Vivid Housing Limited (202426374)

Background

1. The resident raised issues about the condition of the property before moving into the property. The resident was homeless prior to moving into the property and is a domestic violence survivor. The resident has arthritis and fibromyalgia, the landlord is aware of this.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the condition of the property when the resident moved in, and the subsequent repairs.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the condition of the property when the resident moved in, and the subsequent repairs.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we found that the landlord did not:
   1. Ensure that the property met its voids standards before the resident moved in.
   2. Outline what issues it considered that it was or not responsible for under the tenancy agreement.
   3. Communicate with the resident in an empathetic and customer focused way.
   4. Have regard to the resident’s vulnerabilities or circumstances when deciding what steps to take.
7. While there was a slight delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint, this was outside of its control and did not impact the overall outcome for the resident.

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.

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.

8. We acknowledge that the resident has raised concerns about the landlord’s ongoing approach to repairs in the property following her moving in. This report will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident up to June 2024, because this is the timeframe that the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to as part of its complaint response.
9. The voids inspection noted several repairs that were not completed by the time the resident moved in. An internal email from the member of staff carrying out the inspection to the voids team noted that the property was ready to let and no work was needed to be completed. This was inappropriate and meant that the works were not completed or scheduled by the time the resident moved in. The landlord has acknowledged that the property did not meet its empty homes standards when it was let to the resident.
10. Prior to moving in and whilst in the property, the resident reported several repairs to the landlord. This included but was not limited to damp and mould, poor cleaning, holes in plasterwork, a damaged front door, and blocked drains. We can see that the landlord completed a damp and mould survey which did not identify any damp or mould in the property, but recommended some repairs to the windows and new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. At stage 2 the landlord said it would carry out work based on that report. That was reasonable.
11. We understand that the landlord is not responsible for internal decorations, flooring, or furnishing the property. When the resident reported issues, the landlord was not clear on what it considered it was responsible for or what repairs it would carry out. This has caused inconvenience to the resident because she remained unclear on what action the landlord intended to take.
12. The resident told the landlord that she was vulnerable and that cleaning the property had caused her condition to flare up which was causing pain. It would have been good customer service for the landlord to have considered offering support to the resident given it had accepted its pre–letting clean was not sufficient.
13. When the resident reported she had been injured by a broken toilet, the landlord suggested the resident seek legal advice. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have provided information about its liability insurance and discussed the case with its insurance in line with its compensation guidance framework. We have made an order for the landlord to do so now. The liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details of how to claim to the resident.
14. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord stated that its letting standard for a ‘general needs’ property was lower than a market rental property and this was reflected in the lower rent. This was inappropriate and the resident expressed frustration that it suggested that she was not entitled to complain because of the amount of rent she was paying. The landlord’s response lacked empathy and did not have regard for the resident’s circumstances which likely caused distress.
15. The landlord later apologised for its wording about the letting standard. While we acknowledge the landlord’s attempt to put things right, it is disappointing that this came after the matter was escalated to us. Our involvement should not be an incentive for landlords to take further action. This delay resulted in the landlord missing the opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her complaint seriously.
16. The landlord did make some attempt to resolve the matter in its complaint responses by offering compensation of £150 and decorating vouchers. The offer does not go far enough to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and was not proportionate to the failings identified. The landlord has not shown that it provided an empathetic service or communicated clearly. The impact of these failings is aggravated by the resident’s vulnerabilities.
17. Taking this into account, we find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the condition of the property when the resident moved in and the subsequent repairs. An order has been made to the pay the resident further compensation of £200 for the impact of its failings outlined above. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident.

18. The landlord does not have a clear record of when it received the resident’s complaint. It noted it received the complaint in March 2024, but the resident’s complaint outlines actions taken in April 2024 which suggests it was received later than this. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord and means it is not possible to determine if it responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on time.
19. The landlord took 23 days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. We can see that this was delayed because the landlord wanted to visit the resident first, and this visit had to be rescheduled because the resident was unwell. This was outside of the landlord’s control and the delay of 3 days did not materially impact the outcome of the complaint. As a result, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s evidence was unclear about when it first received the resident’s complaint. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Communication

21. At times, the landlord’s communication lacked empathy and was not customer focused which led to the resident feeling dismissed.