Vivid Housing Limited (202202539)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202539

Vivid Housing Limited

26 October 2023

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 concerns about how the viewing for her property was arranged.
   2. The resident’s concerns about the condition of her windows and French doors and her request to the landlord to have these repaired or replaced.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called this Service’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). When a complaint is brought to this Service, we must first consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. The resident raised an issue with the Ombudsman about how the landlord handled the viewing of her property, which she purchased in October 2017. The Ombudsman has not reviewed this matter because there is no evidence it was raised and considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Background

4. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord under a shared ownership scheme. The lease commenced on 13 October 2017 and is a semi-detached 2 bedroom house built in 2006.
5. There are resident vulnerabilities noted on file.
6. The resident raised the issue of her windows with the landlord on 21 October 2020. She advised the windows were not fit for purpose, that there were large gaps and that they were in bad repair when she moved in. She asked the landlord’s permission to fit new bifold doors, a new front door and new windows. The landlord responded that it would approve the works as long as the resident did not widen any existing openings. It also stated that the resident needed a structural surveyor’s report, to obtain planning permission where required and that she comply with building regulations. In addition, the landlord stated that it needed contractor confirmation that no asbestos was present, and that the resident obtain her own liability insurance. It further advised the resident that she needed to make sure the works were carried out by a suitably qualified person and to an acceptable standard and must provide FENSA or building control certification.
7. The resident submitted her stage 1 complaint on 16 March 2021. She complained that when she first moved into the property in 2017, the windows and French doors were in a bad state of repair and that she reported this at the time. She advised that the landlord told her that windows were not ‘building fabrics’. She also complained that when first viewing the property, prior to purchasing she was unable to secure a second viewing due to staff shortages at the time so could not clearly see the extent of the damage. She stated that she wanted the landlord to pay for the cost of the replacement windows and the French door as:
   1.   windows were in a poor state of repair
   2. she could not open most of them as they did not then close properly and
   3. there were gaps around the edges of the frames and the panes, which made the curtains move in the wind.
8. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 3 March 2021. It refused to replace the windows or French doors and advised the resident that as a shared ownership leaseholder, she had responsibility to pay the full cost of outgoings related to the property. It further advised that as the property was built in 2006, it was no longer covered by National House Building Council (NHBC) as this only applies for 10 to 12 years after a new build property is completed. It further advised the resident that buildings insurance would also not cover the types of works identified.
9. In her stage 2 complaint of 7 April 2021, the resident clarified that her complaint was about the fact that the landlord had not maintained the property prior to her purchasing it, particularly in respect of the windows which were not functional from the day she received the keys to the property in 2017. She advised she had complained at the time but was disregarded and that the property fell below the acceptable standard. She advised that she had only purchased the property in the knowledge that the landlord had a duty to maintain the property to an acceptable standard prior to purchase. She stated she wanted the windows brought up to an acceptable standard.
10. The landlord responded to the resident’s Stage 2 complaint on 7 May 2021. It stated that her complaint was not upheld, it would not pay costs in relation to maintenance of her windows. It advised the resident that it was her responsibility as a purchaser during the conveyancing process to ensure that she was happy with the purchase prior to completion.
11. It reiterated its response that as a shared owner she was responsible for the full costs of repairs and maintenance, as outlined in her lease. It further advised that there was no evidence on file that she had requested a second viewing prior to the purchase. It also stated that it could find no evidence between the resident and the sales team that she had raised concerns about the windows shortly after moving in. It further stated that the valuation of the property was based on its condition at the time.
12. Further to the landlord’s independent complaints process, the resident asked the landlord for all correspondence relating to her file under a subject access request and advises that this has yet to be provided.
13. The resident complained to this Service on 6 May 2022. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident would like the landlord to replace or repair the windows. She also wants to ensure that the landlord provides future home buyers with sets of keys to all doors and windows. She further wants staff to undergo training on complaints from people with disabilities.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

14. In her complaint, the resident mentions that she initially raised a maintenance issue about the windows and French doors to the landlord shortly after moving into the property in 2017. Whilst the resident refers to raising this maintenance issue at the point of moving into the property, there is no evidence that she submitted a formal complaint or exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, the scope of this investigation will be from 1 October 2020, when the resident advised the landlord of her request to replace the windows and French doors to the end of the landlord’s complaints process of 7 May 2021. This is because it would have been reasonable for the resident to complain to the landlord sooner. Furthermore, whilst this service understands the resident’s frustration, the expectation is that she could have approached the Housing Ombudsman Service at the time of her concerns.

Landlord Obligations

15. The resident’s lease states that residents are responsible for repairs and for keeping the premises in good and substantial repair. The lease states that in the case of shared owners, although the property is not owned outright, the leaseholder does have the responsibilities of a full owner. This means for example that a leaseholder will be obliged to pay the full cost of any outgoings relating to the property.
16. The lease goes on to state that resident’s must:
    1.  Seek the landlord’s consent before making certain alterations.
    2. Not make any structural alterations or structural additions to the premises.
    3. Comply with all provisions of planning consent with the local authority and that residents must obtain all licences, permissions and consents to do all works and pay all expenses required in respect of any works the resident carries out.
17. The landlord’s key information about shared ownership and how it works states that repairs and maintenance are the responsibility of the resident, regardless of the share that residents own.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her windows and French doors and her request to the landlord to have these repaired or replaced.

18. The landlord responded appropriately when the resident asked for permission to replace the existing bifold door and windows in the property as she stated the windows were not fit for purpose. The landlord provided permission, with the appropriate conditions in place and this was clearly communicated to the resident. It was also appropriate that it informed the resident it would not be responsible for the works or maintenance, as this is a specific covenant in the resident’s lease and is also clear from the landlord’s key information about shared ownership properties on its website.
19. When the resident informed the landlord that she was dissatisfied with its response and was not clear why she needed to ask its permission to make any structural changes, the landlord responded appropriately in advising her that she would need to own 100% of the property in order to do this. This is because she would then be a freeholder and no longer bound by the terms of the lease.
20. Once the resident confirmed there would be no structural changes, the landlord responded appropriately in giving the resident permission to carry out the works on the proviso that she obtained planning permission if appropriate, complied with building regulations, adhered to construction, design and management regulations 2015 (CDM regs), and provided the landlord with FENSA certification or building control certification. It was appropriate that it advised the resident that she would need to insure against any damage, loss, or injury to anyone during the works as the landlord would not be responsible for any claims. Once again, it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that it would not be responsible for funding the works or any maintenance as this is a clear covenant in the lease.
21. In March 2021, when the resident offered to pay 55% of the cost of the works as she owned 55% of the house, the landlord responded appropriately in advising the resident that it was unlikely to contribute towards the works. It appropriately advised her that a shared ownership lease includes the standard lease obligations, where the leaseholder would have the normal responsibilities of a full owner, in that the resident would be obliged to pay 100% of the outgoings related to the property. It also correctly advised the resident that as the home was built in 2006, it fell outside the latent defects period and was also no longer covered by NHBC, which covers properties for a 10 or 12 year period. It also correctly advised that the types of repairs she requested would not be covered under buildings insurance.
22. It was also reasonable that when the resident complained about the noise and smoke coming from her neighbour’s property, due to the gaps with the windows, that the landlord advised the resident to make a report of antisocial behaviour both to the landlord and to the police if appropriate.
23. The landlord responded appropriately in its final complaint response of 7 May 2021. It was appropriate that it advised the resident that it is the responsibility of the buyer during the conveyancing process to ensure they are happy with the process prior to completion. It reiterated its response that shared owners have full responsibility for the property and agree to pay full costs of repairs and maintenance, as per the lease agreement. Overall, the landlord acted fairly and in line with its obligations. However, there are some concerns that when both the resident and this Service asked for copies of all correspondence and communication logs the landlord was unable to find any records for the period of 2017, when the resident advised she raised the issue of the disrepair of the windows and doors. Although this Service understands that the landlord had merged with another landlord and moved to a new housing management system in 2018, so some legacy records were misplaced, this points to an issue with record keeping, which the landlord should consider addressing.
24. In light of the above, while the Ombudsman understands the frustration, disappointment, and dissatisfaction the resident felt, as the landlord acted within its policies and within the terms of the resident’s lease, a finding of no maladministration is made in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her windows and French doors and her request to the landlord to have these repaired or replaced.

Determination

25. In accordance with Paragraph 42 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about how the viewing for her property was arranged is outside this Service’s jurisdiction
26. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of her windows and French doors and her request to the landlord to have these repaired or replaced.

Recommendations

27. The landlord to review its record keeping practises and to provide the resident with the records she has requested.