Vivid Housing Limited (202320014)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320014

Vivid Housing Limited

31 July 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

1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to her reports about:
   1. Defects/snagging in a new–build property.
   2. The condition of her garden.
2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident occupied her 3-bedroom house with a garden together with her husband and child under a shared ownership lease with the landlord. The lease began on 31 July 2023. It was a new-build property.
4. The resident was responsible for the condition of the property. The developer would be legally responsible for any building defects. The resident had the benefit of a building warranty against defects (the “Warranty”) issued by a social housing building control specialist. The Warranty in relation to defects (as opposed to structural issues) expired on 21 July 2024.
5. The Warranty covered “the cost of repairing, replacing or rectifying any defect and resultant damage to the home for which the developer was responsible”. It did not cover “snagging damage which was purely cosmetic and did not impair the structural stability or weather tightness of the home”.
6. According to the landlord’s maintenance guide, it employed a professional technical advisor company (the “Agent”), so the resident did not have to inspect or ‘snag’ the property (look for any issues) before the landlord took handover of the home.
7. The landlord said it “closely monitored” the Agent so that it did a “great job”. “Some things (were)… subjective”. Where a resident felt the landlord had “missed something”, the guide “should help” the resident “understand what (was) classed as an emergency defect, urgent defect, non-urgent defect and what may or may not be accepted if it (was) just a cosmetic issue”.
8. The guide categorised issues into prioritised timescales.
   1. Emergency and urgent such as loss of services.
   2. Non-urgent issues would be rectified within 28 days.
   3. Cosmetic issues. The guide noted that anything that could not be seen whilst standing 2 metres away could be deemed to be “an acceptable flaw”. The guide did not provide a timescale for cosmetic issues.
   4. Issues that were not covered included minor cracking, and turf that was dying or shrinking.
9. The Agent’s snagging list of 25 July 2025 included an issue with mould in a cupboard it was to monitor, to externally lay turf, an upside down vent, a flue not pointed in and a “wavy” canopy.
10. On 31 July 2023 the resident reported that there were a number of issues with the property. They included patchy paint work, scratches on the skirting boards, “spot moulds everywhere”, cracked and dented items such as kitchen cupboards and radiator caps, the front door was covered with paint and glue residue, door handles covered with glue, paint under the toilet, a broken meter box, a missing brick in a wall, a back gate hanging off which had caused damage, a damaged shed roof piece which had fallen off on their heads, hardened mortar “splatted” over the patio, door seals not properly placed in and windows not properly sealed.
11. On 23 August 2023, the resident made a complaint as follows:
    1. The landlord stated that it would resolve any snagging on completion. The landlord subsequently stated that it would only resolve what was on its snag list.
    2. There were communication issues.
    3. The outstanding issues included, in addition to the above:
       1. Shower seals not properly attached
       2. Broken meter cupboard door. She was told this was owned by the utility company. The company owned the meter but not the box.
       3. Door seals not attached properly. While they functioned, they were visible.
       4. “Wavy” walls and dents on the wall. The landlord had offered to reimburse any remedial works, but she did not want to invalidate the Warranty.
12. On 11 September 2023 the landlord wrote with its stage 1 response as follows:
    1. The lino flooring and front door were to be addressed on that day.
    2. The toilet finish, window cills and shed were to be addressed on 3 October 2023.
    3. The Agent had not noted the non-working back bedroom window or wavy walls. The damage had either been caused by shrinkage making a taped joint blow or “some form of structural failure”. It had referred these issues as defects to the developer.
    4. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint because it found that it and the developer were working to address the resident’s concerns.
13. On 11 and 14 September 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint as follows:
    1. She considered the issue about structural integrity of the building should have been treated as an emergency. Both the developer and the Agent had contacted her but not the landlord.
    2. She was not satisfied that items were not on the initial snag list.
14. On 27 October 2023 the landlord wrote with its stage 2 response as follows:
    1. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s communication. It said it should have told her to set up an online account.
    2. It set out what the steps the developer and the Agent were taking. Further appointments were required to complete the outstanding kitchen unit hinge replacement. It would monitor the progress of the outstanding works and keep her informed of any changes to the plan or programme.
    3. While all new properties experienced minor snags at the point of first occupation and within the first few months of habitation, it was important that it communicated clearly which items would be rectified by the original developer and which were deemed to be acceptable. It was reviewing how it could be “very clear” as to the expected standards of new properties.
    4. It offered £100 “as full and final settlement” in recognition of her inconvenience and effort in contacting the landlord and its delayed responses.
15. On 11 and 18 March 2024 the resident made a second complaint as follows:
    1. Her plants were dying, she was concerned about drainage as the garden was “too wet” and was “sunken in the middle”.
    2. She was receiving calls instead of emails despite her request to be contacted by email only.
16. On 28 March 2024 the landlord wrote with its stage 1 response as follows:
    1. It did not accept that the turf was defective but it offered to reconsider the issue after the July 2024 review of the property.
    2. It had attended on 26 March 2024. It found that the front garden had suffered from lack of maintenance, as well as some plant failure.
    3. There was no obvious defective installation (of the garden) that would be the developer’s responsibility to rectify. She was responsible for its maintenance.
    4. In November 2023, she had asked for communication by email. The request was not picked up correctly due to a change in its systems. It apologised. It had put a flag on her account to confirm email was her preferred method of contact. Feedback was provided on the importance of using its housing management system to check and update contact preferences.
    5. It offered the resident £60 as compensation for this failure.
17. On 28 March 2024, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on the basis that:
    1. She had had a gardener looking after the turf.
    2. She stated that the letter did not reflect the conversation at the inspection. The Agent had suggested checking the drainage as the garden was sunken in the middle.
18. On 17 May 2024 the landlord responded with its stage 2 response as follows:
    1. It had reminded external contractors the resident should be contacted via email.
    2. It set out what steps the developer and landlord had taken in relation to the internal and external works. It was committed to ensuring the works would continue and would monitor progress and keep her informed of any changes.
    3. There would be an end of year inspection in July 2024 by its Agent and the developer to agree any actions by the developer under the terms of the defect liability period. This would be to ensure that the standard of construction and finish were in accordance with the building warranty standards.
    4. Not all issues would be the responsibility of the developer or would fall within the detail of a building warranty. It was very important that it was clear on the responsibilities of owners, landlord and developer/contractors. It was reviewing how it managed this process.
    5. There continued to be failures in the way that it communicated with her.
    6. While it confirmed the outcome of its stage 1 response, it noted that some works remained outstanding.
    7. It offered £100 as recognition of the inconvenience and effort that the resident had to take to contact the landlord and its delayed responses to rectify the outstanding matters at her home.
19. On 8 July 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and increased its offer of compensation as it had identified “further failing”. It offered, in addition to the £260 to date, a further £590 bringing the total compensation to £850 as follows:
    1. £150 for its complaint handling in the first complaint.
    2. £440 in recognition of the effort and impact of the delays in rectifying the issues and her “needing to escalate matters for resolution”.
20. On 8 October 2024 the resident made a third complaint that she was unhappy that an appointment to carry out works to the garden on 10 October 2024 was postponed.
21. On 18 October 2024 the landlord replied with its stage 1 response as follows:
    1. The works were to have been carried out in early September 2024. It had waited for a programme of works from the developer.
    2. The developer cancelled the works on 10 October 2024 due to weather conditions. It was rebooked for 21 October 2024. It would review the condition of the garden in April 2025. If the turf had not established due to natural causes, it would relay the affected areas.
    3. This was not a service failure as it had given her advance warning of the cancellation of the appointment and the surveyor had updated her.
22. According to the landlord’s email of 4 November 2024, the resident asked to escalate her complaint.
23. On 15 November 2024, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows:
    1. It upheld the Stage 1 response as it had notified her of the cancellation with 2 days’ notice.
    2. It had used the same topsoil it had laid elsewhere on the estate but, at her request, it had upgraded it at the landlord’s cost.

Assessment and findings

24. The Ombudsman is unable to determine definitively the cause of the various issues the resident reported and whether or not they fell under the warranty. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether the responses of the landlord to the resident’s reports were appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances. We will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with law, its obligations, good practice and its policies.
25. The landlord’s role in this case was to effectively “broker” the discussion between the developer and resident and monitor the actions of the Agent. It was the responsibility of the developer to remedy any defects that were reported during the initial warranty period to 21 July 2024.
26. Initially, the landlord did not appear to take into account the issues that the resident raised on 31 July 2023. On 3 August 2023 the landlord responded asking the resident not to report any snagging although it did ask for a short description with photos. On 18 August 2023 the landlord did not accept certain items as they were not noted at its snagging inspection. This was frustrating as it appeared to close any further discussion.
27. However the evidence showed that the landlord accepted the resident’s points and carried out the works that the resident requested, albeit with varying delays, including as follows:
    1. The cloakroom basin was raised as a defect on 14 August 2023 and addressed on 3 October 2023. There was a 2-3 week delay. However, the landlord advised the basin did not need to be bolted down. This was therefore not a defect.
    2. There was a 2-3 week delay to the repairs to the garden brickwork and damage caused by the fence.
    3. It was agreed on 13 September 2023 that kitchen cupboards were to be replaced. The works were carried out 2-3 weeks outside the landlord’s 28–day target. However, the landlord initially had a dispute with the developer and manufacturer about the “mouldy” kitchen cupboard with rusty hinges. This was resolved. The manufacturer replaced the cupboard in question by 14 November 2023. The evidence showed the landlord had actively pursued the issue. We do not attribute fault to the landlord for the delay.
    4. The landlord accepted the bathroom and kitchen lino as a defect. It upgraded the bathroom lino from routine to urgent after the resident reported a nail sticking out. A temporary repair was carried out within 2-3 weeks, this delay was unreasonable. It reasonably replaced the bathroom lino in its entirety on 29 September 2023. There was a delay to replacing the kitchen lino from 1 October 2023 to 10 November 2023. There had been a missed appointment on 12 October 2023 in the meantime. While an unreasonable delay, there was no evidence it was the fault of the landlord.
    5. While initially, the developer did not accept responsibility for the meter box and referred the resident to the utility company, it then accepted the issue as a defect. This created an overall delay of just over 2 weeks.
    6. The Agent accepted the “wavy walls” were a defect on 11 September 2023. The landlord then made an offer to reimburse the resident for the works which the resident did not accept as she was concerned about any impact on the warranty. While there was a brief overall delay, the developer plastered the walls on 19 September 2023 and completed the works on 1 October 2023.
    7. The shed, toilet finish, window cills and seals were accepted as defects and were addressed on 3 and 6 October 2023, approximately 2 weeks outside the landlord’s 28-day target. There was a further brief delay in resolving the split wood in the fence on 31 January 2024.
    8. The landlord accepted the shower seals as a defect. There was a delay to the repair as, while the developer initially ordered a new seal, it was identified on 25 September 2023 that a new screen was required. The replacement installed on 17 October 2023 was not satisfactory. In January 2024 to March 2024, the landlord made a number of enquiries of the contractor, Agent and developer, as well as internally, as to a resolution. The evidence showed that the landlord negotiated with the developer on the resident’s behalf in relation to the shower. There followed correspondence between the landlord and the resident about the type of replacement. A new screen was not fitted until 14 June 2024. The resident reported she was unable to use that specific shower while the screen was not fully sealed. While this was a significant delay, and we understand the inconvenience to the resident, we cannot attribute fault to the landlord as it reasonably and proactively followed up the issue.
    9. There were further issues including a bedroom window, a window handle, the canopy, and fence, the airing cupboard and front door, the bathroom extractor, garden fence and light, “hissing” pipes, radiators, and garden and toilet light. These were addressed within the target timescale. There were a few jobs from the 2023 snagging list including an upside-down vent, a flue not pointed in, and external window surrounds and mortar staining that were completed at the end of August 2024, beginning of September 2024. This delay was unreasonable, however we did not see evidence of any significant impact on the resident.
28. The landlord’s initial explanation to the resident of 12 September 2023 that the “wavy walls” was due to shrinkage included a preliminary thought it may have been due to structural failure. This caused the resident to express significant concerns. In response, the landlord sought clarity from the Agent. The landlord’s surveyor reviewed this and concluded there was no evidence for any concerns. He wrote to the resident accordingly on 6 November 2023. He sought to explain the reasons and why the landlord’s comment was mistaken, due to a misunderstanding of the word “wavy”. The landlord arranged for a specialist from its Agent to carry out an inspection by way of reassurance which the resident declined. As the resident remained concerned, the landlord reasonably arranged a survey at its expense by an independent structural engineer for February 2024. The inspection confirmed there were no structural defects.
29. The resident made a number of reports that the landlord had not activated her request to limit communication by email rather than telephone calls. This was frustrating for the resident that she had to make repeated requests. The landlord acknowledged its error and offered £60 compensation in its stage 1 response of 28 March 2024. This was reasonable redress as it was in line with its compensation policy and our own guidelines for Remedies.
30. The developer accepted responsibility for the defects, if occasionally only on review, and carried out works. This showed that the landlord, together with the Agent, carried out its role in interceding on the resident’s behalf with the developer whose responsibility it was to address the issues. The evidence showed that the landlord accepted and addressed the issues raised by the resident. It also showed that it communicated proactively with the developer and its Agent. It also showed that it monitored the works.
31. The landlord accepted that there were overall delays. This was very frustrating for the resident. She had considerable correspondence with the parties and interruptions to her work schedule. She was set to enjoy her new home and there was a significant number of issues. We considered that the initial offer of £200 (£100 at stage 2 of the first complaint and £100 at stage 2 of the second complaint) would not have been sufficient to recognise the overall impact on her.
32. However, on 8 July 2024, the landlord reviewed and offered an additional amount of £440 and £150 for its complaint handling. It also offered on 6 June 2024 a contribution to the resident’s water consumption costs, due to using a bath rather than a shower. This meant that the total compensation for its handling of the defects amounted to just over £660. This was higher than its levels of compensation policy for delays and impact on a resident’s enjoyment of their home. It was also in line with our own guidelines for compensation. We have also considered the redress the landlord offered in the context of the landlord’s role. We have taken into account that the landlord addressed the issues, albeit there were delays, and exercised its reasonable discretion such as commissioning an independent surveyor report.
33. However, the offer was many months after the conclusion of the first complaint and 2 months after the conclusion of the second complaint. There are occasions when works will take some time to complete, it is reasonable to review the complaint and landlord say that it will. We do not consider there to have been reasonable redress where the resolution is delayed. It is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles or the Complaint Handling Code for a landlord to make an increased offer of redress sometime after the end of the formal complaints procedure and particularly after a complaint has been referred to us. Our outcomes guidance Guidance on outcomes – Housing Ombudsman states that a finding of reasonable redress would not be appropriate in those circumstances. We therefore find service failure in relation to this complaint. As we consider the landlord’s revised offer was reasonable, we are not making an order for further compensation.

The garden

34. We have considered the second and third complaints about the garden together, although the landlord made different findings in each. That is because the 2 complaints were interlinked.
35. There was a dispute about the cause and extent of the condition of the garden. The landlord described it as “some plant and turf failure”, “a small area of landscaping had subsided”, and “a small area of turf had not established as well as the remainder of the garden”. The resident’s description was that the garden was “water logged”, it was uneven and sunken, and there was no top soil. She was concerned to find building debris within the soil. We are unable to assess the exact condition of the garden or the causes. Our role is to assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports.
36. We understand the resident’s frustration with the condition of the garden which her household endured over several months. According to the snagging list of 25 July 2023, the developer had laid the turf shortly before the resident moved in. The warranty did not cover turf that was dying. The landlord’s guide set some advice and warned that the new turf could become “bumpy and uneven”. It also provided “tips” to caring for newly laid turf. Therefore the landlord had managed the resident’s expectations about there being some imperfections and to take special care.
37. Given the resident was not satisfied with the condition of the garden, despite any difference in opinion and the guide, it was reasonable that the landlord considered and investigated the resident’s reports. It arranged and carried out 2 inspections in March 2024. Its initial response in its stage 1 response of 28 March 2024 referred to the weather conditions, maintenance of turfed areas and presence of “some plant pots” on the turfed area. The resident disputed that she had not looked after the garden. However, the landlord was entitled to conclude in the stage 1 response that “there was no obvious defective installation that would be developer/contractor responsibility to rectify”. This was because it concluded there was not sufficient evidence at that time that was the case.
38. It was reasonable in the circumstances to offer the resident a choice whether she wanted to replace the turf or wait for the landlord to review the issue at the end of the defect liability period. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations by stating it could not guarantee that it would be accepted as ‘defective’.
39. The landlord’s explanation in its Stage 2 response of 17 May 2024 was reasonable. It said that it did not have the evidence to conclude a) due to “exceptional weather conditions”, whether the garden had been persistently waterlogged so as to indicate an underlying issue with the design or installation b) that the underlying ground conditions were unsuitable for the drainage design or soft landscaping installed.
40. The drainage design had satisfied the planning authority, building control and the warranty provider. The landlord made enquiries of the developer in order to satisfy itself that the developer had followed the approved plans.
41. Despite this position, it was reasonable that the landlord offered to review the issue at the end of the defects period. This showed the landlord maintained an open mind and was prepared to revisit the issue at the end of the defect period.
42. Following the review in July 2024, the landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to top up the soil and lay new turf. It did so because, while it still did not doubt the standard of the works, it had not been able to obtain sign off forms from the developer that the works were completed in accordance with their specification. The turf had established but it had taken on board the resident’s comments.
43. It also topped up the soil to the resident’s specification, rather than its standard quality. The works did not evidence any underlying issues with drainage. The landlord also acted reasonably in agreeing to review the garden in Spring 2025 and to relay turf if it had not established due to natural causes.
44. The landlord’s explanation about the delay to the works from July 2024 was reasonable. According to the parties’ email exchange in September 2024, the landlord had told the resident that it would carry out the works in September 2024. It explained that the best time to lay turf was in mid-Autumn. There was then a short delay, principally in contacting the resident, to the end of September 2024, due to the developer’s delay in producing a programme of works. There was no evidence that was not the reason.
45. The appointment of 10 October 2024 was cancelled with 2 days’ notice due to weather forecast. While the weather on those days may have improved in the meantime, that was reasonable. There was a further 2-week delay from 7 October to 21 October 2024, the landlord having offered an earlier appointment in the meantime. As a fall back, it also offered that the resident could commission her own contractor and the landlord would contribute to the costs. That was reasonable. While we cannot comment on the relative weather conditions on both days, the delay itself, while frustrating for the resident, was short-lived.
46. On 11 October 2024, the landlord offered £50 for the postponed appointment. This was reasonable. It demonstrated that it appreciated the resident’s overall frustration. The cancellation was due to circumstances beyond its control (the weather). The offer, while not satisfactory to the resident, was in excess of its policy. Under the compensation policy the landlord would offer £30 and only if the appointment was cancelled without any notice.
47. The landlord did not refer to the offer of £50 in its third Stage 2 response, which found no service failure. We have taken into account the landlord’s actions, including reviewing the garden in July 2024, carrying out works, and offering to review the garden in April 2025. We consider that, together with the recognition of the overall delays and the £50 for the postponed appointment, there was reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s complaints about the garden.

The landlord’s complaint handling

48. The Stage 2 response of 27 October 2023 offered £100 in full and final settlement of the complaint. It is inappropriate to make an offer of compensation as “full and final settlement” in a complaint response. It is a legal phrase indicating that, if it were accepted, the resident would not be able to make a further claim. The resident is entitled to escalate their complaint and refer their complaint to this Service. The landlord should refrain from using the term altogether unless the parties have agreed to enter into a legally binding agreement, in which case it should explain the full implications of such a phrase and advise the resident to seek independent legal advice. While we note the landlord did not use it in subsequent complaint responses and may have stopped the practice, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in this regard.
49. The resident reported that the appointments due to the remedial works incurred her loss of earnings. The landlord’s decision not to compensate for loss of earnings was reasonable. The landlord’s policy stated that it would expect its tenants and leaseholders to “allow reasonable access to their home for repairs”. We appreciate that the snags meant there would be a number of appointments. This was due to the number of defects and the actions of the developer. We have found that the service failures lay in the delays. We do not attribute fault to the landlord whose role it was to ensure the defects were addressed.
50. However, on 25 September 2023, the landlord stated that it was not within its policy framework to compensate for loss of earnings. The complaints policy stated that it would consider “recompensing” residents at minimal wage levels where there had been repeated unreasonable service failures requiring the customer to take excessive time off work. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord’s email of 8 July 2024 gave its reasons as that it did not “compensate for loss of earnings as (the resident had) requested” as this was contrary to its policy.
51. We are concerned that the landlord only reviewed its compensation offered in October 2023 and May 2024 on 8 July 2024 and after our involvement. We are concerned that landlords may address residents’ complaints differently if they escalate them to our Service. That would be unfair to all its residents. Moreover, it delayed the resolution of the complaint.
52. The landlord recognised the delay to the responses and the responses sought to resolve the complaint by addressing the issues, and set out its learning and promised to monitor the works. It also offered compensation. However, we found maladministration for the distress and inconvenience to the resident given the delay to its ultimate resolution.

Determination

53. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports of defects/snagging in a new–build property.
54. In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her reports about the condition of her garden.
55. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

56. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £850 that it offered through its internal complaints process, or any remaining balance, if it has not done so already.
    2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £150 the landlord has already offered to the resident in relation to its complaint handling.
    3. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should review its complaint handling procedures, including:
       1. Monitoring through to completion the steps it promised to take as resolution of the complaint.
       2. Reviewing compensation in a timely manner in the light of further significant delays to the resolution promised in the complaint response.
    4. The landlord will evidence compliance with this order by a review of its complaint handling in this case by a senior member of the complaints team.
57. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

58. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should inspect the resident’s garden unless it has done so already and if it decides not to relay turf, to explain its reasons.
    2. The landlord should avoid the use of the phrase “in full and final settlement“ within its complaint correspondence, policy and procedure unless both parties agree to, and intend to, enter into a legally binding agreement.
59. The landlord should feedback to the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.