Vivid Housing Limited (202442788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442788

Vivid Housing Limited

12 August 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 resident’s reports of floods affecting the property.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a 2-bedroom new build maisonette. This is on a lease agreement with the landlord that began in March 2022. The new build site was completed in January 2022; 2 water pumps were installed on the site to take away excessive surface water.
On 5 January 2024, the landlord’s records refer to a flood that affected the resident’s property and other properties within the immediate area. The resident was concerned with a potential failure of a water pump being switched off, foundation/damp membrane issues and garden drainage concerns. It called the resident on 9 January 2024 and told her to contact the building insurance company regarding the flood damage.
The resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 9 January 2024. She said she had to contact the landlord multiple times and did not hear anything despite the flood occurring 5 days ago.
The landlord’s records of 26 January 2024 refer to it contacting the resident. It apologised for the communication issues and confirmed a faulty pump would be replaced on 22 January 2024. It said it would monitor the pumps closely by fitting a remote monitoring system.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 February 2024 and extended its response time to 16 February 2024 as it said it had to obtain advice from 3rd parties.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 February 2024. It said:
1. When the flood occurred, some residents had contacted it by email, however, the email address was unmonitored. Those residents who called the landlord were directed to its building insurance company. It said that this was the right advice, however, it recognised information should have been directed to its senior management team so that it could have attended the site to provide advice and support to residents.
2. There was an ongoing investigation with the building insurance company about why the flood occurred.
3. It agreed to contact the resident every 4 weeks with updates.
4. It did not have any records that the resident had been told about the water pumps and what to do if an alarm sounded.
5. It assured her the build quality was monitored before ‘sign off’ and handover of the property. It told her she could contact the warranty holder about concerns with the building structure, details of which were in her house pack.
6. Damage to the garden was the resident’s responsibility, however, if the outcome of the insurance investigation proved liability, it told her she would be able to make a claim for losses.
7. The resident was in temporary accommodation arranged by the loss adjuster. The landlord arranged to stop the rent until the property was habitable.
8. It offered the resident £400 compensation. This comprised of £250 for lack of communication on the night of the flood, £50 delay in resolving the issues and £100 in recognition that it should have visited the property.
9. It said it had learnt from the complaint, and it was making sure the unmonitored email address was removed. It would ensure its team knew what to do when there was a large flood. It also agreed to make sure customers receive information about the water pumps when they move in.
There is no evidence the resident progressed the complaint.
The resident made a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance for damage to her possessions. The landlord’s records of 12 March 2024 note that the insurance claim had been denied noting that the water pumps were switched on. It said the pumps were inspected and maintained every 6 months.
On 18 April 2024, the resident told the landlord she was still in temporary accommodation. She said multiple issues had been found at the property while remedial work was being completed. This included missing insulation and an issue with the foundations. The landlord arranged for the developer to inspect the property.
The landlord’s records of 18 December 2024 refer to it providing the resident with the building warranty information in relation to her concerns about building defects.
On 20 December 2024, the resident complained to the landlord about a 2nd flood at her home in November 2024. She told the landlord she wanted it to resolve the floor issue at the property and assure her the flood would not happen again. She wanted the garden damage resolved. She also asked the landlord to take back 25% of the property or pay her £80000. The resident mentioned another option which was for the landlord to move her to another property. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 20 December 2024. It told her:
1. It had found the water pumps to be working correctly. It explained that the drainage system was designed and approved by the planning department to cope with all surface water in the area. However, there had been a large amount of off-site surface water which had impacted on the drainage system. It appeared that most of the water should not be near the site as it was due to other properties/landowners not managing the surface water.
2. It had reported concerns to the council and was in discussions with the property developer to find a suitable plan for remedial work. This included possible upsizing of the water pumps. In the meantime, it had cleared foul and surface water drainage.
3. It could not arrange a swap of properties, and neither could it buy back a proportion of the property. It told the resident she had a Designated Protected Area (DPA) 100% mandatory buyback lease. However, it could not consider her request to buy back the property as this was only triggered when she owned 80% or more of the property and this was not the case. It attached a ‘key information’ sheet about shared ownership which was supplied to her solicitor when she purchased the property.
4. It concluded no failure in its service as it said the drainage issue was coming from the highways. It confirmed that it had provided her with the building warranty information. In the meantime, it said that it was discussing with the developer about water coming through the floor. It agreed to check in with her on a monthly basis.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 January 2025. The landlord responded on 22 January 2025. It did not find any further failures. It reassured the resident it was continuing to engage with the council and highways authority, and building insurance was investigating the damage. It had asked the builder to inspect the property, and it was committed to resolving the issues. It had provided details of the warranty scheme and insurance provider. It did not believe the flooding was due to its negligence. It had stopped rent for the duration of the temporary move. It committed to provide her with regular updates.
On 20 January 2025, the resident referred her complaint to us. She asked for a formal investigation into the developer. She believed they had been negligent in relation to the foundations of the property. The resident wanted compensation for damaged items caused by the floods and enforcement of remedial measures to prevent future incidents.
An independent surveying company appointed via building insurance managed the remedial work at the property. Its report of 20 March 2025 concluded significant issues with the damp proof membrane. It is unclear whether all remedial works have been completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Our investigation focuses on the landlord’s actions in managing the resident’s reports of flood damage. This predominately relates to its communication and liaison with 3rd parties in resolving the issues. The complaint involves the resident’s claim on her building insurance for flood damage and the landlord’s liability insurance for damaged items to personal possessions. It also involves building defects that are being dealt with by the building developer and building warranty. We will not be investigating these aspects of the complaint. We explain more below.

Insurance

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the acts or omissions of the landlord or those acting on its behalf. The management of an insurance policy is not a housing activity, and therefore, we will not be investigating the actions of the insurer.
The resident is claiming for damaged possessions as a result of the floods. She has already pursued an insurance claim through the landlord’s liability insurance which was denied. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint, she should obtain independent legal advice as this matter is best placed to be dealt with through the court.

Building warranty

Part of the resident’s complaint is about building defects. The property is a new build and is covered by a building warranty. The landlord is responsible for maintenance of the structure of the building in accordance with the lease. However, where a building warranty is valid, the landlord should contact the warranty scheme to resolve the defects. We will not be investigating the building warranty. However, our investigation will assess the landlord’s actions in resolving the building defects via its 3rd party building warranty scheme.

The resident’s reports of floods affecting the property.

Lease

A brief summary of relevant parts of the lease are outlined below.
1. Section 3.4 of the lease outlines resident repair responsibilities:
  1. 3.4.1 – The resident is responsible for keeping the interior of the premises in good condition. This includes glass in windows and door, plaster and other internal covering, all radiators and sanitary fixtures and fittings including gas and electrical fittings.
2. Section 5.2 outlines that at all times during the term of the lease, the building should be insured against loss of damage.
3. Section 5.3 of the lease outlines landlord repair responsibilities that include the roof, foundations, and balconies. It is also responsible for maintenance of the building structure.

First flood

The resident reported to the landlord a flood at the property on 5 January 2024. The landlord responded on 9 January 2024 and told her to contact her building insurance. It noted the resident did not have contents insurance. On the same day, the resident raised a complaint because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s delayed response.
Shared ownership and leasehold residents are covered by a single building insurance policy arranged by the landlord. The landlord explains this within its ‘key information’ provided to new residents via their solicitor. The landlord appropriately directed the resident to make a building insurance claim.
The landlord’s ‘key information’ also tells residents to arrange contents insurance cover and provides details of how to do this before the completion of the sale. The evidence suggests the landlord appropriately gave the resident key information on arranging contents insurance during the sale process.
The landlord delayed in responding to her initial report of a flood by 3 working days. Given the situation was an emergency, we would expect the landlord to contact the resident the same day to offer advice and support. The landlord’s delayed action was unreasonable causing the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 January 2024 and apologised for its communication issues. It confirmed a faulty water pump would be replaced and in future it would remotely monitor the pumps. This issue has been investigated by the landlord’s building insurance.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response in mid-February 2024. It recognised its delay in contacting the resident to provide support. It also recognised the resident had not been told about the water pumps on site or what to do if an alarm should sound. It had arranged to stop the rent for the period she was in temporary accommodation until the completion of remedial works. It also agreed to pay her a total of £400 compensation; £250 for its communication failure, £100 support failure and £50 for its delayed complaint handling. The resident did not progress the complaint.
Where the landlord has attempted to put things right for the resident, we consider our Dispute Resolution Principles of:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
We are satisfied that the landlord gave the resident appropriate advice to make a claim through building insurance. It appropriately provided the resident with contents insurance advice during the sale process. It identified its communication failures, recognised the distress caused to the resident and told her how it would learn from the complaint. The landlord’s compensation offer of £400 was reasonable and reflected the adverse impact of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord therefore put things right for the resident at this point.

Second flood

In December 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that there had been another flood causing damage to the property. The resident had become increasingly frustrated with the situation and told the landlord she wanted it to buy back a share of the property or move her to another property.
The landlord registered a new stage 1 complaint and responded to her on the same day (20 December 2024). It had investigated the issues and found a large amount of off-site surface water from the surrounding area had caused the flood. It was in discussion with relevant parties about the issue to find a resolution. It told her it could not consider a buy back of the property as this was only available to those who owned 80% or more of the property. It also could not move her to another property under the shared ownership lease. It directed her to the building warranty regarding her concerns with the building structure. It assured her it would keep in regular contact about the outcome of its investigations.
The landlord’s ‘key information’ on shared ownership outlines building warranty information. Section 5.6.1 states:
1. For new-build homes, the building warranty will cover the cost of structural repairs (typically for the first 10 to 12 years). The resident is also likely to benefit from a defects liability period.
2. Defects liability period usually lasts for around 12 months after the build completion but can vary depending on the contract. During this period, the contractor must put right at their own expense any defects or faults which arise.
The landlord had contacted the building developer and told the resident to contact the building warranty provider. It was appropriate for the landlord to liaise with the building developer, however, it is unclear why the resident was told to contact the building warranty provider directly. We have not had sight of the building warranty to understand the process of claim, however, given the landlord had a legal obligation to maintain the building structure it had a responsibility to pursue and manage oversight of remedial works in conjunction with the developer and building warranty scheme provider.
The landlord does not have provision to arrange another shared ownership move. This is because there are legal implications affecting the sale process. The lease agreement states that once the leaseholder staircases to more than 80% ownership, the landlord can require the leaseholder either to transfer the lease back to the landlord or to a person nominated by the landlord. The landlord’s decision to refuse buy back was therefore aligned to the lease agreement.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord in mid-January 2024. The landlord responded a few days later and told her it had not found any additional failures. It reassured the resident it was committed to resolving the issues.
In conclusion, the landlord demonstrated it had taken appropriate steps to investigate the source of the flood and find a resolution. It was understandable that a resolution was going to take time as it required in-depth investigation that involved 3rd parties. However, it committed to keeping the resident informed of the outcome of its investigation at regular intervals.
The landlord directed the resident to make a claim through its building insurance. However, when potential building defects were identified, it told the resident to contact the building warranty provider. While this did not appear to be detrimental to the overall management of the floods, it is unclear why it took this position when it was responsible for maintenance of the structure of the property.
Overall, the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of floods at the property. It recognised its lack of communication with the resident and put things right through its initial stage 1 complaint response. Throughout the events, the landlord demonstrated it had managed the issues through its involvement with third parties which included insurance, the developer, and council.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of floods at the property.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks the landlord should provide the resident and our Service with an update on its actions to resolve flooding in the area. This should include its communication plan with the resident on its regular updates with her.
The landlord should clarify its position and role in the claim process under the building warranty scheme. It should also reflect if it needs to review its position and advice given to residents when initiating the building warranty scheme.
The landlord should confirm its position on these recommendations.