Vivid Housing Limited (202421339)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202421339

Vivid Housing Limited

30 September 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould resulting in bugs.

Background

2. The resident has had a shared ownership lease with the landlord, a housing association, since December 2023. The property is a new build 1-bedroom flat.
3. The resident reported mould in the property in December 2023 and in the communal hallway in January 2024. In April 2024 she reported bugs in both. She complained to the landlord on 20 May 2024, and said:
   1. She was using dehumidifiers, which were costing money. When she turned them off, the humidity levels rose again within 4 hours.
   2. The bugs, which she had identified as booklice, were coming out of the plasterboard. They were caused by the humidity and mould. She was wasting her time and money on cleaning products and Polyfilla.
   3. She wanted the landlord to provide an electric fan or free-of-cost dehumidifiers for each room, fit vents in the property and hallway, get rid of the mould and bugs, and pay compensation.
4. In its stage 1 response of 3 June 2024 the landlord said:
   1. The property was within the defect period when the resident reported the issues. It and the developer had responded to her reports and cleaned the mould. It listed the dates and jobs completed in the last few months.
   2. Mould and condensation were common in new builds (taking one to two years to fully dry out). Advice was given on managing this to help the property dry out, kill mould spores, and prevent regrowth. It had provided links to its website which had information and guidance on damp and mould and how to reduce this.
   3. It had visited the property following her request for an extra vent in the living room. Her request was declined as the windows (installed with trickle vents) were within specification.
   4. It had investigated the communal area multiple times but found no damp or mould. She had been advised of this.
   5. As a shared owner, she was responsible for the pests within the property and needed to arrange the required investigations and remedial actions (it provided links and a detailed pest control matrix of responsibility). A job was raised for the communal area but was delayed by a technical issue. It had chased this, and a technician would attend as soon as possible. It apologised.
   6. Its damp and mould team would attend the communal area on 7 June 2024.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 June 2024. She repeated her previous points and added that she was told 2 more vents would be installed in the property, but was then told there were enough already. She said the landlord’s communication was poor, it gave conflicting information, and it had not shared survey results with her. She wanted the landlord to advise what measures it would put in place.
6. In its stage 2 response of 9 July 2024 the landlord said:
   1. The developer had maintained regular contact with her and visited several times about the issues it had raised with them.
   2. An operative had discussed the benefits of dehumidifiers with her, mentioning he used one. A direct recommendation of purchase was never made so it would not compensate for this.
   3. Its pest control contractor had visited the communal area. As the property was mentioned, they knocked to speak with her and check inside for a more comprehensive investigation. This was not an uncommon practice, but it should have advised her first. It understood the confusion caused as it had told her she was responsible for pest control in the property. There was no charge to her for this visit.
   4. More vents could not be fitted as enough were already installed in line with specifications. The suggestion of more vents should never have been made.
   5. It had failed to share the results of the damp and mould and pest control surveys (attached now).
   6. It should have considered including the property within the damp and mould survey due to the high levels of humidity she reported. It had booked this now for 17 July 2024. Should the survey or other investigations find a property defect contributing to the high humidity and damp, it would discuss that.
   7. It had learned from the complaint and implemented 3 priority areas for all staff; reducing wait times for non-emergency repairs, customer call wait time, and communication.
7. The survey was done in July 2024. In August 2024 the landlord and developer visited the property and made an action plan. The hallway carpets were lifted to confirm floors were dry, the kitchen hood extractor was tested, the bathroom extractor and trickle vents were checked, and all were confirmed in working order. The resident referred her complaint to us in September 2024 and said she was concerned about the impact on her health. She wanted more vents, extractors, and compensation.
8. A heater and ventilation were installed in the hallway on 10 February 2025. The landlord then paid the resident £250 compensation for the length of time taken to resolve the issue, and the time she spent chasing for updates.

Assessment and findings

9. The resident has said the matters complained of have negatively affected her health. It is beyond our remit to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and any ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience experienced because of any failure by the landlord.
10. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings. It is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s reports. She may wish to consider seeking advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.
11. The resident said she has experienced snagging issues and repair delays since moving in. A separate complaint about this was addressed by the landlord in March 2024, with compensation paid. If there are remaining concerns she should log these as a new complaint. We are only able to consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its complaints process. Once any new complaint has completed the landlord’s complaint process, it can be referred to us. This investigation broadly considers events up to the installation of the heater and ventilation in the communal hallway in February 2025.
12. It is important to note that it is not our role to establish the underlying cause of damp and mould or pests. This investigation considers only whether the landlord responded appropriately and proportionately to the reports it received from the resident, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable.
13. As the resident is a shared owner leaseholder, the landlord has limited repairing responsibilities. Under the terms of the lease, the resident is responsible for repairs and maintenance within the property. The landlord is responsible for repairs in the communal area.
14. The landlord has accepted its failings within its complaint responses and its follow up response of 28 February 2025. There is nothing further we can usefully add to that. The question before us is whether those failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
15. Evidence shows the landlord handled the resident’s reports appropriately when first made. Correct information and guidance were provided, with attendances to clean inside the property and hallway. As the resident continued to report ongoing issues, relevant surveys were then instructed.
16. The landlord correctly advised that time was needed for the natural drying out process. While the presence of mould was distressing for the resident, it was not what is considered severe in our experience. Further, as a social housing provider, the landlord is accountable for its public expenditure, further bearing in mind its reduced responsibilities for a shared ownership lease. Therefore, a proportionate approach in its initial investigations and actions was reasonable.
17. The landlord then responded appropriately to the surveys conducted in June 2024. It arranged to carry out an internal survey of the property and provided meters to monitor humidity levels. This was to establish the root cause of the humidity and consider what further action might be needed. While it did not initially explain this to the resident, this was rectified in the stage 2 response.
18. Following the July 2024 survey and visits of August 2024, it was concluded that although there was no requirement for venting the small common area, it could benefit from this. The landlord and developer explored how this could be achieved without invalidating the warranty or compromising fire safety measures. Explanations and updates were provided to the resident in September, October and November 2024.
19. There was a delay in the developer providing the requested quote for the work. But we have seen evidence of the landlord chasing and requesting clarification and updates from them. The quote once received in January 2025 was then approved within a reasonable time, and the work carried out in a timely manner thereafter.
20. The resident has asked to be reimbursed for the cost of using dehumidifiers. We have not seen evidence this was a direct recommendation by either the landlord or the developer. The use of dehumidifiers to combat damp, mould, and humidity is an expected measure in our experience. It is often the first step taken to combat damp and mould developing in a property. Evidence shows the resident had purchased her own and borrowed one from her mother prior to any discussions about this with the landlord. Therefore, we do not reasonably expect the landlord to reimburse for this.
21. The landlord has accepted its failings, sincerely apologised, and offered £250 compensation. These actions demonstrate that it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. However, the sum of £250 was not proportionate to the failings identified in this case and is not in line with our remedies guidance. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould resulting in bugs.
22. The resident had to chase repeatedly as the landlord did not always take a proactive approach to keeping her informed. Explanations were delayed, sometimes with conflicting information provided, thus adding to her frustration. Combined with the overall time taken, the £250 is not an accurate reflection of the trouble and inconvenience caused. The landlord is, therefore, ordered to pay a further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould resulting in bugs.

Orders

24. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £150 compensation (in addition to the £250 previously paid) for its handling of her reports of damp and mould resulting in bugs.