Vivid Housing Limited (202518527)
Back to Top
|
Case ID |
202518527 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Vivid Housing Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
16 January 2026 |
- The resident lives with his wife in a 1-bedroom semi-detached bungalow. Both the resident and his wife are elderly. The landlord recorded that the resident had kidney cancer and his wife has arthritis. From March 2025 the resident began reporting subsidence, along with several other repair issues. He reported issues of draughts from the windows, and the poor condition of the bathroom.
What the complaint is about
- The landlord’s response to:
- The resident’s reports of subsidence.
- Repairs and maintenance throughout the property including a upvc window replacement, roof repairs, lintel and brickwork repairs.
- Bathroom repairs and a replacement bathroom.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of subsidence.
- There was maladministration for the landlord’s response to repairs and maintenance throughout the property including a upvc window replacement, roof repairs, lintel and brickwork repairs.
- There was service failure for the landlord’s response to bathroom repairs and a bathroom replacement.
- There was no maladministration for the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord delayed the action it took to survey the property for subsidence. It failed to appropriately risk assess the situation taking into account the resident and his wife’s vulnerabilities. It did not complete work in accordance with its repair policy timescales. Its poor record keeping and communication meant that it failed to follow up appropriately on the identified issues and to give prior notification of appointments at times.
- The landlord unreasonably delayed the repairs and maintenance issues that the resident had reported to the windows, the roof, the lintel and brickwork repairs. It failed to follow its repair policy timescales. Its communication was generally reactive rather than proactive and poor record keeping contributed to the landlord’s and resident’s confusion over what work was being undertaken and by whom.
- The landlord’s actions were delayed in organising what repairs needed to be completed to the bathroom and in arranging these. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord did, however, agree to replace the bathroom as an urgent replacement which was reasonable. It also agreed to replace the bath with a shower cubical taking the resident’s needs into account.
- The landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable as it responded appropriately and within its complaints policy and the Code’s timescales. It also considered learning from the complaint and acted on this learning to improve its follow up and communication for similar complex repair issues.
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.
|
Order |
What the landlord must do |
Due date |
|
1 |
Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:
|
No later than 13 February 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 in compensation made up of as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and any amounts already paid can be deducted from the total amount ordered. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
13 February 2026
|
|
3 |
The landlord must provide a plan of the work it intends to complete to the internal floor slab and a potential timescale to complete the repairs. It must also provide information about the need to temporarily rehouse the resident and his wife while works progress and what assistance it will provide. |
13 February 2026
|
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
17 March 2025 |
The landlord undertook a damp and mould inspection in the property. At this time the resident reported several repair issues to the windows, bathroom and that the skirting was coming away from the wall in the lounge. The survey found that pointing work was required to the brickwork. |
|
15 May 2025 |
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said that the property was subsiding and that there was a gap in the path causing a trip hazard. He was unhappy about the landlord’s lack of communication and had requested call backs that the landlord failed to do. He said that nothing had happened. As a remedy he requested the landlord to send a structural engineer. |
|
18 June 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint as the resident was expecting call backs he did not receive. It apologised for this. To resolve the complaint the landlord had organised a structural survey on 27 May 2025. As a result of the survey’s findings it:
Its operative attended the property on 9 June 2025 to complete repairs to the bathroom. However, the resident’s expectations were different to the work that the landlord had instructed. The landlord confirmed it was considering whether the bathroom met the criteria for an urgent replacement. It said it would update the resident on 23 June 2025. It agreed to replace the bay window, and its contractor would contact the resident to arrange for a quote. |
|
18 June 2025 |
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and he requested that his complaint be escalated to stage 2. As a remedy the resident wanted all the repairs to be done quickly and to be kept informed of progress. |
|
17 July 2025 |
The landlord issued its final complaint response. It reiterated its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
It upheld the complaint as it had not called the resident back or updated him when it should have done. It apologised for the anxiety caused to the resident. It awarded £250 in compensation to recognise the effort the resident had made in trying to resolve the issues and the impact it had on him. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. He referred his complaint to us on 10 August 2025. As a remedy he wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs to a good standard. |
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.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The resident initially reported that the skirting boards in the lounge were coming away from the wall on 17 March 2025. He phoned the landlord on 31 March 2025 advising that the landlord should send a surveyor as he suspected that this was subsidence. However, the landlord’s carpenter attended the property on 1 April 2025. The landlord instructed an external surveyor following the resident’s chase ups between 4 – 22 April 2025 to complete a structural survey which was completed on 27 May 2025. It took the landlord too long to arrange the survey given a potential subsidence issue had been reported. It would also likely have caused the resident distress and worry.
- The landlord had a statutory obligation to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. According to the landlord’s repairs policy it should complete emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe. It should complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days and any follow-on work within 10 days. Its repairs policy states that for complex repairs that may take longer it will keep residents updated. It will also take a resident’s personal circumstances into account and adjust its services where needed.
- We have not seen that the landlord appropriately risk assessed the property to check whether it needed to complete any emergency repairs to make it safe or consider temporarily moving the resident if necessary, considering the resident’s personal circumstances. This was inappropriate.
- The resident reported the subsidence again in his stage 1 complaint of 15 May 2025. He said that the front of his property had sunk and that this was noticeable on the path, flowerbed and step. He also said that this was also noticeable inside the front room of the property where the floor was dipping.
- In response to the structural survey of 27 May 2025 the landlord organised a CCTV drainage survey which its external drainage surveyor completed on 13 June 2025. However, the landlord’s poor communication meant that the resident was unaware that its drainage surveyor was attending though he did allow access so the survey could take place. The landlord completed the required drainage repairs by 27 June 2025 which was within its repair policy timescale as above for non-emergency repairs which was reasonable.
- The landlord delayed organising the excavation work recommended in the structural survey as it said it needed to visit the property first to check the best locations to dig. This may have caused a small delay. However, it did not raise a works order until 15 July 2025 nearly 2 months after the structural survey was undertaken which was too long. The landlord’s poor communication meant resident reported on 21 July 2025 that he had no prior notification that the operative was attending to dig to check the foundations which was inappropriate.
- Despite the resident also reporting the path being a trip hazard at stage 1 on 15 May 2025, the landlord delayed action on this. It needed to consider the resident and his wife’s circumstances and vulnerabilities at an earlier point. The landlord only completed temporary repairs to the path on 8 July 2025. There was then further delay which postdates the internal complaints process until the landlord sought a quote to repave the path on 6 November 2025. Work was due to be completed to the path in December 2025 which was 5 months after the temporary repair took place and 7 months after the resident complained about the path. It is not known whether these works have been completed. This was inappropriate.
- Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord noted that it found that the foundations were in good condition and the issue was to do with the internal floor slab. It requested further recommendations from its external surveyor on 28 July 2025, though we have not seen that the external survey provided these recommendations. The landlord’s phone records from 23 October 2025 to the resident said that it had agreed with the resident to leave the internal work until the New Year. This was due to the resident’s concerns about the upheaval and potential temporary move that would be needed.
- As the landlord agrees that there have been some communication failings and has offered some redress, our role is to consider whether this sufficiently resolves the issues that the resident has raised. The landlord offered £250 in compensation for all the complaint issues for the resident’s effort in trying to resolve issues and the impact on him. As the landlord has provided no breakdown for this, we have allocated it as follows:
- £83 for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence.
- £83 for the landlord’s response to repairs and maintenance throughout the property including a upvc window replacement, roof repairs, lintel and brickwork repairs.
- £83 for the landlord’s response to bathroom repairs and a bathroom replacement.
- The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of £83 does not adequately remedy the failings we have identified. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of subsidence. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 in compensation comprising £200 in respect of the delays, poor follow up and communication and £150 (inclusive of the £83 previously offered) for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident due to the failings.
- We have also ordered the landlord to provide a plan of the works in respect of the internal floor slab and a potential timescale it intends to complete the work. It must also provide information about the need to temporarily rehouse the resident and his wife while works progress and what assistance it will provide.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to repairs and maintenance throughout the property including windows, roof repairs, lintel and brickwork repairs |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we did not investigate
- The resident told us of damp and mould in the property, referencing the bathroom. However, this did not form part of the resident’s complaint that he referred to us. We have not investigated the damp and mould issue; however, we have referenced the landlord’s damp and mould inspection of 17 March 2025. This is because the complaint issues we have investigated were raised during this inspection. If the resident is unhappy about the landlord’s response to his reports of damp and mould, he may wish to raise a separate complaint about this. He could then refer this matter to us once it has completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
What we did investigate
- We have investigated the time from the resident’s reports of the repairs and maintenance issues from 17 March 2025 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 17 July 2025.
The windows
- The resident reported his windows being draughty on 17 March 2025 during the landlord’s damp and mould inspection. The landlord said it would check whether the planned window replacement for 2030 could be brought forward if necessary which was appropriate. The landlord raised a works order the same date to check and overhaul the windows. The landlord initially completed repairs to the window seals on 2 April 2025. This was within its repairs policy timescale which was reasonable.
- The landlord needed to arrange some follow up from its carpenter’s visit of 2 April 2025 and it scheduled a further appointment on 30 April 2024 following the resident’s chase ups on 31 March and 4 April 2025. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what the outcome was of this further appointment as the resident chased the landlord on 23 May 2025 again about the windows.
- After the resident’s further chase ups the landlord agreed to replace the lounge window and it raised a works order on 1 August 2025 which it incorrectly said in its complaint response was a bay window. This had a target completion date of 29 August 2025. However, it was not fitted until 4 September 2025 which was a small delay. Due to one of the double-glazed units arriving cracked, its contractor then needed to order a new one which was then fitted on 9 September 2025. The lack of follow up and further issue with the cracked glass was not in line with the landlord’s repairs standard to get it right first time. Had the landlord followed up to the resident’s chase ups then the work could have been completed sooner.
- The resident expressed his frustration to us during this investigation of the amount of people that called to inspect and measure up for the windows. This was understandable as there needed to be repeat visits to fix, then replace the window and then to replace the glass that was cracked. This was not entirely the landlord’s fault as it explained in its call to the resident on 22 August 2025 that the original company were unable to fit the window and it had to instruct another company.
Roof repairs
- Following the structural survey of 27 May 2025, the external surveyor identified that the landlord needed to complete repairs to the roof. This included replacing the lintel, rebuilding masonry, replacing missing or cracked mortar to the pitched tile roof and flaunching to the chimney. It also identified a crack in the gable end wall and to the front wall by the front door which needed pointing.
- There was some delay in the landlord raising a works order for the work on 18 June 2025 which was attended to on 9 July 2025. This was not entirely the landlord’s fault as it did not receive the structural survey until June 2025. The exact date of receipt is unknown, but its external surveyor said it would be sent on 5 June 2025. The landlord’s operative requesting scaffolding on 9 July 2025 as the verge needed renewal. The landlord organised the scaffolding which was dropped off on 17 July 2025. The landlord’s records are not clear exactly when it renewed the verge however as no completion date has been noted which was inappropriate.
Lintel and brickwork repairs
- There was a 2-month delay before the landlord raised a works order on 20 May 2025 to repoint the brickwork as identified in its 17 March 2025 damp and mould survey. This was inappropriate. The external surveyor’s survey also identified that the lintel required replacement. The landlord raised a works order on 12 June 2025, and it made an appointment on 9 July 2025 when it installed the new lintel. It raised some follow-on work to fit 2 bricks. The landlord needed to follow up on the work as the resident phoned up on 11 July 2025 to advise that the brickwork was unfinished and that the operative had left a mess on the walkway.
- It is not clear exactly when the further work was completed. However, the landlord phoned the resident on 21 July 2025 to check if the resident was happy with the work. It noted that all was ok. It therefore took the landlord 4 months to complete the brickwork repairs which was not in line with its repairing obligations and repair policy timescales which was inappropriate.
Summary
- In summary, there was delay and poor follow up in the landlord’s response to the repair issues which was not in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy or its repairs standard approach to get it right first time. This would have caused unnecessary distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. This was particularly poor given the resident’s vulnerability due to his kidney cancer. It was important that the landlord provided clear communication to the resident on what work would be completed and when it would be completed.
- The Ombudsman considers that the £83 compensation offered by the landlord does not provide sufficient redress for the identified failings. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration for the landlord’s handling of repairs and maintenance throughout the property including windows, roof repairs, lintel and brickwork repairs. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £350 in compensation comprising £200 for the delays in actioning and completing the repairs and £150 (inclusive of the £83 previously offered) in respect of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to bathroom repairs and a replacement bathroom |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
What we did not investigate
- The resident raised further complaints to the landlord concerning the bathroom installation and the flooring after the landlord’s final complaint response of 17 July 2025. It is not clear that these complaints completed the internal complaints process. We cannot consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s final response to these complaints, he may wish to refer the complaints to us.
What we did investigate
- We have investigated the period from the resident’s initial report of the condition of the bathroom on 17 March 2025 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 17 July 2025.
- The resident referred to the condition of the bathroom during the landlord’s damp and mould inspection of 17 March 2025. However, there was delay in the landlord inspecting the bathroom again on 8 May 2025 and in organising some plastering work that was identified during the survey. This was not attended to until 9 June 2025, 3 months after the resident reported the issues with the bathroom. This was outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales, as above, for non-emergency repairs. The resident requested a new bathroom on 23 May 2025 due to its condition.
- A new bathroom would ordinarily form part of a landlord’s capital works programme and is not normally a repair. However, repair issues could lead to a landlord agreeing to replace a bathroom. The landlord considered the resident’s request for a new bathroom and decided to approve this on 18 June 2025. It advised the resident of its decision on 23 June 2025. The resident was pleased that the bathroom was to be replaced.
- The landlord’s planned maintenance policy does not give an expected timescale for a replacement bathroom which could be impacted by manufacturing timescales. According to the landlord’s planned maintenance standard, the landlord should give 4 weeks’ notice before starting works and provide detailed information in advance on what it intends to do. The landlord needed to complete some prior work before the bathroom could be installed. This was to complete an asbestos survey which it completed within its repair policy timescale of 9 July 2025 which was reasonable.
- The bathroom works started on 15 September 2025 taking 13 days to install which was over and above the 6 full days that it told the resident. The installation post-dated the landlord’s internal complaints process. We can see that the landlord accommodated the resident’s needs for a shower rather than bath which was reasonable as set out in its internal email of 11 August 2025.
- The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s remedy of £83 does not fully reflect the failings identified. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure due to the delayed response to the identified repairs and follow up. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay £150 (inclusive of the £83 previously offered) for the landlord’s response to bathroom repairs and a replacement bathroom in respect of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the associated complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The resident raised a complaint on 15 May 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 22 May 2025 within 5 working days as required by the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- It issued a stage 1 complaint response on 18 June 2025. This was 18 working days after its acknowledgement. This was delayed as according to the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code a response at stage 1 should be sent within 10 working days from its acknowledgement. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 5 June 2025 to advise of the delay due to the landlord waiting for the structural report. It then responded within the revised timescale of 20 June 2025. This was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
- The resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint on 18 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 24 June 2025 within 4 working days. It issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 July 2025. This was within 17 working days which was within the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code’s timescale for a response. The landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable. The Ombudsman considers that there was no maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Learning
- It was reasonable that the landlord identified learning from the resident’s complaint in its final complaint response. It acted on this by creating a new complex cases team on a 12-month trial basis to deal with similar cases to the resident’s case. This would provide a single point of contact for residents, who would coordinate and monitor repairs to completion where a more specialised team. This was reasonable so that the landlord could avoid similar failings from occurring in the future. The landlord also monitored the commitments it made in its stage 1 complaint response with a responsible officer taking ownership of this.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- There were some records keeping issues in this case. The landlord cited that a change in its system had left to some of the record keeping issues leading to the lack of follow up and poor communication. We recommend that the landlord reviews its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management based up on our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) to improve its records management.
Communication
- The landlord recognised its communication was poor leading to missed callbacks, confusion and miscommunication. Its communication with the resident was generally more reactive than proactive. The lack of prior notification to the resident of certain appointments was inappropriate. It caused inconvenience to the resident. The resident told us he had to reorganise hospital appointments at times, waiting in for appointments and that at times no one turned up. This caused detriment given the resident’s ongoing cancer treatment. However, the landlord’s approach to having a named individual to track complaint commitments at stage 1 was a good idea but it needed to follow up the issues to full completion.