Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Vivid Housing Limited (202120265)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120265

Vivid Housing Limited

17 August 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould within the property.
    2. Repairs needed to the communal lifts within the building and the support offered to the resident.
    3. The resident’s request for a management transfer.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  3. The resident had previously reported issues of damp and mould in her property throughout 2020, however, there is no evidence to suggest that these issues were raised as part of a formal complaint to the landlord. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. She may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to the new complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat on the 6th floor of a building which contains similar properties. The building has two communal lifts. Between March 2021 and June 2021, the resident was in the later stages of pregnancy, following which she experienced some complications which affected her pelvis and back. The resident also has two other children under the age of ten, one of which has vulnerabilities, which the landlord has been made aware of.
  2. The resident initially raised concerns to the landlord about the lifts within the building in March 2021. She explained that the lifts had not worked at the property for over a week and regularly broke down. She had needed to carry heavy items up 12 flights of stairs whilst being pregnant which was putting her health at risk. She noted that she had no other option but to use the stairs as her children were not able to stay in the property all day. She asked the landlord to find a more permanent solution to the ongoing lift breakdowns. In April 2021. The landlord wrote to all residents and confirmed that it would be refurbishing both lifts in view of the repeated breakdowns with work due to start in June 2021. It confirmed that it would start work on the smaller of the two lifts and then move to the larger lift. It would attempt to keep one lift running at all times during the repairs.
  3. In June 2021, the resident raised a complaint. She reported that since the lift refurbishment works had begun, the remaining larger lift had been repeatedly out of action for hours at a time. In response, the landlord confirmed that it had stopped the refurbishment works to the smaller lift and would now aim to complete the work to the larger lift first in view of the repeated breakdowns. It explained that if the smaller lift broke down it would prioritise getting it up and running before continuing with refurbishment works. The landlord also sent a letter to all residents confirming that the works to the larger lift would begin on 14 June 2021
  4. The resident provided medical evidence from her GP to the landlord on 11 June 2021. The GP stated that walking up the stairs was having a detrimental affect on the resident’s health and that this was no longer feasible as this exacerbated the resident’s pain whilst pregnant. They recommended that the resident was moved to a property on a lower floor or one which had a working lift in the building. The resident also provided medical evidence from her physiotherapist in July 2021, once she had given birth, who supported her GP’s findings due to post birth complications affecting the resident’s back. The resident also asked the landlord via her local MP to move her to another property. In response to the resident’s MP; the landlord explained that the local authority had 100% nomination rights to its properties in the area, meaning that the landlord was not able to transfer the resident itself and that she would need to apply to the local authority’s housing list. It offered to support the resident with her application.
  5. The resident continued to report that the remaining lift was breaking down on a regular basis. In August 2021, the landlord explained that further works were required to the lift shaft which would delay the refurbishment works. In November 2021, the landlord wrote again, explaining that there had been a further delay to the lift replacement programme and additional parts were required. It expected works to the first lift to be completed by January 2022 and the second lift by March 2022.  It added that it would be carrying out security patrols due to reports of vandalism and when the remaining lift was down for more than three hours it would arrange for ‘runners’ to help with carrying bags and pushchairs etc up and down the stairs. Following this, the resident continued to report lift breakdowns; she noted that assistance had not been available when the lifts were out of service and she had been stuck on the 6th floor of the building or at the bottom of the stairs on multiple occasions. The landlord’s internal communication from late November 2021 indicates that the remaining lift continued to break down around three times per week.
  6. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for the length of time the lift replacement programme was taking. It confirmed that it had assisted the resident with applying for a transfer and that she had been accepted at band 2 priority with one local authority and had been accepted onto another local authority’s housing list until the issues with the lifts were resolved. It confirmed that it was doing everything in its power to have the lift refurbishment completed and had implemented bulk text messages to all residents when the lifts were out and back in service. It had also arranged for a member of staff to check the lifts were in service in the early hours each morning so that the lift could be running by the time it was needed for school-runs etc. The landlord had also sent a letter to all resident’s outlining the progress of the lift refurbishment and confirming that it would be paying compensation to all residents of £2.04 per week from 1 June 2021 until the lift repairs were completed. This was 50% of the service charge payable towards lift maintenance. It expected the first lift to be completed by April 2022 and the second lift by July 2022.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the lift refurbishment in view of her health concerns and her request to be moved to a ground floor property. The evidence shows that the resident secured a transfer through a local authority to another of the landlord’s properties; she was given the keys on 29 March 2022 and was due to return her keys for the current property on 3 April 2022.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said she considers that the lift issues have impacted her health. She has provided medical evidence to support this. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments or those of her GP and physiotherapist.  However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether there was a direct link between the lift issues and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health, as detailed further below.

The landlord’s handling of repairs needed to the communal lifts within the building and the support offered to the resident.

  1. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to communal areas of the building, including lifts. The repairs policy confirms that emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours and made safe. Lift outages should be attended to within 4 hours and where someone is stuck in a lift, the landlord should attend within 1 hour. Follow-on works may be required once the emergency repair issue is made safe. The policy does not provide expected timescales for planned repairs to lifts; however, it is noted that this can be a lengthy process due to parts needing to be manufactured and the level of planning required. Landlord’s would be expected to keep resident’s regularly updated on the progress of such works.
  2. In this case, it was not disputed that both the lifts needed replacing and whilst one lift was being repaired the remaining lift continued to break down approximately three times a week. The landlord acted appropriately by commissioning the refurbishment works in view of historical breakdowns. There were some significant delays in the refurbishment process, however, the landlord demonstrated flexibility based on feedback from residents and adapted the plan to replace one lift first in June 2021 once it identified that the other lift was in more urgent need of replacement due to repeated breakdowns. Further repair issues were identified over the course of the refurbishment and the landlord needed to source and wait for parts to be manufactured before works could progress, which was outside of its control. The landlord acted appropriately by providing regular updates to all residents via letter on the progress of the works as and when changes were required in order to manage their expectations. Overall, the landlord’s communication regarding the lift refurbishment was to a high standard.
  3. The evidence provided by the landlord showed that it attended reported repairs to the remaining lift within its repair policy timescales and each repair report was reported as completed on the same day. However, it is not disputed that the breakdowns were frequent which is likely to have caused significant inconvenience to the resident and other residents on higher floors of the building. The landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate breakdowns to the remaining lift caused by vandalism by employing security within the block from August 2021. This appears to have had some impact and the landlord reported that less breakdowns were due to vandalism following its implementation, however, the lifts continued to regularly break down due to system issues. The landlord also said in its final response to the complaint on 26 January 2022 that it had implemented bulk text messages to let residents know when lifts were not working and then when they were back in service. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to when this was implemented, however, this was also a positive step in reducing the inconvenience caused to residents and was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. However, the resident provided medical evidence on 11 June 2021 and 13 July 2021 which stated that needing to climb 12 flights of stairs was exacerbating the resident’s pain and was having a detrimental impact on her health. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered a temporary move to the resident to suitable alternative accommodation such as a hotel whilst the lift replacement works were ongoing and the remaining lift continued to regularly be out of service. The landlord appears to have considered this within internal emails, however it was waiting for communication from the local authority regarding a permanent move which will be discussed in more detail below. There is no evidence that a temporary move was ever offered to the resident which amounts to a significant failing in this case. Management transfers and moves through the local authority’s housing transfer list are likely to have taken some time and it is clear from the evidence provided that a more immediate solution was required in view of the resident’s health concerns. By offering a temporary move, the landlord could have prevented any avoidable distress caused to the resident as a result of walking up and down the stairs due to the repeated lift breakdowns.
  5. It is noted that the landlord may not have been able to offer the resident a temporary move to a flat or house and it may only have been able to offer hotel accommodation as the landlord may not have had a suitable flat (on a ground floor) available from within its vacant stock at the time.
  6. It is also noted that the landlord said it would have ‘runners’ in place to offer assistance when lifts were down for more than three hours. Whilst this was a proactive step in assisting residents, the resident reported that no assistance was available to her on more than two occasions which is likely to have added to her overall inconvenience and distress. The resident would not have required assistance had she been provided with suitable alternative temporary accommodation. Whilst the resident would have been within her rights to decline a hotel if she felt it was not suitable in view of a lack of cooking facilities etc, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have offered this as an option to lessen the inconvenience and impact on the resident of the repeated lift breakdowns.
  7. It is not disputed that the lift refurbishment programme took longer than expected. The landlord has advised that residents would be paid £2.04 per week (which amounts to 50% of the service charge payable for lift maintenance) from 1 June 2021 until the lift replacements were completed. As the resident moved out of the property and was reported to have been placed in her new property by 3 April 2022, it is the Ombudsman’s view that she would be eligible for this payment up to this date. This amounts to approximately 44 weeks which would equate to around £90. The landlord should arrange for this to be paid if it has not already done so.
  8. It is the Ombudsman’s view that further financial compensation is warranted for the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to offer a temporary move in view of her medical evidence. This is in addition to the compensation the landlord has advised it would pay to all residents in view of the delays to the lift replacement programme. In considering the level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account the time the resident had needed to continue to regularly use the stairs within the block following the provision of medical evidence in June 2021 as well as the fact that the resident had two other young children, one of who has vulnerabilities.
  9. The landlord is to pay the resident £700 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to offer a temporary move in view of medical evidence that she should not have been using the stairs. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), amounts of £700 and above are considered proportionate in recognition of maladministration by landlords when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both. Examples could include failure to make reasonable adjustments for residents in view of medical conditions.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

  1. The resident initially asked to be moved to another property on 17 March 2021 via her local MP due to the impact of the lift breakdowns and overcrowding in her current property. The landlord acted appropriately by confirming its position to the MP on 23 March 2021. It explained that the local authority had strict management move criteria and held 100% nomination rights to its properties in the area, meaning that it could not offer the resident a move itself as the request would need to be directed through the local authority’s housing transfer list.
  2. It should be noted that the landlord would have limited control of the actions of the local authority and neither the Ombudsman or the landlord are able to control the level of banding awarded by a local authority. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, the award of points or banding, are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). If the resident has concerns about the local authority’s management of her transfer application she can raise a complaint to the local authority and if she remains dissatisfied with its final response to her concerns she may be able to approach the LGSCO for an independent investigation.
  3. The landlord had limited control over the actions of the local authority but had made reasonable efforts to assist the resident in securing a move between June 2021 and March 2022. This included initially requesting a management transfer with the local authority which was declined, supporting her in writing an application for medical priority and liaising with an adjacent local authority resulting in the resident being placed on its housing transfer list temporarily in January 2022 until the lift issues were resolved. Overall the landlord acted appropriately by setting out its limitations, managing the resident’s expectations and making reasonable efforts to support the resident with her application. Whilst it should have offered the resident temporary accommodation as detailed above, it made significant efforts to assist the resident in securing a permanent transfer which proved successful in March 2022. Therefore there were no failings by the landlord with regards to this issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs needed to the communal lifts within the building and the support offered to the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following actions within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £790, comprised of:
      1. £90 in relation to the amount payable to all residents as a result of the lift refurbishment delays.
      2. £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to provide temporary accommodation for the resident in view of her medical evidence and vulnerabilities.