Vivid Housing Limited (202209946)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209946

Vivid Housing Limited

27 August 2024


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 the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since August 2021. The property is a 3 bedroom flat.

Summary of events

  1. On 19 September 2021, the resident reported black mould in her bathroom.
  2. The following month, the resident reported damp in the bathroom and the landlord carried out a questionnaire with her over the phone. The same day, it raised a job to service and overhaul the extractor fan, which it recorded as completed on 1 December 2021. It noted that the fan was in satisfactory working order and that a follow up visit was required.
  3. There is no record of any further action until June 2022 when the landlord spoke with the resident and agreed to visit her on 22 July 2022. It raised a job for a mould wash and sent a text message to confirm the appointment was for a “plastering repair job”. The landlord attended on this date but noted that the job was aborted as the operative was pulled off the job.
  4. The same day, the resident reported that the appointment that day was for a mould wash, but she had been told the ceiling would be replastered. The landlord offered her £30 compensation for having to take a day off work. The resident asked for the replastering job to be booked in and not another inspection as she had limited days off available. The landlord asked her to send pictures so it could review these, which she did the same day.
  5. Four days later, the landlord raised a job to inspect the bathroom ceiling due to repeated damp and mould issues. The same day it asked the resident for her bank details to pay the £30 compensation and for her availability on Friday 29 July 2022, for a plasterer to attend.
  6. The resident provided her bank details the next day and after an email exchange, the landlord confirmed it would attend at 3pm on 29 July 2022, to complete the replastering works to the ceiling. The same day it updated the job raised to replaster the bathroom ceiling, due to damp and mould.
  7. On 29 July 2022, the landlord attended the property and recorded that no access was given and a card was left. It noted on the card that it had attended at 10:30am.
  8. The same day the resident told the landlord that the plastering job had not been completed as the operative had attended earlier than the agreed appointment, so she had not been home.
  9. On at least 2 occasions in early August 2022, the resident asked for the plastering job to be rebooked and said she had not received the £30 compensation. In the second contact the resident asked to make a complaint.
  10. On 5 August 2022, the landlord confirmed it had raised a formal complaint and would contact her by the end of the next working day (8 August 2022).
  11. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 and 10 August 2022 to chase contact about the complaint. The following day, the landlord contacted her to discuss this. It noted that she said she had been told the entire ceiling was being replastered. The landlord said this had not been agreed as no inspection had been carried out. The resident did not want to take any more time off work and so the landlord agreed to review pictures of the ceiling to confirm whether it needed to be replastered.
  12. On 23 August 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It should not have booked an appointment for a specific time on 29 July 2022, as its normal process was to use timeslots. Also, it did not offer appointments after 3pm on Fridays. There had been service failure as it had attended the job at a different time to what was promised, but it should not have booked the appointment as it did. It apologised for this. It had reviewed the pictures provided and confirmed that a plaster repair was not required and a mould wash was needed. It asked for her availability for this to go ahead.
  13. The resident replied the same day and said that she would not take any more time off work for a mould wash to be done. It had already attended for this but did not do it. She had done mould washes herself, but these did not do anything. Nine days later, after further contact from the landlord, the resident advised that no aspects of her complaint had been resolved. She asked the landlord to replaster the bathroom ceiling, as it had agreed to do.
  14. On 1 September 2022, the landlord confirmed a new appointment had been arranged for 2 December 2022, for the replastering works to be completed.
  15. Four days later, the landlord asked to visit the resident at home to discuss the ceiling repair and her complaint. The resident replied and said she was confused why it was asking to visit to discuss this as an appointment had been booked for the job to be completed in December 2022. The landlord replied that it wanted to visit her to discuss the complaint. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that a visit went ahead.
  16. On 13 September 2022, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage 2. Three days later, it told her that the stage 2 review would be carried out on 29 September 2022, and it would call her to discuss the complaint, which it subsequently did.
  17. On 4 October 2022, the landlord raised a works order to replaster and redecorate the bathroom ceiling, which was carried out on 7 and 12 October 2022.
  18. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 October 2022. The operative left the job early on 22 July 2022, due to an emergency. Its communication with her regarding this issue could have been better and it should have rebooked the works for the earliest and most convenient appointment. It had offered to fully replaster the bathroom ceiling and redecorate the bathroom as a gesture of goodwill.
  19. On 17 January 2023, the resident reported that the damp and mould in the bathroom had returned. Eight days later, the landlord raised a job for a damp and mould survey.
  20. Two months later, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had received no contact regarding her report of damp and mould.
  21. In June 2023, the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint about damp and mould and the associated repairs. She said that she wanted the landlord to fully resolve the issue as despite action being taken, the mould kept coming back.
  22. In July 2023, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey. It noted there were several small mould patches in the bathroom, which were caused by condensation. There was no mould present anywhere else in the property. It recommended upgrading the bathroom extractor fan to reduce the condensation. It recorded there was no risk and the urgency of the works were “routine”. 
  23. The same day, the landlord raised a routine works order to upgrade the extractor fan. It attended on 2 August 2023 to complete this job and noted that the resident declined for this to go ahead, as the fan was too big.

Assessment and findings

Handling of damp and mould

  1. The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says that it has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
  2. When the resident first reported the mould in September 2021, there is no record that the landlord took any action until the resident reported this a second time the following month. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  3. When dealing with damp and mould, it is important that landlords carry out an inspection at the earliest opportunity to assess the severity and any risk, identify the underlying causes and works required. In this case, while the landlord carried out a phone questionnaire with the resident in October 2021, there is no record that the landlord physically inspected the property until nearly 2 years after the resident first reported this issue. This amounts to maladministration and is particularly concerning as the landlord implemented a damp and mould policy in January 2022, which says that all cases will be visited by a damp and mould specialist.
  4. The landlord did raise a job to inspect the property in July 2022, but did not carry this out. It is noted that this was at the resident’s request; however, it was important that it thoroughly investigated this issue to identify the works required. It should have explained this to the resident so she understood the importance of the inspection.
  5. While some works were carried out to address this issue, without having carried out a proper inspection or investigation, the landlord was guessing as to the underlying cause and treatment required. This is not an effective way to manage damp and mould issues and in this case, resulted in the damp and mould returning.
  6. It was reasonable that the job to overhaul the extractor fan raised in October 2021 was treated as a non-emergency repair. The landlord’s website confirms it will complete this type of repair within 28 days. In this case, the landlord completed this job in 41 days, which was over the committed timeframe and amounts to maladministration.
  7. The landlord’s communication in this case was poor. It told the resident in July 2022 that it would replaster the ceiling, when it had booked to complete a mould wash. This raised the resident’s expectations and then left her disappointed when it seemed to change its position on what works it would carry out.
  8. The landlord noted that the replastering works were not required as there was no damage to the ceiling; which was reasonable. It told the resident this in the stage 1 complaint response; however, shortly after this, it proceeded to rebook the job, which was contradictory.
  9. Similarly, shortly after the landlord rebooked for the plastering job to be done in September 2022, it asked to visit the resident at home to discuss the works required. This was confusing for her and indicated that different landlord departments were not communicating with one another.
  10. The 2 appointments in July 2022 were not well managed by the landlord. While reasonable that it had to leave the first appointment because of an emergency, there is no record that it explained this to the resident at the time. This left her disappointed and feeling let down by the landlord.
  11. Similarly, the second appointment was not attended at the agreed time. It is noted that this appointment was made outside of the landlord’s normal process for appointments; however this was an avoidable error by the landlord. This error resulted in the resident being let down for a second time as she understandably, expected it to attend at the agreed time.
  12. As a result of the landlord’s poor handling of this issue, it agreed to replaster and redecorate the bathroom, as this is what the resident wanted. While positive that the landlord listened to the resident, it again missed the opportunity to fully investigate and address the underlying cause of the damp and mould.
  13. After the works order was raised for the replastering works in October 2022, the job was completed swiftly and in line with the committed timeframe of 28 days, for a non-emergency repair.
  14. When dealing with damp and mould, it is good practice for landlords to follow up after works are completed to ensure the issues are resolved. This is set out in the landlord’s damp and mould policy, which says that it will remain in contact with the customer every 6 weeks to check on the condition. In this case, there is no record that it did this after the works were completed in October 2022. This placed the onus on the resident to re-report issues when the damp and mould returned in January 2023. This was unfair and amounts to maladministration.
  15. When the resident re-reported the damp and mould in January 2023, the landlord raised a job for an inspection. This was sensible and in line with its damp and mould policy that said all cases would be visited. While reasonable that it did this, there is no record that it told the resident what it had done, which left her feeling ignored.
  16. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will carry out the inspection within 2 weeks. In this case, it did not complete this until 6 months later, despite the resident chasing this up on at least 1 occasion. This was an unreasonable delay and amounts to maladministration.
  17. The record of the survey carried out in July 2023 was thorough and the works recommended as a result of this were reasonable. While the recommended works were not carried out, this was not the fault of the landlord. It attended in 27 days to complete the job, which was within the committed timescale of 28 days for non-emergency repairs.
  18. When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, she indicated that the damp and mould was an ongoing issue. Therefore, an order has been made below for the landlord to carry out a further damp and mould survey. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of this and what, if any actions it will take, with a timescale for these to be completed.
  19. The landlord acknowledged there was service failure in its handling of this matter as part of its response to the resident’s complaint. It apologised and identified learning, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
  20. The landlord offered £30 compensation outside of its complaints process in recognition of a missed appointment. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which says it may compensate residents £30 where staff or contractors fail to attend an appointment without notice. However, despite the resident chasing this up, there is no record that the landlord ever paid this amount to her, which caused her to lose faith in the landlord.
  21. The landlord did not offer the resident compensation as part of its formal complaint responses, which would have been appropriate considering it had identified service failure. Therefore, in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation, which is inclusive of £30 already offered, if not done so already.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time the complaint was made said that when a stage 1 complaint was made, it would make contact with the resident by the end of the next working day. In this case, the landlord told the resident that it would do this but failed to actually do it. It was only after the resident chased this on 2 occasions that contact was made.
  2. When the resident confirmed the reasons she wanted the complaint escalated, the landlord did not tell her whether it had accepted the complaint for a review until 9 working days later. This was not in line with its complaints policy at the time, which said it would let residents know if their complaint would be reviewed at stage 2 within 5 working days.
  3. The landlord provided the stage 1 response in 13 working days and the stage 2 response in 22 working days. These were slightly over the 10 and 20 working day committed response times set out in its complaints policy at the time.
  4. Each of the individual delays mentioned above were between 2 and 4 days, and so only minor delays. However, the cumulative effect of these, meant that the complaint journey was delayed by 12 working days in total.
  5. While not significant, as every stage of the process was delayed, this left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously. It also resulted in her incurring additional time and trouble to chase the landlord on at least 2 occasions. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  6. The landlord did not identify or acknowledge any of the delays in its complaint handling and failed to provide any redress for the resident. Therefore, orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £200 compensation, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Damp and mould.
    2. The formal complaint.

 

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Carry out a further damp and mould survey. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming the outcome of this and what, if any actions it will take, with a timescale for these to be completed.
    2. Pay the resident £550 compensation, made up of £350 for its handling of damp and mould (including the £30 already offered, if not done so already) and £200 for its complaint handling.
    3. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.