Vivid Housing Limited (202415481)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415481

Vivid Housing Limited

7 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about block paving works outside of the property.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 12 April 2024. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The resident has mobility issues and agoraphobia.
3. The resident’s property was a new build property on a new estate and at the time of the complaint, the developer had not completed the estate. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 May 2024 concerned about a letter he had received from developer saying they would be completing the block paving on the estate and the resident would have to park elsewhere for the duration. The resident said he was disabled and therefore, unable to park elsewhere.
4. The landlord contacted the developer on 9 May 2024 to ask for further details of the works. The block paving work began on the same date.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint about the ongoing block paving works on 14 May 2024. He said initially he found no issues with regards to the work. On the Friday he had left his property before the developers had started work. When he returned home the developers would not let him return to his property in his car and so he sat in his car for 3 and a half hours. He asked for £1,000 compensation for the distress.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 May 2024. The key points were as follows:
   1. The landlord confirmed the developer had carried out works outside the resident’s property for which they had sent a letter to all residents. However, the developer delivered the letter late meaning the resident did not find out about the works until the day the works were due to start.
   2. When the resident reported the access issues, the landlord ensured the worked stopped and it had discussed the issues with the developer to agree a way forward.
   3. It confirmed the developer would recommence the work in week beginning 27 May 2024, which the resident confirmed as convenient. It would contact the resident on 4 June 2024 after the works were due to finish. If the resident needed to leave his home during the works, they would speak to the developer on his behalf.
   4. It had arranged a meeting with the site manager and the developer to discuss the incident when he stayed in his car and had fed the resident’s concerns back.
   5. It was sorry for the failure in its service and accepted it should have taken the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration when handling the works.
7. Due to bad weather, the developer was unable to begin works on 27 May 2024 and rearranged it for 17 June 2024.
8. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 19 June 2024. He confirmed he was unable to leave his property that day as he felt intimated by the developers who had been aggressive towards him.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 July 2024. It did not uphold the complaint and made the following key points:
   1. It recognised that the resident had a poor experience with regards to the developer completing the works but said it had responded in a reasonable manner and done all it could to accommodate the resident’s needs.
   2. It confirmed it had taken measures to prearrange access with the developer to the best of its ability. It also confirmed that it had kept in regular contact throughout.
10. In referring his complaint to us, the resident said he felt that the landlord had brushed off his concerns.

Assessment and findings

11. When the developer first informed the resident that it would complete works outside his property, restricting access, the resident called the landlord to express concerns. The landlord said it would contact the developer to see if there was anything it could do. Given the resident’s known mobility issues and vulnerability, it was appropriate of the landlord to raise the concerns.
12. The evidence shows that while the landlord did contact the developer to express concerns, it only asked when the works would conclude. The landlord has provided no evidence to show that it looked to ascertain further information on the works or discussed if the developer could make alternative arrangements for the resident with regards to leaving and returning to his property.
13. When the resident raised his formal complaint, he explained that the ongoing works had blocked him from returning to his driveway. Which, due to his agoraphobia had forced him to wait over 3 hours in his car and he felt intimated by the contractors. The landlord promptly contacted the developer and the works were halted. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and it allowed for the landlord and developer to consider if it could make a more suitable arrangement. Given the resident’s concerns and the impact of works on him, it was reasonable of the landlord to undertake this action.
14. The landlord spoke with the site manager and the developer who made arrangements for the works to recommence at a time when the resident would not need to leave his property. The landlord’s response highlighted its commitment to support the resident by working with the developer to make alternative arrangements that were more suitable for him.
15. The landlord also confirmed that it had arranged a meeting with the site manager at the development to discuss the concerns raised by the resident in relation to staff conduct. While it said it was unable to confirm the outcome of the meeting, it was appropriate of the landlord to raise the resident’s concerns to the developer as part of its duty of care towards the resident.
16. While we understand that the resident remained dissatisfied that the works were going ahead at all, the developer had a duty to complete the estate works and therefore it was reasonable of the landlord to balance the concerns of the resident and the need for the developer to complete the works and find a solution that was as suitable to both parties as possible.
17. Furthermore, the landlord agreed with the resident to be an emergency contact and to act as a spoke’s person between the resident and the developer. This was for the duration of the works should the need arise for him to leave his property and therefore need access to the blocked road. This was further evidence of the landlord’s commitment to help the resident and alleviate some of his concerns.
18. The landlord also helpfully provided the resident with a single point of contact who regularly liaised with him in relation to works to ensure he knew when they were due to take place.
19. Bad weather meant the developer had to reschedule the works. However, the landlord again liaised with the developer and resident to ensure it rearranged the works to a time convenient for the resident and when he would not need to leave the property.
20. When the works began, the resident said he had a doctor’s appointment on one of the days. The landlord helpfully liaised with the developer to ensure they would pause the works when the resident needed to leave his property.
21. Unfortunately, the resident felt unable to leave the property due to the presence of the contractors and said they had made comments to him which he found intimidating. It is disappointing that the landlord’s discussion around the contractor’s conduct had not improved the situation. However, the landlord cannot be held accountable for the actions of the developer’s contractors as they are not associated with the landlord itself.
22. The landlord had spoken to the developer to advise of the resident’s need to leave and as far as they were aware the developer had agreed to pause the works for the resident to leave. It had also asked the resident to call if such a situation arose so it could speak to the developer on this behalf. While we understand the resident felt unable to leave, in this instance we cannot see that the landlord could have done more than it did to enable the resident to leave his property.
23. In his escalation request, the resident raised concerns about not receiving a call from the landlord on a prearranged date; 18 July 2024, but that the landlord had called the next day. We are unable make a determination about whether the landlord was due to call on 18 or 19 July 2024, due to lack of evidence from either party. However, we can see that the landlord kept in regular contact with the resident both prior to and during the works to ensure that it was aware of any issues the resident was having, and it ensured the resident was aware of the ongoing works. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
24. In the first instance, the landlord did not consider the resident’s personal circumstances when it was initially informed works would be taking place outside of the resident’s property. However, following the resident raising concerns the landlord’s actions were in line with the dispute resolution principles. It sought to put things right swiftly by liaising with the developer to ensure the resident was able to leave when he wanted to, it provided a single point of contact for the resident and ensured it kept in contact with him when the works began. The landlord’s failure in the first instance to consider the resident’s needs is not enough to warrant an adverse finding in this case given that it acted swiftly on the resident’s concerns and ensured the developer halted the work until suitable arrangements were made.
25. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the block paving works outside of his property.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the block paving outside of his property.