Vivid Housing Limited (202428548)

Background

1. The resident lives on his own in a bungalow. He has long term health conditions, including ones that affect his mobility. He describes himself as “registered disabled”. He reported a leak from his roof in August 2023 and said the landlord had not repaired it when he complained in July 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs, including a leaking roof and damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs, including a leaking roof and damp and mould.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs, including a leaking roof and damp and mould

4. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s repairs within a reasonable timeframe and did not consider offering temporary housing when his property became unsafe. The landlord should have inspected the leak and damp and mould sooner. The landlord’s attempts to remedy the complaint were disproportionate to the impact the resident said the issues had on him. It did not inspect the completed works as promised and the resident said issues are outstanding, which leaves the complaint unresolved.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord did not address all the points the resident raised in his complaint. This included his complaint about repairs to his boiler and its consideration of his disabilities. This was not in line with its policies and procedures, or our 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.

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.

6. The resident reported his roof leaking on 24 August 2023. The landlord did not attempt to inspect the repair for over 6 months. This represents a severe failure, as its response exceeded its policy timeframe of 24 hours for emergency repairs. It tried to inspect his roof on 26 March 2024 but was unable to due to the rain. However, it failed to inform the resident of this attempt. The resident chased the landlord on 5 April 2024 but it missed another opportunity to reschedule the inspection.
7. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to inspect the resident’s leaking roof for over 10 months (from 24 August 2023 to 16July 2024). His ceiling subsequently collapsedon 16 July 2024. The landlord acknowledgedits service failed within its complaint responses. In its first response, it agreed to do the works andarrange a post inspection. It said it would “identify any repairs outstanding to bring your home up to a good standard”. Itreplacedthe roof on 17 October 2024. However, it took a further 3 months toreplaster the hallway ceiling, which it completed on 7 January 2025. Thisadditionaldelay was unacceptable and outside of its 28-day policy timeframe.
8. Repair works can be unavoidably delayed for various reasons. However, where works cannot be completed within planned timeframes, we expect landlords to keep residents fully updated throughout. They should consider if there is anything they can do to mitigate any impact the delays would have upon the resident. This might include offering temporary accommodation when a property is unsafe, as in this case. There was no evidence the landlord kept the resident fully updated throughout the repairs, or  considered offering alternative housing.
9. In its complaint response the landlord agreed to inspect the works. It obtained images of the replaced roof tiles but it failed to do a comprehensive inspection of the resident’s property. The resident said roof tiles were broken when the scaffolding was removed, which he said have still not been fixed. The landlord also assured the resident in its complaint response that it would bring his home “up to a good standard”. But it did not redecorate his hallway ceiling, consider replacing his damaged flooring, or help him claim from its insurers. The resident also reported he has no smoke alarm in his hallway. This leaves this part of the complaint unresolved.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident reported damp and mould in May 2022. However, it did not provide any evidence it inspected his property until he raised the issue again in his complaint in August 2024. This represents a severe failure as its response time significantly exceeded its policy which says it will inspect damp and mould within 14 days.
11. The landlord inspected the damp and mould on 3 September 2024 and identified works it said it would do. This included staining the living room ceiling and insulating the loft. It insulated the loft when it replaced the roof on 17 October 2024. But it has not evidenced it stained the living room ceiling. The landlord did not post-inspect these works and therefore did not fully resolve this part of the resident’s complaint. He said he continues to have issues with damp and mould in his property.
12. The landlord recognised some of its failings in its complaint responses. However, its compensation offer of £570 was not proportionate to the scale of our findings, in line with our remedies guidance. There were excessive delays starting and completing the repairs and this had a significant impact on the resident. In his complaint he said, “I have mobility issues and without lighting and potentially having to place numerous receptacles in the hallway my property becomes very dangerous for me to live in”. In early September 2024 he told the landlord he had hardly slept as water was pouring through his ceiling. He said he was “frustrated, concerned, inconvenienced and distressed by this ongoing saga”. He also told us the issues affected his mental wellbeing.
13. When assessing an appropriate amount of compensation, we considered the distress and inconvenience and the resident’s loss of enjoyment of his property. The residentlived elsewherefor 3 months due to the unsafe conditions. He said the temporary accommodation he stayed in was inconvenientas it had 3 levels accessed by stairs and he has mobility issues. But he was not offered an alternative. In some cases we calculate compensation based on a percentage of rent for the loss of a room. In this case as the property is a small bungalow and the resident is disabled we have not based our compensation on this. Instead, we have considered the significant failures by the landlord and the seriously detrimental impact on the resident, in line with our remedies guidance.

14. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaint were in line within its policy timescales. This says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
15. Although the landlord responded promptly to the complaint, it failed to address all the resident’s issues. This included his concerns about having no hot water due to his boiler breaking, and his lighting flickering due his electrics failing. It reasonably resolved these issues but it did not explain its actions in either of its complaint responses. Our Code says “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”.
16. The landlord did not show it paid ‘due regard’ to the resident’s disabilities in line with its ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ under part 149 of the Equality Act 2010. In his complaint he said, “every time I have called, I have been required to explain my disabilities to the agent on the phone, this is both distressing and humiliating to do”. He repeated his concerns on 17 September 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this part of the resident’s complaint in either of its complaint responses. This represents a complaint handling failure.
17. The resident also raised a new problem about his back door in his complaint escalation on 29 August 2024. However, the landlord did not log a new repair, or record a new complaint, in line with our Code.
18. We found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We ordered the landlord pay £250 compensation for the likely frustration and inconvenience it caused the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

19. The landlord made some positive attempts to remedy the resident’s complaint. It paid to remove the resident’s unauthorised improvement (a lean-to porch) so it could erect scaffolding. It also paid for a new TV aerial to replace the resident’s damaged one in November 2024. However, it failed tofully inspectall the work afterwards which meant it missed an opportunity to resolve all the resident’s issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. There were failures in the landlord’s record keeping in this case. It failed to record the correct emergency response time when the resident reported a leak on 24 August 2023. It set a target date for 20 February 2024 instead of its policy timeframe of 24 hours. It also failed to record all the resident’s complaint points and respond in line with our Code.

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication lacked customer focus. One of the resident’s main concerns was he repeatedly explained his health conditions and disabilities to call centre operatives. The landlord’s records show it was aware he had health conditions, so it should have paid due regard to these when communicating with the resident.
22. The landlord did not update the resident during the roof repairs and replacement. We expect landlords to keep residents fully updated throughout works to manage residents’ expectations and provide a good service.