Vivid Housing Limited (202118947)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118947

Vivid Housing Limited

12 September 2022


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 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for it to replace damaged flooring and cupboards at his property following a leak there.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests to replace the turf in his property’s gardens due to the condition that this was installed in when he moved there.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house with front and rear gardens.
  2. The resident reported historic issues to the landlord from when he first moved in to his property with the quality of the turf installed in the gardens at the front and rear of the property from 27 July 2021. He believed that the turf was installed dead, and he sent it photographic evidence of this. The landlord advised the resident that, as the garden turf was “gifted” to him, it would be his responsibility to maintain this.
  3. On 2 October 2021 the resident experienced an uncontainable leak from under his kitchen sink flooding the property’s downstairs hallway carpet, toilet and kitchen lino floor coverings, and cupboards. The landlord attended an out-of-hours appointment on the same evening, repairing the leak on site. It booked a follow-on appointment to assess the flooring condition and suggested the use of dehumidifiers to help with drying out the carpet and lino floor coverings.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 October 2021, stating that his hallway and electrical cupboard carpet was completely soaked through and now smelled damp and musky. He also reported that his kitchen lino and downstairs bathroom flooring were beginning to raise and bubble, with his kitchen corner cupboards showing signs of water damage. The resident further reported signs of water damage at the property on 6 October 2021, and that his kitchen sink cupboard doors no longer closed. He then made a stage one complaint to the landlord on 19 October 2021, stating that his kitchen cupboard door no longer closed and that the dehumidifiers were provided late following the reported leak, to which he later added that he had been disappointed with his property’s turf from when he first moved there.
  5. The landlord re-attended the property on 20 October 2021. During its attendance, it confirmed that the hallway carpet smelled of damp, believing this to be the result of dehumidifiers being delivered almost a week late. The landlord also confirmed to the resident that it would replace part of the kitchen sink unit, as the back was all bowed due to water damage, and it agreed that the turf in the back garden was dead and noted that the resident was looking to have this removed.
  6. The landlord booked an appointment on 22 October 2021 to attend the kitchen sink unit cupboard and assess the property for water damage, but it noted that the resident declined access for this as he was believed he was getting a replacement unit instead. On 31 January 2022, its contractor subsequently confirmed that they would look to carry out any remedial works once they had assessed the water damage in the property, but that they would not look to replace the carpet or floor coverings unless these had caused a fault. The contractor offered to deep clean the carpet, but they noted that this was declined by the resident.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident on 2 November 2021, highlighting that it had made an error in stating it would look to replace the kitchen units and would instead only offer repairs to these in the first instance. It then issued its stage one complaint response to him on 4 November 2021. The landlord admitted its failure to deliver the dehumidifiers on time, apologising and offering to professionally clean the resident’s affected carpets that its inspection considered would address the smell of damp. It also advised him to make a claim through his home contents insurance if he wanted these replaced, and agreed to follow up with its contractor on the next working day after an emergency call out to ensure that their service was much quicker. 
  8. The landlord stated that it could not replace either the garden turf or the carpets at the property, as they were “gifted” and would be the resident’s responsibility to maintain. It offered him £50 compensation stating that it had made an error in advising the resident it would replace the kitchen sink cupboard unit, and that it would look to repair this instead. The landlord further offered another £50 as a gesture of goodwill with regard to the resident’s disappointment over the quality of the turf installed in his garden.
  9. The resident was dissatisfied with this offer, but he was further contacted by the landlord on 9 November 2021 that offered to arrange an independent contractor to attend the property and assess the garden turf. He declined this offer, however, believing that they were affiliated with it and stating that he would seek his own contractor, requesting the escalation of his complaint on 15 November 2021.
  10. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response on 21 January 2022, highlighting that it should have arranged for an independent inspection of the garden turf. It therefore offered to do so and share the report with the resident, and it would then obtain quotations from three different landscapers to carry out the works once approved, subsequently agreeing to await an inspection by his contractor after he again declined its attempt to arrange this on 26 to 27 January 2022. The landlord also stated that it was looking to agree to carry out any remedial works to his property with him once it had spoken to its contractors to confirm the scope of works to be carried out to the floor coverings and kitchen units. 
  11. The resident then complained to this Service, as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s outcome since he sought for it to take responsibility for the leak at his property and the condition of the turf there. He expressed that he was looking for it to replace the turf at the front and rear gardens of the property, renew the downstairs hallway and cupboard carpets and lino floor coverings in the kitchen and bathroom, and renew the kitchen unit under the sink. During the landlord’s attendance, the resident also wished for the other kitchen units to be assessed for repair or replacement by it.  

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has mentioned that he believes the landlord to be at fault for the damage within his property as a result of the leak from a faulty kitchen pipe there. This is outside the scope of this investigation, however, because this Service cannot investigate complaints concerning matters where the resident is seeking an outcome that is not within our authority to provide. We do not have the authority to determine liability or award damages for damaged property in the way that a court or insurer might, and so we are unable to consider the resident’s reports about the landlord’s responsibility for damages following the reported leak to the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for it to replace damaged flooring and cupboards at his property following a leak there

  1. The landlord’s compensation guidance framework states that it will consider financial loss payments where the resident has experienced the loss as a result of a service failure. It offers discretionary payments of up to £50 for residents’ low impact and effort and of up to £150 for high impact or effort, in acknowledgement of a service failure where practical actions are no longer enough to place the resident back into a position before the loss occurred. The landlord highlights that claims for damage to personal possessions or floor coverings should be discussed with its insurance team to be considered by its insurers.
  2. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing his property’s structure, including internal floors. This also specifies that he is responsible for maintaining and repairing items gifted by it to him as part of the tenancy, such as carpets. The landlord will insure the property, but it is not responsible for any personal possessions of the resident, and he must take out his own insurance against all usual risks, including accidental damage.
  3. Following the leak at the resident’s property on 2 October 2021, the landlord confirmed that the carpets smelled of damp and acknowledged that its delay in providing dehumidifiers was the result of this. It acted in accordance with his tenancy agreement by stating that it would not look to replace the carpet as this was “gifted”, however, because the agreement stated that this was his responsibility.
  4. The landlord’s acknowledgement that its failure in delivering the dehumidifiers late caused further water damage to the resident’s carpet and floor coverings nevertheless meant that it was therefore reasonable that it offered to have the carpets professionally cleaned as compensation after attending the property. It also acted appropriately by signposting him to his own home contents insurance to seek to replace the carpet, as his tenancy agreement required him to take out his own insurance for this. Although it is of concern that the landlord did not consider compensating the resident financially for its late dehumidifier delivery, under its compensation guidance framework, as he considered that cleaning would not restore the condition of his carpets or lino.
  5. On 20 October 2021, the landlord accepted that it incorrectly advised the resident that it would look to replace the kitchen units under the sink. Its contractors would conduct any remedial works to these once the damage was inspected, but they only agreed to repair the kitchen units and not replace these. It was therefore appropriate, and in line with the compensation guidance framework, that the landlord corrected this in its stage one complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation and an apology for the distress and inconvenience that its miscommunication had caused him, as this was the maximum recommended for low impact and effort.
  6. The landlord also appropriately identified that it should have attended the resident’s property as soon as possible after the leak there to agree to assess and detail any repairs required to the property. It therefore showed that it had learnt from the outcome of his complaint by confirming that it would follow up with its contractor on the next working day after an emergency call out to ensure that their service was much quicker. Although it is again concerning that the landlord did not consider compensating the resident for his impact or effort, in accordance with its compensation guidance framework, from it not assessing and agreeing to his property’s repairs as a result of the leak there at the time.
  7. The landlord’s final stage complaint response additionally offered to put this right via its contractor assessing the damaged carpets and lino floor coverings for it to agree any further remedial works with the resident This was after he had declined this, so that the works were still outstanding despite its earlier attempts to inspect and arrange these, which it has been ordered to re-offer him below.
  8. The resident’s communications to the landlord highlighted his damaged personal possessions as a result of the leak, including the water damage to his kitchen lino floor coverings, carpets and kitchen units, were a direct result of a faulty pipe. In accordance with its compensation guidance framework, it was to refer his claim for damaged personal possessions and floor coverings to his insurance team to enable him to potentially make a claim to its insurers for any damages, which it failed to do and so has been ordered to below.
  9. Therefore, in light of the failures of the landlord to not consider offering financial compensation for its delayed dehumidifier delivery and inspection and agreement of works at the property, or to refer the damaged personal possessions and floor coverings to its insurance team, it has been ordered below to compensate the resident with an additional £150. This is in accordance with its compensation guidance framework, where awards of up to £150 are recommended for residents’ high impact or effort arising from its failures.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests to replace the turf in his property’s gardens due to the condition that this was installed in when he moved there

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that he is responsible for maintaining his property’s garden areas in a clean and tidy condition, including the grass. This also specifies that he is responsible for maintaining and repairing items that are gifted by the landlord to him as part of the tenancy.
  2. The resident reported issues with the turf installed in the front and rear gardens of the property to the landlord on 27 July 2021. Its later inspection of this agreed that the turf was dead, but it had previously appropriately advised him at the time of his report that, in line with his tenancy agreement, the fact that the turf was gifted to him by it meant that this would be his responsibility to maintain. It was nevertheless reasonable that the landlord attended and assessed the turf in the gardens following the leak at the property on 20 October 2021. This is because it was necessary for it to do so to confirm whether the leak had caused any remedial works to the gardens that it was responsible for.
  3. The landlord’s stage one complaint response on 4 November 2021 then reiterated that, as the turf had been gifted, it would not look to replace or remove this. Therefore, it’s offer of a £50 discretionary goodwill payment to the resident as an alternative towards whatever he chose to do with his garden was appropriate, and this was in line with its compensation guidance framework that permitted such a payment by it to try and resolve his complaint about this. Although it would have been preferable for the landlord to have also outlined the parties’ contractual obligations under his tenancy agreement, as well as recognising and trying to resolve his disappointment with his turf despite its obligations.
  4. The landlord’s final stage complaint response on 21 January 2022 then appropriately further offered to actively try and resolve the complaint for the resident by stating that it would arrange for an independent contractor to assess the turf, and liaise with him for works to be carried out to this. This was beyond its contractual obligations, with it offering to subsequently obtain three separate quotations from different local landscaping companies to undertake any necessary works to the gardens at the front and rear of the property found by the contractor’s assessment.
  5. The landlord then attempted to organise this by arranging for the independent contractor to attend the property to assess the turf there on 26 to 27 January 2022, but the resident declined this, believing them to be affiliated with the landlord. As a result, it then agreed for him to arrange his own contractor’s assessment of the turf, and to await their report for any identified works that might need to be carried out by it for this.
  6. In conclusion, there were no failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to replace the turf in his gardens, as it went beyond its contractual obligations towards this in his tenancy agreement to try and resolve condition of the turf. It has nevertheless been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding understanding and communicating its and its residents’ contractual and other obligations towards garden maintenance at its properties. This is to ensure that these are fully and appropriately explained to residents in every relevant case.


Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for it to replace damaged flooring and cupboards at his property following a leak there.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests to replace the turf in his property’s gardens due to the condition that this was installed in when he moved there. 

Orders and recommendation

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Give the resident its insurance team’s details within four weeks to enable him to make a liability insurance claim to its insurers for his damaged personal possessions and floor coverings.
    2. Contact the resident within four weeks to re-offer him an inspection of his property’s damaged floor coverings and kitchen units for it to agree remedial works to these.
    3. Pay the resident the £100 compensation that it previously offered him within four weeks, if he has not received this already.
    4. Pay the resident £150 additional compensation within four weeks for any impact and effort that he experienced as a result of its dehumidifier and repair inspection and agreement delays, and its failure to refer him to its insurance team.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff training needs regarding understanding and communicating its and its residents’ contractual and other obligations towards garden maintenance at its properties to ensure that these are fully and appropriately explained to residents in every relevant case.
  3. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders, and whether it will follow the above recommendation.