Vivid Housing Limited (202421653)

Background

1. The resident asked the landlord for a new kitchen in April 2024, after she reported her kitchen cupboard doors and drawers had broken multiple times. She raised a complaint about the landlord’s decision and a staff member being rude to her in August 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Request for a kitchen replacement.
   2. Reports about staff conduct.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen replacement.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about staff conduct.
6. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord’s communications with the resident about her request for a new kitchen were unclear and it delayed following up on agreed actions. While its decision not to replace the kitchen was reasonable, its handling of the request caused the resident inconvenience.
8. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. In response to her complaint, it acknowledged failings, apologised and arranged staff training.
9. The landlord logged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

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.

What we did not investigate

10. The resident has raised concerns about a cupboard door hurting her child, and the impact of the situation on her family’s mental health. We cannot conclude if a landlord’s actions have contributed to, or worsened, ill health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are usually best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused.

What we have investigated

11. The resident reported in 2020 and 2021 that some of her kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts had fallen off. She raised the issue again in April 2024 and said she wanted a new kitchen fitted as the landlord had already completed repairs twice. She said her children could be hurt by the falling cupboard doors.
12. The landlord advised at the time that she was not due a kitchen replacement until 2029. This was in line with its planned maintenance standards, which explains it expects kitchens to last for 20 years. It arranged a repair for 8 May 2024 and told the resident she could discuss her concerns with the staff member who attended. This was reasonable and it followed its repairs standard by arranging an appointment within 28 days.
13. When the landlord attended in May 2024, the resident declined the repairs and again requested a new kitchen. The landlord said that it would raise this with a Repairs Supervisor and recorded that it would update the resident on 9 May 2024. Although it discussed the request internally, it did not inform the resident. This was inappropriate and fell short of its customer contact standard.
14. After the resident chased the landlord for an update, it confirmed on 13 June 2024 that it had rebooked the repairs for 16 July 2024, and it would assess the whole kitchen at that visit. It said it would report the findings to the Repairs Supervisor who would decide if it needed to replace the kitchen.
15. The landlord attended again, but the resident declined the repair. It said it had sent an email about this, but it was not clear if this included an assessment of the kitchen. On 17 July 2024, the resident said a cupboard door had fallen off and hurt her child. She contacted the landlord twice more and explained she was waiting to hear back about the replacement, and an operative had told her the kitchen was not fixable. On 7 August 2024, the landlord said she was not due a replacement until 2029 and that its repair records did not support that it could not repair the kitchen.
16. Between May and August 2024, the landlord failed to update the resident on two occasions and did not follow through on its commitment to assess the kitchen and confirm whether it would provide a replacement. In its contact with the resident on 7 August 2024, the landlord said it was unsure what she was waiting for, as she declined repairs. This showed a lack of oversight of its previous commitments. This was inappropriate and caused the resident inconvenience as she had to chase the landlord for answers. The resident was also worried about the safety of the kitchen for her children, which likely added to her distress.
17. During its complaint process, the landlord inspected the kitchen. It explained that it only replaces kitchens every 20 years, unless at least 50% of the kitchen needed replacing or there were certain structural issues. It noted the repairs needed for the resident’s kitchen did not show a structural issue, and was not due to be replaced.
18. The landlord’s response explained its decision clearly and was consistent with its records and policies. We have not seen failings in its decision not to replace the kitchen. When it arranged the repairs, it highlighted the need to ensure it robustly attached the doors and drawers, which it completed in October 2024. This was reasonable given the history of the case.
19. However, while the landlord said in its stage 1 response that it should have told the resident earlier on that it would not replace the kitchen and she needed to let it complete repairs, it did not address the delays or missed follow-ups between May and August 2024. As such, it has not put this right. While the delays did not change the outcome of the case, it likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
20. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen. We have made orders to address this, including compensation of £150 in line with our Guidance on Remedies for a failure that adversely affected the resident.

21. The resident said a staff member was rude to her during a webchat in August 2024. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it did not agree. In its final response, it acknowledged the webchat was not handled well and the staff member’s tone had been inappropriate.
22. As the landlord does not dispute that the staff member acted inappropriately, our role is to consider whether it responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint and whether the redress offered was appropriate. The resident’s outstanding concerns are that the landlord did not take her seriously at first, which she said affected her mental health. She also saidthat the landlord did not do enough to put the issue right.
23. It is not our role to decide whether the staff member behaved correctly. Instead, we assess whether the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns properly and took reasonable action to address any failings. The landlord’s procedure says it will investigate concerns about staff members through its complaint procedure, and it may refer issues to its HR team.
24. At stage 1, the landlord said it had reviewed the transcript of the conversation. At stage 2, it also reviewed the screenshots provided by the resident and it shared these with the relevant manager for feedback. While we appreciate the resident did not feel listened to, the landlord investigated the matter reasonably using the evidence available.
25. The landlord apologised to the resident and agreed that it had lacked empathy. It confirmed it had spoken to the manager concerned and said it would arrange empathy training for its advisors. It has confirmed it has completed this training.
26. Overall, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns and took steps to put its failings right by apologising and organising training. This was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 2024 which says that, where something has gone wrong, the landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it will take to put things right.

27. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy in July 2024 were in line with the Code (2024).
28. The resident raised her complaint on 8 August 2024, and she escalated her complaint on 27 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged and responded to her complaint in line with the Code at both stages.
29. The landlord tried to discuss the resident’s complaint with her at both stages, and it kept her updated about its investigation. It showed good record keeping and worked with staff members appropriately to complete a thorough investigation. This was positive.
30. We have not seen any failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Repairs and communication

31. The landlord should have effective systems in place to track repair follow-up actions and provide regular updates to residents. This would help prevent unnecessary delays and reduce the need for residents to chase the landlord for information.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. Overall, the landlord’s records were good in this case. However, it should ensure that repair records clearly set out the outcomes of any inspections and any referrals made to other staff. Clear and accurate records help ensure that residents receive reliable information if they request an update.