 9 November 2023 had failed as the leak had re-occurred. In the knowledge that the repair had failed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have signposted the resident to its building insurers earlier within the complaint process, therefore this is a failing on the landlord’s part.
21. Overall, despite the landlord’s substantive position on the resident’s complaint being correct. it has failed to effectively communicate with the resident and confirm at the earliest opportunity her repair responsibilities. This amounts to a failure on the landlord’s part and we would have found maladministration but for the fact that the resident has had the benefit of the landlord completing repairs both historically and as a “goodwill” gesture. Nonetheless, this failure would have caused the resident distress, confusion, time, and trouble in her attempt to clarify the repair responsibilities.
22. Further, it is noted that the resident has advised us that while the leak initially appeared to be fixed as a “goodwill” gesture, by December 2023 it reoccurred. While this is disappointing, the landlord has since clarified that the resident remains responsible for the repairs as per the lease agreement.
23. In its formal responses, the landlord recognised its delay had impacted the resident and offered compensation. In such circumstances, it is our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
24. The landlord demonstrated good adherence to the dispute resolution principles within the internal complaints process it acknowledged its failings, apologised, completed works and offered compensation. It offered £110 in compensation in its stage 1 response for the missed appointment, the miscommunication, effort, and impact caused to the resident. Further, it said it had learnt from this complaint and set out a series of actions to improve the experience of shared owners.
25. The level of compensation offered is proportionate to the acknowledged failings and is in line with its policy and the Ombudsman remedies guidance. This Service therefore finds that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress, prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports regarding roof repairs.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord’s in its response to the resident’s reports regarding roof repairs.

Recommendations

27. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation offered within the formal complaints process of £110.
28. Reasonable redress has been found on the basis that the compensation as stated above is paid.
29. Compensation payments should be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.