Vivid Housing Limited (202345345)

Background

1. The resident reported an overflowing toilet leaking sewage into her bathroom and hallway. The landlord had cleared some blockages, but the resident remained dissatisfied with the handling of the issue and raised a complaint. The resident had disclosed vulnerabilities and had a young child.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to an overflowing toilet and sewage leaks.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to an overflowing toilet and sewage leaks.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord breached its repair and fitness obligations because it took too long to address the cause of an overflowing toilet and sewage leaks. It failed to properly consider the significant impact on the resident, who had vulnerabilities, or the impact on her son.
5. We found the landlord followed its complaint handling policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), responding to the resident within the applicable timescales.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. We found the landlord responded appropriately about insurance claims and her job loss by following the tenancy agreement and its policies. It is outside our jurisdiction to determine the legal issues of causation and liability.
7. On 28 November 2023, the resident reported her toilet was backing up and sewage was flooding her bathroom floor. The landlord’s repair log says it attended at 9pm on the same day, identifying the need for a drainage contractor and recorded the carpet was “soaked through with sewage water”. The landlord spoke to her neighbour who said the issue of their bathwater draining into the resident’s property had persisted for 2.5 years.
8. A blocked toilet in a property with no alternative presents a health hazard and needs an emergency response. The landlord’s repair policy does not specify a timescale, but we found it attended promptly within an acceptable 4-hour emergency period on its first call-out. However, the landlord’s record shows it confirmed that its out-of-hours service failed to raise the follow-on repair with its contractor, despite the job being raised “to attend tonight” as an emergency.
9. The issue recurred twice the next day, and the resident reported being “really distressed”. These incidents occurred within 24 hours of the previous emergencies. She was unable to get time off work and arranged for a family member to give access. The landlord’s records show its contractor came and cleared a blockage of wet wipes. We found its late response was unreasonable and not in line with its policy obligations. It did not explain why it did not attend earlier.
10. A landlord record on 4 December 2023 noted the resident said that a contractor would request a camera survey. She raised this survey several more times, making a formal complaint on 13 December 2023, and asked for resolution before Christmas. Two weeks later, the resident told the landlord her carpets still smelled and had not been cleaned. The resident had to chase the landlord repeatedly despite being assured of its responses. Again, she raised the need for a camera survey. However, the landlord took a further month to arrange one. This was an unreasonable delay to take steps in identifying the cause and permanent solution to the ongoing issue.
11. On 21 December 2023, another sewage leak affected the toilet, bath, and kitchen sink. The resident reported it to the landlord’s emergency line, and said it promised to come within four hours. The landlord’s out-of-hours record at 9.12pm states the helpdesk needed to tell drainage specialists that they had to attend. The record shows the resident had explained she was on crutches with a broken ankle, so that cleaning was “virtually impossible.” It states she was “vulnerable with baby” yet there is no evidence of the landlord or drainage specialist attending this job, despite these repeated emergencies. Neither did the landlord explain its delay or provide a new timescale, demonstrating a failure to manage the resident’s expectations and provide confidence in its willingness to address the issue.
12. A drainage contractor attended the following morning. It cleared wet wipes and told the resident they would request a camera survey and a clean. The landlord’s records confirm it raised jobs for both and considered a camera survey at the neighbour’s property too. This was a positive step towards permanently addressing the issue.
13. On 28 December 2023 at 7.09pm, the resident reported sewage entering the bath after the neighbour emptied their bath, while her son was bathing. Sewage also affected the toilet and kitchen sink. The landlord attended at 8.30pm, plunged the toilet, and raised an emergency repair, but sewage overflowed again within two hours and spread into the hallway. The resident said her son was distressed, and she asked the neighbour not to bathe for 24 hours. The landlord attended appropriately within an emergency timescale to the first call-out. However, again, there is no evidence that a contractor attended to deal with the emergency repair raised afterwards. We consider the landlord failed in its obligations to repair the issue promptly on that occasion also.
14. On 29 December 2023, the resident reported that flushing the toilet and using the sink caused wastewater to back up, leaving stagnant brown water in the bath. She said her mother contacted the landlord that told her an unusable toilet with sewage backing up was “not a priority.” The landlord’s records show the landlord contacted the drainage contractor about the issue. They told the landlord it had continued for a year and was caused by the previous resident’s wet wipes.
15. The landlord’s response was not reasonable because the property only had one toilet. It did not consider the health impact on the household. Just after midnight on 31 December 2023, sewage again filled the bath. The resident said she did not report this immediately due to previous assurances from the landlord that it was not urgent. Although the landlord was mistaken, the resident followed its advice, and we consider this was reasonable. She later reported waking to a severe sewage overflow affecting the toilet and bath, followed by a further incident the next day.  The landlord told her it would follow up in the New Year, which was not a response in keeping with the landlord’s repairs policy.
16. During the first week of January 2024, there was another sewage leak, and the resident submitted an insurance claim. She also contacted Environmental Health who intervened. Both the resident and the neighbour reported the issue again to the landlord. It attended and requested a camera survey, but the contractor’s equipment was unavailable. The landlord then instructed an alternative contractor to survey both properties.
17. On 7 January 2024, the resident reported another “very stressful and inconvenient” sewage incident and the landlord attended around 10pm. Two hours later, sewage again flooded the bathroom when the neighbour emptied their bath. The resident was again without a working toilet and told the landlord, “I can’t live like this.” The repair log dated 8 January 2024 confirmed the issue remained unresolved and needed camera footage. We determined the landlord again failed to attend within the emergency timescale required when a property has only one toilet. On 8 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and advised her to claim through her contents insurance, which was a reasonable response and advised in the tenancy agreement.
18. The landlord’s records for 8 and 9 January 2024 are unclear, showing poor repair management. One record said the job may be too difficult and to send a different plumber instead. Another record said the contractor attended but required more time, while yet another said the visit was cancelled after the engineer went home sick and was rebooked for the next day.
19. At 9.08pm on 9 January 2024, the resident reported nothing was draining and the carpet was saturated. The landlord advised her to use a communal toilet, which was impractical given her four‑year‑old child. The resident said she was forced to use the bath as a toilet. Although the landlord’s service standards recognise a loss of toilet facilities for more than 24 hours as grounds for temporary rehousing, there is no evidence the landlord considered or offered alternative accommodation. This represented a serious failure to manage an ongoing emergency and comply with its own standards.
20. The landlord finally resolved the issue on 10 January 2024–just three working days after booking a camera survey with a second contractor. It said the blockages were caused by a bone, a plastic dog toy, and a carpenter’s set square. The resident understands that the tool was from the landlord’s previous roof repairs. Although more complex drainage issues may take time, the landlord managed to resolve it quickly once a camera survey had been done. It shows the landlord could have fixed the cause by 7 December 2023 – three working days after it ought to have requested one. The resident said the landlord told her not to worry about the damaged carpet as she was not at fault and it accepted liability. The landlord acted appropriately by directing the resident to its insurer.
21. On 12 January 2024, the resident responded to the landlord’s insurer asking her for the estimated costs. The resident sent the insurer her quotes and photographs, seeking to be put back in the position she was before the sewage leak on 28 November 2023.
22. On 16 January 2024, the insurer denied liability, stating the landlord completed repairs within a reasonable timeframe and reasonably believed the issue was resolved. They advised the resident to seek legal advice. The landlord’s policy states it will not ask a resident for evidence of costs unless it is going to help with those costs, to avoid raising expectations. While the landlord did not do this, its insurer did, after the resident said the landlord had told her it was liable. Therefore, we consider it reasonable that the resident’s expectations may have been raised.
23. 6 months later, the landlord responded to a different complaint of the resident and offered her further resolution in relation to this complaint. It offered a £50 decoration voucher for the skirting boards and said it would replace the door. It is positive the landlord did this. However, it was late redress and only offered after the complaint had been brought to us. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to replace the door much earlier to meet its tenancy agreement obligations.
24. The defect constituted a hazard relating to sanitation and drainage under the Housing Act 2004, and Environmental Health intervened after hearing the resident’s concerns. The landlord made repeated records that the resident informed it about her asthma. She had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the impact byrepeatedly reporting the leaks, containing the sewage where possible, cleaning up afterwards, and asking the neighbour not to bathe. The landlord failed to resolve the underlying cause for 43 days after the resident first reported sewage flooding, demonstrating a failure to address an issue having a significant impact on the resident.
25. The landlord’s response fell short of its service standards, which commit to embracing best practice. This included failing to carry out a thorough inspection earlier, failures to attend promptly to call-outs raised as emergencies, and not acting promptly on contractors’ advice, despite the ongoing impact on more than one household.
26. The landlord’s offers of compensation for the unactioned clean and dehumidifier running costs were in line with its policy. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to compensate for a further 19 days’ dehumidifier use from 22 December 2023 until resolution. It offered compensation for inconvenience, although we found this was unreasonably low. It did not reflect the high impact on the resident in accordance with its policy.
27. Our compensation guidance provides that compensation is appropriate where maladministration has caused significant impact. Had the landlord not offered to put things right after accepting its service failure, we would likely have found severe maladministration. Having considered Environmental Health’s involvement, the landlord’s records, and the resident’s photographs, we found a room‑loss payment to be proportionate. Using the Regulator of Social Housing’s average rent for this property type (£124.44 per week), we calculated compensation for the 34‑day period between a reasonable repair date (7 December 2023) and the actual resolution (10 January 2024), reduced to 40% in line with the landlord’s policy. This results in a payment of £241.11.
28. The landlord offered compensation for inconvenience but failed to properly recognise the distress caused to the resident and to her son, despite known vulnerabilities. In ordering £1,000.00 for overall distress and inconvenience, we considered the high number of incidents.
29. In ordering compensation of £118.56 for the additional days of running the dehumidifier, the resident is reimbursed those extra costs.

30. The landlord’s policy sets out a 2-stage process. It will telephone residents to discuss the issues by the end of the following working day. The landlord will acknowledge complaints in writing within 5 workings days. It aims to fully respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint definition and its timescales to respond are compliant with the Code.
31. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 December 2023. It is positive the landlord telephoned her the next day to fully understand the complaint. There is no evidence it sent written acknowledgement as required by its policy and the Code. However, there is nothing to suggest this impacted the resident. The landlord sent her the full response on 22 December 2023 in compliance with its policy and the Code.
32. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 2 January 2024. The landlord telephoned her to discuss it and acknowledged in writing four working days later in compliance with its policy and the Code. It sent the final response on 22 January 2024, in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. The landlord confirmed to us it had “no vulnerabilities listed” for the resident when it knew she had vulnerabilities it should consider. It may want to consider training staff on the importance of keeping accurate and updated records.

Communication

34. Our investigation identified repeated communication failures, and the resident said it made the situation “ten times worse.” The landlord stated it had reviewed its service delivery to improve communication, then subsequently minimised her experience by framing it as a feeling rather than acknowledging the impact of what occurred. It may wish to reflect on learning set out in our Spotlight report: Repairing Trust – to which it contributed – and consider if staff training is required to improve communication with residents during prolonged and distressing repair issues.