Vivid Housing Limited (202345986)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345986

Vivid Housing Limited

24 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of:
    1. A flea infestation.
    2. Damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy commenced on 10 October 2022.
  2. On 14 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to say that she was unhappy with her flat because of a flea infestation. The landlord telephoned the resident in relation to the matter and confirmed that the resident was responsible for pest control inside her property. She confirmed that she would pay for a specialist to treat the fleas. During the call, the resident said she had mould in the bathroom and hallway. The landlord offered to visit the resident, take photographs and complete a damp and mould referral. The resident said she was happy to take photographs and email the relevant department.
  3. In August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. She was 5 weeks pregnant, with severe mental health problems and a disabled daughter. In response, the landlord tried to call the resident but could not reach her. The landlord emailed the resident, repeating its previous advice and suggested the resident call if she wanted to discuss it further.
  4. On 1 September 2023 the resident submitted a complaint. She said that the condition of the property was poor when she moved in, there was mould and fleas. She had spent hundreds of pounds on flea treatments and cleaning products. She was not staying in the property as they were being bitten. She asked to move.
  5. On 19 September 2023, the landlord sent a stage 1 response. The property was treated for fleas while it was empty in June 2022. The resident did not report any flea issues upon moving in. The resident was advised to contact the previous pest control company to see if they could return. If the property was uninhabitable, it would normally offer a temporary decant while the issues are resolved. The landlord provided advice on how the resident could look to move through a mutual exchange. The landlord scheduled a damp and mould survey on 8 and 18 September 2023 but could not access the flat. The resident was asked to let the landlord know when it was convenient to complete the survey. It offered £150 compensation as a goodwill gesture so the resident could pay for a specialist to treat the fleas.
  6. The resident remained unhappy and asked to escalate her complaint as she felt that her property was unfit due to the mould and the fleas.
  7. On 10 November 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. A damp and mould survey conducted on 9 November 2023, found the property to be dry, with a small area of mould near the ventilation unit, which the resident agreed to clean. The surveyor noted that the resident had not been living in the property, which might have contributed to the mould. The landlord agreed to upgrade the bathroom fan and service the ventilation system. The surveyor also observed that the resident had a large dog. Overall, the surveyor concluded that the property was fit for habitation and no hazards were observed.
  8. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. The resident said that she wanted to move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident feels the landlord has not taken sufficient action to resolve the issue, which she says has affected her family’s mental and physical health. While we acknowledge this may have caused distress, it is not our role to decide on health matters. We will assess whether the landlord handled the situation appropriately and in line with its policies and procedures

 

 

Flea infestation

  1. The landlord’s pest control guide confirms that it is responsible for dealing with pests in shared areas, while residents are responsible for keeping their homes pest-free.
  2. The records confirm that the landlord instructed a pest control company to treat the fleas in the property while it was empty in June 2022. There is no record that the resident reported fleas in the property before 14 July 2023.
  3. Following the residents report, the landlord contacted her on 19 July 2023, after previous unsuccessful attempts. During the call, the landlord’s notes indicated that the resident agreed to pay for her flat to be treated. The notes also mentioned that the landlord had recently visited the resident’s property for a different issue but was not informed of a flea problem.
  4. The resident claimed the property was infested with fleas when she moved in, negatively impacting her health. This appears to be the main reason for her complaint and ongoing dissatisfaction. The landlord may have been responsible if the flea infestation was present at the start of the tenancy, as it must ensure the property is fit for habitation.
  5. The landlord was not responsible if the infestation started during the resident’s tenancy. Given the delay in the resident reporting the issue approximately 9 months after her tenancy started and having her own pet, it is impossible to know where the fleas originated from and whether the infestation was present at the start of the tenancy.
  6. In August 2023 the resident said she was not living in the property as it was uninhabitable due to the pest infestation. A property would not automatically be considered uninhabitable because of a pest infestation, there would need to be evidence to confirm it was not safe to live in due to the infestation. The resident said she had to leave the property and classified herself as homeless. The resident informed the landlord of this on 14 August 2023 and later mentioned it in her complaint on 1 September 2023.
  7. The landlord advised the resident about moving from the property through a mutual exchange and explained that a management move was usually only available in high-risk situations, such as domestic violence. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable and aimed at managing the resident’s expectations.
  8. Before agreeing to a temporary move, the landlord was entitled to check that the property was habitable. The resident said the property had been treated at the end of August 2023, but the matter persisted. The landlord visited on 9 November 2023 but would have done so sooner if it had gained access.
  9. The inspection confirmed that the property was habitable. Therefore, the landlord was not obligated to offer to move the resident until the pests were eradicated temporarily. Consequently, the landlord’s actions were reasonable.
  10. The landlord is only expected to take further action if there is evidence that the issue is communal or widespread at the block. However, this does not seem to be the case. There is also no evidence that the fleas were still present when the resident moved into the property in October 2022, as the earliest report was made 9 months later.
  11. Ultimately, the landlord took steps to help resolve the infestation and enable the resident to move back into the property by offering to cover the cost of another treatment. The landlord’s pest guide mentions that, in some cases, pest treatment will be paid for, but the resident is expected to repay the money. This was not the case here, which shows that the landlord made sufficient efforts to find a resolution for the resident. Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances.

Damp and mould

  1. The resident reported damp and mould at the property on 19 July 2023. The landlord offered to visit, take photographs, and make a damp and mould referral. The resident chose to complete her own referral. However, the landlord was willing to address the problem quickly. It is not clear if the resident made a referral at that time.
  2. Following the resident’s complaint on 1 September 2023, the landlord arranged for a damp and mould inspection on 8 September 2023. The records show that it made further attempts on 18 September and 19 October 2023 but could not access the property. The evidence shows that the landlord attempted to call and text the resident and followed up with an email on 19 September 2023. It reiterated the importance of inspecting the property to ensure it was habitable for the resident. While there was some delay in inspecting the property, this was outside the landlord’s control.
  3. On 9 November 2023 the inspection was completed, and it was determined that the mould on the vents could be cleaned. It provided the resident with advice on appropriate cleaning products, which was reasonable for managing the mould in the interim before taking appropriate measures to improve the ventilation in the property.
  4. The mould growth was likely due to the resident not occupying the property. The landlord relied upon the surveyor’s advice and the inspection findings, which concluded that the damp and mould were not a hazard, and the property was habitable. Accordingly, the landlord scheduled follow-up work to improve ventilation in the property, which was finished by 29 November 2023.
  5. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord acted swiftly and reasonably to put things right by inspecting to ascertain whether there was damp. While we understand that the resident did not get the outcome she wanted, to be moved from the property, there has been no service failure by the landlord in responding to her reports of damp and mould.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in relation to landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of:
    1. A flea infestation.
    2. Damp and mould.