Vivid Housing Limited (202224270)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224270

Vivid Housing Limited

1 August 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 the resident’s reports of a faulty extractor fan, the associated complaint, and compensation offer.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. On 24 August 2022, the resident reported that the extractor fan in her kitchen had become very noisy. She asked for the landlord to attend the property and to assess the issue. The landlord raised a repair appointment for 22 November 2022, in the meantime the resident hired a private electrician to remove the fuse for the extractor fan. Due to conflicting schedules, the resident needed to rearrange the appointment, and so the landlord attended on 28 October 2022. It cleaned the fan and left it in working order.
4. On 17 November 2022, the resident complained about the delay in the landlord attending the property. She asked to be reimbursed £50 for the private electrician charge, and to be compensated £50 for her stress and inconvenience. She later added to her complaint, stating that as the fan would have been broken for three months, she wished to be compensated the rent amount for that time. The resident requested a total of £2,557.55, for both the rent and her stress and inconvenience.
5. The landlord responded on 29 November 2022. It explained to the resident that the noisy fan would not have been classed as an emergency repair under its service standards. It further explained that it had therefore attended within its expected timescales and that there had not been any service failure. It again offered £50 as a goodwill gesture, and promised in future to better manage residents’ expectations regarding routine repair timeframes. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 December 2022. She complained that the landlord had incorrectly stated that the repair was first reported on 26 August 2022, rather than 24 August 2022. She asked for its decision to be reviewed, and to be further compensated for the landlord failing to deal adequately with her complaint.
6. The landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint on 22 December 2022, and sent its final response on 9 January 2023. It reiterated that it had correctly identified the repair, and attended within its service timescales. However, it acknowledged that its stage one response had stated the wrong date. It also explained that the stage one response should have explained in further detail why the resident’s compensation amount was not appropriate. It explained again that as there was no service failure, the amount requested by the resident was not in-line with its compensation policy. It offered a further £60 (a total £110) compensation in acknowledgement of these errors.
7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has explained that she would like a full explanation of why the repairs were booked so far in advance. She would like an apology, and to be compensated for her distress caused by the noisy extractor fan. The resident would also like to be compensated for the time and inconvenience caused by this complaint, and to be reimbursed for hiring the private electrician.

Assessment

8. According to the landlord’s repair policy, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining extractor fans, although it states that it would expect residents to wipe or vacuum dust off the external parts. The landlord’s website classifies emergency repairs as those that threaten serious harm to people or properties. Similarly, urgent repairs are defined as those which could cause harm to health and safety if the repair gets worse. Any remaining repairs are classified as routine repairs. The landlord states that these should be completed at a time convenient to both parties. The landlord categorised the resident’s repair as a routine repair. This was appropriate, as although the noise clearly aggravated the resident, it was not reported to be an electrical issue which would cause health and safety concerns.
9. The landlord’s repair policy does not offer specific timeframes for routine repairs. However, the usual standard amongst social landlords is around 28 calendar days or one month, and so that has been taken as a baseline against which to consider the landlord’s action in this case. The resident reported her repair on 24 August 2022, with the landlord attending on 28 October 2022. This was just over two months after the resident reported the issue.
10. A delay is not always a failing if the landlord has a legitimate reason for attending after designated timescales. However, in line with general good customer service standards, the landlord would be expected to explain the delay, and to communicate effectively with the resident to manage her expectations. In this case, the landlord appears to be operating with longer timescales than the general standard proposed by most social landlords (set out above). The landlord should have explained to the resident why there was two month delay in the appointment, and to explain what it was doing to mitigate wait times, and how it would reduce these in the future.
11. The landlord did not acknowledge that the resident’s appointment was later than expected after she reported the repair. It also did not explain why this might be, or offer solutions for providing a more reactive service in the future. Therefore, whilst the delay was not excessive, it was not reasonable to offer an appointment two months in advance, without any explanation for doing so. This is a failing in the circumstances.
12. According to the landlord’s complaint policy, after a resident makes a stage one complaint, it is expected to respond within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the landlord should escalate the complaint to stage two of its process. It should then respond within 20 working days.
13. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint responses, by responding within the above timescales. Additionally, the landlord acknowledged that the resident found the noisy fan distressing. It explained its definition of an emergency or urgent repair, and explained that the fan did not have an electrical fault, but had just needed a deep clean. It again acted appropriately by stating that it would ensure to manage expectations in regard to repair timescales in the future. It offered £50 compensation to the resident as a good will gesture, to reimburse her for her expenditure of hiring an electrician to remove the fuse while waiting for her repair appointment.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy states that residents should seek its permission before making any expenditure that they may want reimbursement for. If they do not do this, the landlord is not obliged to reimburse the costs. Therefore, as the resident did not gain permission to hire a private electrician, the landlord was not obligated to provide a reimbursement for the resident’s costs in this matter and exceeded its service standards in this regard. The landlord subsequently compensated the resident a further £30 for incorrectly stating that she reported the repair on 26 August, rather than 24 August 2022. It also compensated £30 for not specifically addressing in its stage one response why it could not compensate the exact amount the resident had requested.
15. Although the landlord would be expected to supply the correct dates in its response, the date provided was when the landlord had seen the repair and actioned it. It was also only two days out, and its error in the response did not impact the resident. In its second complaint response, the landlord acted appropriately by discussing the limits of its compensation policy, and clearly explained to the resident why her compensation request exceeded any amount that it could offer. Although this Service has found that the original repair appointment was delayed, the compensation requested by the resident greatly exceeds any amount that would be awarded by either the landlord or this Service.
16. Whilst it is not disputed that the extractor fan noise was aggravating, the landlord did not find an electrical fault which made it dangerous. It was also confined to the kitchen, which meant that the resident did have use of her home during this time. Finally, the fan was turned off during this time by taking out the fuse, which means that the noise was not ongoing for the two months that the repair was outstanding. Neither the landlord, nor this Service can compensate for a potential issue. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable in its refusal to compensate the resident £2,557.55.
17. However, in its complaint response, the landlord neglected to acknowledge that the repair appointment that had been given to the resident was not within a reasonable period of time. It also did not apologise for the delay, or explain what steps it was taking to improve its service. This was not appropriate, as under this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord is expected to identify where it went wrong, acknowledge its mistakes, and to put things right.
18. Although this investigation has identified further failings in the landlord’s provision of service, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that overall the total amount of £110 offered to the resident is sufficient financial compensation in the circumstances. This is in-line with our remedies guidance, which can be found on our website.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty extractor fan, the associated complaint, and compensation offer.

Orders

20. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident the £110 compensation already offered during its complaint procedure, if it has not done so already.
    2. Write to the resident offering an apology and explanation for why its repair appointment services were delayed.
    3. Evidence of compliance with the above orders.