Vivid Housing Limited (202406134)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406134

Vivid Housing Limited

21 January 2025

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a flat, which began on 7 September 2022. She lives in the property with her partner and 2 children.
The property was constructed by a third-party developer and was in its defect liability period (DLP) when the resident moved it. It is not clear from the evidence provided when the DLP ended, however, the landlord’s website states it is usually 1 year.
The landlord is a housing association. It is aware of the vulnerabilities within the household.
On 8 December 2022 the resident raised concerns to the landlord about condensation and mould growing on the windows in her bedroom. She also reported damp and mould in the bathroom on 20 January 2023.
On 23 August 2023 the developer provided the landlord with an end of agreement default list which included damp ingress to the bedroom window reveals. The developer told the landlord that all defects were completed on 24 October 2023.
On 7 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint. She told the landlord despite mould washes and works to the extractor fans being carried out, the damp and mould had returned in the bathroom and bedroom. She said her baby was having respiratory issues due to the damp and mould and they were having to sleep in the living room.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 February 2024. It acknowledged it had not completed repairs within a reasonable timeframe, that it had failed to follow up on the damp and mould issues and it had not communicated effectively with the developer. It said it had carried out another mould wash and provided the resident with 2 dehumidifiers while it waited for the developer to inspect the bedroom windows. It apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation, which was broken down as:
1. £25 for the delay in providing dehumidifiers.
2. £125 for its failure to follow up on the repairs.
The resident escalated her complaint on 29 February 2024. She said the mould had returned to the bathroom and the bedroom and was making her and her children unwell. She said her GP had said her eldest child was having an allergic reaction to the mould and her baby has been prescribed an inhaler.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 5 April 2024. The landlord said it would instruct a roofing specialist to assess the cause of the damp and mould, and it would consider compensation once it had received advice from the roofing specialist. It said it would continue to communicate with the developer until the defects were resolved.
On 25 October 2024 the landlord reviewed the complaint and offered the resident £430 compensation, which was broken down as:
1. £30 for the delay in confirming the escalation of the complaint and issuing its stage 2 response.
2. £400 for the delay in obtaining a specialist assessment of the property to progress the damp and mould issues with the developer.
The landlord carried out an independent damp and mould survey on 5 November 2024. It stated there was no damp or mould present. It raised concerns about the insulation around the bedroom window, and said as the developer had not accepted it as a defect, a referral would need to be made to the National Housing Building Council (NHBC). On 20 November 2024 the landlord agreed to carry out the following works:
1. Upgrade the ventilation to the kitchen and bathroom.
2. Trim down the bathroom door.
3. Check the loft insulation and provide more if needed.
4. Apply mould wash to the communal hallway.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she was concerned the damp and mould issues were not being resolved by the landlord. At the time of this investigation the resident told us that the landlord had not checked the loft insulation. She said the damp and mould issues in the bathroom had been resolved, however, there were still issues with condensation and mould growth on the bedroom window and surrounding walls. In January 2025 she had also had a leak from the roof.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing as this is not within our expertise. The Ombudsman is unable to consider whether the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damp and mould had a negative impact on her and her children’s health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her household.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s website advises that a new build property usually enters a DLP for 1 year after the developer has handed it over to the landlord and confirms there are procedures by which defects are logged, classified and referred to the developer to rectify in agreed timescales. During the DLP, defects raised are for the developer of the building to repair under the terms of their warranty. After the DLP, the landlord takes responsibility for maintenance of rented properties.
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation procedure states that a damp and mould specialist will visit the property within 2 weeks of a reported issue. If there are vulnerabilities within the household or the extent of the mould is a concern, it would aim to visit within 2 working days.
The procedure states that where damp and mould is evident to plastered surfaces this would be deemed a high risk, in which the landlord would:
1. Organise a mould wash within 48 hours.
2. Carry out root cause remedies within 1 week.
3. Carry out other remedies within 28 days.
The procedure also states the landlord will remain in contact with the resident every 6 weeks to check on the condition of the property.
The resident reported issues with damp and mould on 8 December 2022. The landlord told the resident that the developer had confirmed that condensation was not a defect and asked her to report the issue to its repairs team so they could investigate. The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 27 February 2023, this was 11 weeks after the resident first reported the issue, which was significantly outside its 2-week target timescale.
The survey carried out in February 2023 stated that the cause of the damp and mould was due to condensation and told the resident how to heat and ventilate the property. It put the onus on the resident being responsible for mould treatment due to condensation. Even if a landlord believes occupancy factors are contributing to damp and mould, this does not mean the landlord has no responsibility. Landlords must take reasonable steps in partnership with residents in these circumstances, including considering improving ventilation or other appropriate measures. As per the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021, it is important for landlords to communicate in a manner that reflects a shared responsibility to tackle issues around condensation, which avoids residents feeling they have been unfairly blamed.
Although it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its damp and mould specialists, its procedure states that it will monitor the condition of the property which it failed to do. The landlord’s records show the resident chased updates in March and April 2023 and reported the same damp and mould issues in November 2023. This Service would have expected to see the landlord monitor and carry out checks to ensure the damp and mould issues had been resolved. The landlord failed to take a proactive approach. Conducting follow up checks can help landlords to quickly identify when matters have not been resolved without residents having to report the same issues again.
On 11 January 2024 the developer agreed to investigate the damp and mould issues and carried out its own survey. The contractual obligation remains between the landlord and the resident. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on new build complaints published in September 2020 confirms that landlords should be clear how it will respond during and after defects periods, and should effectively pursue developers on a resident’s behalf. The landlord did not do this which resulted in the resident raising issues and chasing updates from the developer directly. There was no evidence the landlord pursued the developer about the extractor fans between April 2023 and January 2024. The developer replaced the bathroom fan in February 2024, 3 months after the resident reported an issue with it. This was not customer focused. The landlord’s lack of communication with the developer contributed to the delays in the developer carrying out its own damp and mould inspection and completing works.
It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out another damp and mould survey in January 2024. This demonstrated the landlord was seeking to take appropriate steps to understand the situation and ensure that works to address matters were progressed. The landlord’s records show the damp and mould survey raised concerns about a possible roof leak. The developer agreed to inspect the roof in March 2024, however, it told the landlord it could not find any issues.
In March 2024 the local council’s environmental health team (EHT) recommended the landlord inspect and overhaul any defective flashings and ensure the repointing was in good condition. The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 complaint response it would instruct its own roofing specialist to investigate further. The Ombudsman chased the landlord for an update on the issues with the roof on 17 September 2024, which prompted the landlord to obtain quotes for a roofing specialist on 19 September 2024. However, at the date of this investigation no evidence has been provided to show a roofing specialist inspected the building. The landlord’s records show the resident repeatedly raised concerns about the roof and chased updates on when it would be inspected.
Between December 2023 and February 2024, the landlord and the developer carried out 3 mould washes. The landlord was aware the damp and mould was an on-going issue in this property. It was reasonable to expect the landlord to draw from its previous records to ensure it had a holistic view of previous investigations and works. It did not do this and instead it opted to default to works that it had carried out before. This was not resolution focused. A landlord should ensure it understands the root cause of the matter before carrying out remedial works.
The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities within the resident’s household. There was no evidence it communicated with the resident about any risks. The resident told the landlord on numerous occasions the damp and mould was affecting her mental health, and that her young children had been hospitalised. No evidence was seen that the landlord responded with empathy to her situation. The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint that she could not sleep in the main bedroom with her baby due to the level of condensation, damp, and mould. This resulted in the resident contacting her local MP and EHT for support.
The Ombudsman would have expected to see the landlord assess the assess the situation and consider the impact on the resident and her family at these clear escalations and evidence it had considered all options available to support the resident though this time. No evidence was seen that the landlord was proactive in its response, or that it made any attempt to mitigate the worry that the resident had in this regard. This was not customer focused and caused the resident significant distress.
If a landlord knows there is going to be a delay with investigations into the damp and mould or any works required, it should assess the situation, looking at what impact the delay will have on the resident. A landlord should consider loss of amenity and what interim measures could be considered and put in place. This could include dehumidifiers, support from local services, or a decant. Interim measures may not always be possible or necessary, but a landlord must show they have considered all options in line with their damp and mould policy and explained the outcome to the resident.
Although the landlord’s records state that it believed it was safe for the household to remain in the property, it failed to fully evidence that it considered the vulnerabilities of the household and the impact the damp and mould was having on them. It provided the resident with dehumidifiers on 20 February 2024, however, this was over a year after she first reported the damp and mould. The landlord acted unreasonably by leaving the resident and her household living with condensation, damp, and mould for a significant amount of time without sufficient interim measures or appropriate support.
In the landlord’s follow-up letter to the resident dated 25 October 2024, it offered £400 compensation for the delay in obtaining a specialist assessment of the cause of the damp and mould. Although the landlord acted appropriately by obtaining an independent damp and mould survey on 5 November 2024, no evidence was provided to show the landlord instructed a roofing specialist as promised in its stage 2 response. It also did not review its offer of compensation for its failures prior to its stage 2 response as promised. There is also evidence of a lack of learning from the landlord, as post the internal complaints procedure its records show continuing poor communication with the resident and its contractors.
In summary there were delays in the landlord investigating the damp and mould. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord failed to consider the household’s vulnerabilities or offer appropriate support. Within its stage 1 response the landlord apologised and offered the resident £125 compensation for the delays in works being carried out. It also reviewed the complaint and offered an additional £430 compensation for the delays providing dehumidifiers and obtaining an independent inspection of the property.
However, at the time of this investigation there were outstanding inspections and works it had promised. This shows a lack of learning from the landlord. The landlord failed to consider the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident from when she first reported the damp and mould to the date of its stage 2 response. The resident has been left chasing a resolution to her reports of damp and mould that she believed was impacting on her household’s health for over 2 years and the landlord has failed to complete the agreed inspections.
Based on the above, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord states it will acknowledge a complaint by close of business the following day and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It states it will respond to escalations within 5 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
On 7 February 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day which was within its target timescale. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident to discuss the complaint on 8 and 19 February 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 February 2024. This was within its agreed target timescale. Its response was detailed and made it clear it had investigated all the resident’s complaint issues.
The resident raised concerns with the stage 1 response on 27 February 2024 and asked to escalate her complaint on 29 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 12 March 2024, which was outside its target timescale of 5 working days. This resulted in the resident chasing an update to her complaint. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to communicate effectively with the resident and manage her expectations.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 April 2024, this was 1 working day after the timescale it gave the resident. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would consider compensation once it had obtained advice from a specialist roofer. The landlord contacted the resident about her complaint on 25 October 2024, over 6 months later. The landlord acknowledged it only became aware it had failed to carry out the actions it promised in its stage 2 response when providing the Ombudsman with evidence for this investigation. In line with the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management spotlight report, landlords should have systems in place to track actions agreed during their internal complaints procedure. This was not customer focused and left the resident without a resolution to her complaint for a significant period.
In the landlord’s follow-up letter to the resident dated 25 October 2024, it acknowledged complaint handling failures and offered £30 compensation. It is a concern the award has only recently been made and appears to have required the resident to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman for an investigation to be opened.
In summary, the complaint handling code states that landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was a delay in the landlord escalating and issuing its stage 2 response. There was evidence of poor communication, and it failed to adhere to the promises it made in its stage 2 response, which left the resident without a resolution to her complaint for over 6 months. Although the landlord recognised some of its failings, it failed to put things right within its complaints procedure and the compensation offered did not reflect the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and was not in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance.
Based on the above, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. A senior manager must make the apology.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1080 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and not deducted from her rent account unless she requests this. This is broken down as:
  1. £150 offered in the stage 1 complaint response, if not already paid.
  2. £430 offered in the landlord’s review of the complaint dated October 2024, if not already paid.
  3. A further £400 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  4. A further £100 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident because of its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
3. Arrange an inspection of the insulation in the loft space, and if it is not sufficient to arrange for further insulation to be installed. The landlord should agree a convenient time for the works within 4 weeks of the inspection.
4. Arrange an inspection of the roof as agreed in the stage 2 complaint response if this has not already been done. If any works are needed the landlord should agree a convenient time for the works within 4 weeks of the inspection.
5. To consider whether to refer the issues with the damp and mould in the bedroom to the NHBC as discussed with the resident in October 2024. The landlord must communicate its decision to the resident, and if it does make the referral it must continue to keep her updated.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must carry out a case review of the failures identified in this investigation. This should include but is not limited to:
1. A review of its procedures in relation to the logging and remedying of defects in new build properties. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of works raised and completed, and its contact with residents, the developer, and contractors. It is also to ensure the landlord provides clear and accurate information about repairing responsibilities to tenants of new build properties.
2. An investigation into why it failed to carry out the follow on actions from the resident’s complaint and what it will do to prevent this from happening again.
3. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and provide a copy of its findings.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping practices and staff training to ensure that all staff are accurately recording and managing resident’s reports of damp and mould, defects and complaints. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.