Vivid Housing Limited (202117855)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117855

Vivid Housing Limited

5 October 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 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about the security of the bike shed and his request for the bike shed doors to be upgraded.
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an Assured Shorthold tenant living in a flat. His block includes a communal bike shed.
  2. The resident initially reported that the communal bike shed had been broken into, and that his bike was stolen in late September 2021. The landlord advised that it would not be responsible for the loss of his bike. The landlord visited the block in October 2021, and found that the shed doors appeared secure and were locked shut. It reported that the bike shed was fit for purpose and secure for safe storage of the residents’ bikes. The landlord advised that it would arrange to have the code to the bike shed changed and provided to the residents, rather than this being displayed on the notice board.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint in late November 2021 as he believed the landlord had provided inadequate security for the bike shed. He stated:
    1. The shed doors were wooden, could easily be pried open, and disputed that changing the key code lock would secure the shed.
    2. The landlord needed to change the bike shed doors to match the neighbouring block. He requested an explanation as to why the bike shed doors differed to others on the block. 
    3. He believed the landlord was responsible for ensuring the security of the bike shed and requested a contribution toward the replacement of his bike.
  4. The resident explained that he had completed an online form and letter of complaint previously, however this had gone unanswered. The resident asked for an explanation as to why the landlord had not followed its complaint procedure, and requested compensation for its delay.
  5. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord inspected the bike shed in December 2021. It found slight damage to the door, but noted that it did “not compromise the doors in any way”. The landlord reported that the bike shed doors and lock were fully functional and fit for purpose. It later eased and adjusted the shed doors, patch–painted and added an anti-thrust plate in January 2021. The landlord explained that it was unable to upgrade the bike shed doors as the neighbouring blocks differed in design and had a single external door. In contrast, the communal bike shed had double doors, and was therefore not a viable option.
  6. While the landlord advised it would not accept liability for the loss of the resident’s bike, and reminded him that he needed to have his own contents insurance, it offered £100 compensation for its handling of the complaint. This was later increased to £250. A further £60 was offered for the delay in providing its final complaint response, totalling £310, and it advised that it would be undertaking refresher training on how to recognise dissatisfaction, and the importance of registering it on its system.
  7. The resident brought his complaint to this Service as he believed the landlord had not done enough to maintain and secure the bike shed. He believed the landlord should upgrade the doors so that it was similar in quality to that of the neighbouring block.

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the exterior of the property, including integral garages and stores (sheds) erected by it.
  2. When the resident raised concerns regarding the security of the communal bike shed, following the theft of his bike on 28 September 2021, it was necessary for the landlord to investigate the resident’s reports. It was also appropriate to take action to resolve any issues it identified, in accordance with its tenancy agreement, which states that the landlord would be responsible for sheds erected by it. In this case the landlord adhered to its obligations by appropriately inspecting the bike shed for any damages on 29 October and 21 December 2021.
  3. The landlord found that the bike shed appeared secure, doors locked shut, and deemed that the bike shed was fit for purpose and secure for the safe storage of residents’ bicycles. While it appreciated that the resident had suffered an unfortunate experience, it was right to note that this was a matter for the police. As far as the shed was concerned, it offered a suitable space for the resident to use should he wish.
  4. This Service recognises the resident’s dissatisfaction that the landlord’s initial response was to change the code for the keypad lock on the shed, and to remove this from the communal board. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, although it did not resolve the matter, this helped to increase the security of the shed and to reduce the risk of outsiders obtaining the code for entry. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s frustration that the landlord could not confirm, however, when this would be done.
  5. Moreover, it is noted that the resident sought a replacement of the wooden doors which he identified as a risk and which he believed criminals could pry open. This Service notes, however, that the landlord was not obligated to make this change after having inspected and confirmed for itself that the doors were secure. The tenancy agreement does not require the landlord to offer a particular type of door, neither does it comment on what might be considered a cosmetic change.
  6. In any case, while the landlord initially delayed in doing so – as it did not believe it compromised its security – it undertook works to repair the minor damage to the bike shed. The door was eased and adjusted and a patch paint repair was undertaken too. This was reasonable.
  7. What’s more, to improve the security and in response to the resident’s concerns, this Service is aware that the landlord added an anti-thrust plate by 21 January 2021. This offered additional security to protect against further break-ins and was an appropriate response. Given that there had previously been unauthorised entry, it was reasonable that the landlord considered how it could further prevent this.
  8. Although the installation of CCTV also would have acted as a deterrent, as the resident requested, in the Ombudsman’s view, this would not have been a proportionate response. It was good practice, nevertheless, that in making its decision, the landlord explained that it made contact with the police and investigated its own records to determine the need for it.
  9. With regards to the resident’s request that the landlord upgrade the bike shed doors to the same standard as the neighbouring block, as the landlord found the original doors to be fully functional and fit for purpose, it would have considered this work to be an improvement and not a requirement. Although this Service appreciates that the resident may have considered the bike shed in other properties to be more appropriate, the landlord was not obligated to mirror this design. Its subsequent refusal was not indicative of a service failure. It was reasonable though, that the landlord explained to the resident why it would not be doing this.
  10. The resident would have been disappointed that the landlord advised that it would not take responsibility for the loss of his bike or any financial loss incurred. It explained that residents were required to obtain their own contents insurance to cover against theft or damage, as no communal area could be wholly guaranteed to be safe from intruders or ASB activity. This was in line with the tenancy agreement, however, which states the landlord would not be responsible for anything belonging to the resident and that resident’s should obtain insurance to cover personal items. This Service has subsequently not considered it unreasonable that the landlord took this decision.
  11. The Ombudsman is unable to determine that the standard of the repair was enough to exclude intruders. It is clear to this Service though, that the landlord took reasonable steps to improve the security of the bike shed and responded proportionately to the resident’s concerns. While it is clear that the resident would have liked to see the landlord go further, its decision not to take the resident up on his suggestions was not unreasonable.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. The policy sets out that it will seek to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage one, and 20 working days at stage two. It is expected to maintain communication with the resident where this is not possible and to agree a new timescale for response. 
  2. This Service has noted that the landlord failed to uphold these timescales in its handling of the resident’s complaint, however. While the resident submitted his complaint as early as September 2021, the landlord offered no response until December 2021. Contrary to good practice, it additionally made no attempt to manage the resident’s expectations during this time. It was therefore appropriate that an offer of compensation (£100) was made.
  3. Following the resident’s request to escalate this matter, however, this Service can see that there was a further failure to acknowledge his request and also to manage his expectations.
  4. Under the landlord’s compensation policy it sets out that compensation will be awarded where there has been delays or difficulties raising a complaint and delays in giving a response. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £250. The Ombudsman is aware that this was the amount that the resident sought in satisfying part of his complaint. It was also appropriate that the landlord confirmed it had undertaken refresher training, to assist it in recognising dissatisfaction with regard to raising complaints, and also prevent future delays.
  5. While it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken a more proactive approach to ensure that the resident’s final response was provided soon after, particularly in light of its previous failures, there was a further delay. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this demonstrated a clear failure for the landlord to take ownership of the complaint.
  6. With this said, however, the landlord did recognise that there had been a further failure and increased its award of compensation by a further £60. The landlord’s overall compensation offer was subsequently £310 which was proportionate in the circumstance. This amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on the Housing Ombudsman Service website) which suggests that awards of £250-£700 should be considered, and may be ordered, where there has been significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant, and serious failures but which have already been recognised and resolved by the landlord.
  7. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that the landlord’s offer of redress was satisfactory in resolving this element of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of, its handling of the resident’s concerns about the security of the bike shed, and his request for the bike shed doors to be upgraded.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £310 compensation as offered in its complaint responses, if it has not done so already.