Vivid Housing Limited (202416849)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202416849

Vivid Housing Limited

11 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the frame around her front door.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy under an agreement dated 23 July 2021. She lives in a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident first reported that the frame around her front door was in poor condition on 10 May 2024. The landlord raised a works order stating that the door frame was rotten on the same date.
The landlord cancelled the works order 13 May 2024. The landlord said that the job was cosmetic and not a repair as the door frame paint was flaking, so it was not its responsibility.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on the same day. She said that she only found out the work was cancelled by contacting the landlord for an update. She felt that the wood would become damaged if the doorframe was left unpainted, which would then be the landlord’s responsibility to repair. The resident asked for the painting to be completed as she felt it should have been done to the correct standard before she moved in.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 28 May 2024. It said:
1. it had reviewed its repairs standards and found that these confirmed the repair was the resident’s responsibility.
2. it had found a failure in its services as it had booked a repair outside of its responsibilities and failed to let the resident know the job had been cancelled.
3. it could not see any signs of rot in the photos the resident sent of the door frame, but it would contact the resident with confirmation on whose responsibility a rotten door frame would be.
4. it would be awarding the resident £30, credited to her rent account, for the missed appointment in line with its compensation policy.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 9 July 2024. She said she felt that her home was a poor standard when she moved in and that painting should not need doing so soon.
The landlord provided its final response on 22 July 2024. It said:
1. the information provided at stage 1 was correct.
2. it had reviewed the photos taken of the front door before the resident moved in and found that the paint work was in good order in line with the landlord’s market rental standard.
3. the tenancy agreement confirmed the landlord’s position on decoration.
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 26 July 2024. She said she felt the landlord’s interpretation of the tenancy agreement was not clear to residents. She felt that the evidence provided by the landlord to show the painting was the resident’s responsibility suggested that it was actually the landlord’s responsibility. She would like the door frame to be painted to the correct standard by the landlord, and for the landlord to provide clarity to residents on which maintenance issues they are responsible for.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns regarding the paintwork around the frame of her front door

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Complaints about Repairs recommends that landlords “set out clearly in their policies, procedures and handbooks what type of repairs it is responsible for and which are the residents responsibility.” The landlord does not have a published repairs policy, however the occupancy agreement between the landlord and the resident sets out that the landlord will decorate the outside of the property periodically, if it deems it to be necessary.
What the landlord deems “necessary” with regards to external decoration is not clear in the occupancy agreement. In internal correspondence dated 2 July 2024, the landlord confirmed that external decoration takes place on a cyclical, planned basis.
The resident initially raised the issue with the condition of her front doorframe through the landlord’s online portal service on 10 May 2024. According to the documentary evidence available, the landlord did not contact the resident to discuss the issue before it cancelled the works order 3 days later. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident after she first reported the issue to clarify her concerns and establish whose responsibility the repair would fall under.
Furthermore, it is unclear what information the landlord relied on to satisfy itself that the repair was not its responsibility when it cancelled the works order. The initial works order said that the doorframe was rotten, so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out a visual inspection of the doorframe based on that information. There is no evidence to show that the landlord inspected the doorframe before cancelling the works order.
Following her initial complaint on 13 May 2024, the resident sent the landlord photos of the flaking paintwork around her front door frame. The landlord considered these photos as part of the investigation, which was appropriate. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not request photos from the resident or complete a visual inspection sooner.
The landlord’s internal correspondence at stage 1 of the complaint investigation showed confusion over the responsibility for the doorframe painting. The landlord recognised in an internal email dated 23 May 2024 that the tenancy agreement was unclear on whether the landlord would carry out external painting work. It accepted final confirmation from its repairs team that any cosmetic issues are the responsibility of the resident.
In its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024, the landlord said that the repair standards published on its website confirmed that the painting of the door frame would be the resident’s responsibility. Having reviewed the published repair standards, there is no mention of external painting or decoration. It is therefore unclear why the landlord directed the resident to its repair standards as it did not appear to support its position on the substantive issue and caused further confusion to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged a failure of service in its stage 1 response and apologised to the resident for booking a works order outside of its responsibilities and cancelling the work without informing her. It offered the resident £30 compensation to be credited to her rent account, which is in line with the fixed amount for a missed appointment stated in the landlord’s compensation policy. This was a reasonable offer of redress for the missed appointment, however given the resident’s concerns that the doorframe was rotten, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer to inspect the doorframe to satisfy itself whether the repair was its responsibility.
In internal correspondence dated 29 May 2024, the landlord said that the door would possibly be added to its planned decorating programme in the future. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated this information to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to explain that it carries out external decoration through a planned programme rather than day to day repairs, and whether this would apply to the painting of the resident’s front door.
On 10 June 2024, the landlord contacted the resident through its internal portal to ask if she would like a visit arranged for it to check the doorframe for any signs of rotting. The landlord asked the resident again on 28 June 2024 as it had received no response previously. The resident responded on the same day saying she would like evidence that she agreed to be responsible for external painting when she moved in.
Although no inspection took place as the resident did not agree to one, it was appropriate of the landlord to attempt to book one and showed an attempt to “put things right” beyond the compensation it offered at stage 1 and its earlier failure to inspect the doorframe.
The landlord’s internal correspondence records following the stage 1 response show further confusion across departments about where responsibility for the doorframe lies. In an internal email dated 1 July 2024, the landlord recognised that its repairs team would need clear evidence to justify why the resident’s request to have her front door frame painted was unreasonable.
On 9 July 2024 the landlord contacted the resident and said that it understood that the wording of the occupancy agreement was not explicitly clear. It said that it had confirmed through conversations with different teams that it would only repair the door frame if it was rotten, not paint it. While it was appropriate for the landlord to feed back to the resident on the learning identified from the stage 1 complaint, the landlord missed an opportunity to explain its planned decoration programme to the resident.
The resident requested an escalation to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 9 July 2024. She said that she was given the home in a condition that was not up to standard. The landlord reviewed photos of the front door taken before the resident moved in and found that these showed the door frame to be in a good condition. The landlord sent the photos to the resident on 15 July 2024 to support its view.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord referenced an extract from the occupancy agreement which states that the landlord is not responsible for internal painting and decoration. It is unclear why the landlord supplied evidence of its position that was not relevant to the complaint, which was regarding external painting. It is also unclear why the landlord did not explain the planned decoration programme to the resident after it had discussed this internally. This response was not appropriate as it did not provide the clear evidence the resident had requested.
In summary:
1. The landlord was clear on its position that it would not paint the doorframe but failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its position to the resident. This caused time and effort to the resident, who contacted the landlord on multiple occasions to ask for further clarity on the issue.
2. The landlord made some attempt to “put things right” through the £30 compensation it offered the resident at stage 1 for the missed appointment and its request to inspect the front door frame for rot on 10 June 2024. However, there was a delay in the landlord offering an inspection between 10 May and 10 June 2024.
3. The landlord’s responsibility with regards to external painting and decoration is not clear. The landlord’s internal correspondence showed a lack of clarity about the responsibility. A clear policy or published guidelines on how decoration fits into the landlord’s planned works programme would have allowed the landlord to resolve the complaint more effectively.
The Ombudsman considers the lack of clarity provided to the resident regarding the responsibility for the doorframe and the delay in the landlord offering an inspection did amount to service failure. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident additional compensation to recognise how its failures impacted her.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £80 in recognition of the time and effort caused to the resident. The total compensation payable is therefore £110, in replacement of the offer made in the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord may deduct the £30 it has offered if this has already been paid.
We have also ordered the landlord to write to the resident to clarify whether it will paint the front doorframe in line with a cyclical planned works programme and if so, by when.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the frame around her front door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £110 compensation, comprised of:
  1. the £30 it offered in its stage 1 complaint response, if it has not already done so.
  2. £80 for time and effort in relation to the failures identified in this report.
  3. The landlord can reduce the total amount by the £30 offered in its complaint responses, if this has already been paid.
2. Write to the resident to:
  1. apologise for the failures identified in this report.
  2. clarify whether it will paint the front doorframe in line with a cyclical planned works programme and if so, by when.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review the failures identified in this case and consider whether its repairs standards are clear enough to residents with regards to external painting and what the landlord is responsible for. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Complaints about Repairs provides useful guidance which may be of assistance with the review.