Vivid Housing Limited (202430841)

Background

1. The resident lives in the property with her 2 sons. The resident said she reported damp and mould from the time she moved into her new‑build home in 2020. Throughout her complaint she said she felt unheard and repeatedly dismissed by her landlord, especially when she raised concerns that mould might be growing behind the tiles. She also said the damp and mould affected her ability to enjoy her home.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about damage to personal belongings.
4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. There was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the bathroom.
6. The was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about damage to personal belongings.
7. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the damp and mould reports

8. There were delays by the landlord in its handling of the damp and mould reports. It failed to follow its damp and mould procedure, did not act within required timeframes, and did not escalate its approach when the mould kept returning. Its compensation offer did not reflect the prolonged failures or their impact.

Handling of report of damages to personal belongings

9. The landlord failed to follow its own compensation guidance. When the resident reported that damp and mould had damaged her belongings, the landlord did not signpost her to its insurance process as its policy requires.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord recognised and acknowledged its complaint handling failings at both stages of the complaint process and offered redress that we consider reasonable.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

11. The resident told us that the situation affected her and her son’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for an injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for the distress and inconveniences.
12. The resident reported experiencing damp and mould since 2020 and said she made a complaint about this at the time. However, this was not brought to our attention within 12 months of the landlord’s complaint procedure being completed. This investigation focuses on reports of damp and mould from February 2022 addressed through both stages of the landlord’s complaint process and any commitments it made as part of its complaint response on 8 July 2024.
13. The resident said the landlord breached statutory duties, including Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, and Awaab’s Law. While we cannot make a legal determination on statutory breaches, as these are better suited to a court. These provisions provide relevant context for the landlord’s responsibilities. Our role is to consider whether the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its policies, procedures, and obligations, and whether any maladministration occurred.

What we investigated

14. In February 2022, the resident reported a faulty bathroom window and possible mould. She raised damp and mould concerns again on 2 March 2023 and contacted the landlord several times in April, May and June 2023 for updates. The landlord carried out an inspection on 18 July 2023 and rated the hazard as category 4 (low risk).
15. The landlord’s damp mould and condensation procedure states that the landlord is required to triage the report within 24 hours for every category and for category 1-4, it would send a specialist within 2 weeks. Instead, it took 17 months from the first report in February 2022 to carry out the inspection. This was not in line with its procedure and was a failing.
16. The inspection found heavy mould on the bathroom ceiling and recommended repairs. The landlord raised these repairs and completed them between July and September 2023, including mould washes on 1 and 14 September, plastering on 15 September and fitting a new fan on 29 September.
17. For category 3 or 4 cases, the procedure required the landlord to carry out a mould wash within 1-week, complete root‑cause works and remedial work within 2 weeks and finish any other remedial work within 28 days. In this case, the landlord took significantly longer to complete the works. This was not in line with its procedure and was a failing.
18. On 4 October 2023 the resident reported ongoing damp and mould and raised concerns about the earlier works. She made several more contacts in October. The landlord carried out a damp and mould inspected again on 24 November 2023 and rated the hazard as category 3 (medium risk).
19. It took 51 days from the report in October 2023 to carry out the inspection. This was not in line with the landlord’s timeframes and was a failing.
20. The inspection found high condensation in the bathroom and bedroom and recommended repairs to overhaul the fan, along with mould washes to the bathroom ceiling and 2 bedrooms. The landlord carried out repairs to overhaul the fan on 18 December 2023 and completed the mould washes on 8 January 2024. In this case, the landlord took significantly longer than the 1 week expected to carry out the mould wash.
21. On 16 January 2024 the landlord said the bathroom needed painting and decorating, but the records do not show when the work took place. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 March 2024 with more photos showing severe mould and insects. She contacted the landlord again in May and June 2024 to report reoccurring damp and mould behind the bathroom tiles.
22. The landlord carried out another damp and mould inspection on 2 July 2024 and rated the hazard as category 4 (low risk). The inspection recommended a mould wash in the bathroom and removing a section of tiles to check for mould growth or a possible leak.
23. The landlord carried out the mould wash on 11 July 2024, which was 9 days after the inspection. It then fitted aqua panels around the bath on 8 August 2024, which was 37 days after the inspection. In this case, the landlord exceeded the 1‑week timeframe for the mould wash and the 28‑day timeframe for other remedial works.
24. The landlord did not follow its damp and mould procedure. It failed to triage the resident’s reports within 24 hours, failed to arrange a specialist visit within the 2‑week target for category 3 and 4 cases or the 2‑working‑day target for higher‑risk situations, and failed to carry out mould washes within the required 24–48 hours (category 1 and 2) or within 1 week (category 3 and 4).
25. It also failed to complete root‑cause repairs within 1–2 weeks as the procedure requires. The procedure further states that the landlord should remain in contact with the resident every 6 weeks to check the condition of the property, but there is no evidence that it maintained this regular contact. The long gaps between reports, inspections and works show that the landlord did not keep to its timeframes or its communication requirements.
26. The landlord inspected the damp and mould in July 2023, November 2023, and July 2024. These repeat inspections showed the landlord kept treating the damp and mould but did not find or repair the cause. The absence of the required 6‑weekly contact also meant the landlord missed opportunities to identify the continuing problems sooner.
27. The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says it will adapt its approach, escalate the matter sooner, and consider whether the property remained suitable. The procedure also allows for considering temporary accommodation in persistent cases. In this case there is no evidence the landlord considered this approach.
28. The landlord’s complaint process was an opportunity to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. The resident reported that the damp and mould had returned in March 2024, yet the landlord’s complaint responses did not consider these further reports. By the time it issued the stage 2 response, the landlord had already carried out another damp and mould inspection. At this point, it should have recognised the recurrence and either addressed it within the stage 2 response or advised the resident to log a new complaint.
29. The landlord made 2 offers of compensation. It offered £250 on 24 April 2024. However, it did not explain how much of this related to the damp and mould issues. The landlord then offered £150 on 31 May 2024 for delays in dealing with the damp and mould.The landlord’s offer of compensation does not go far enough to put things right. Its failings and avoidable delays negatively impacted the resident over a prolonged period. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay additional £600 to the residentin line with our remedies guidance for failings that caused distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period.

30. The resident said the damp and mould damaged her personal belongings. We do not usually tell landlords to reimburse residents for damaged items because deciding liability is not part of our role. Courts or insurance claims normally handle liability. Our role is to assess whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
31. The landlord’s compensation guidance says that if a resident believes the landlord caused damage to their belongings or decoration, the landlord should treat this as an insurance claim. It should then pass the claim to its insurance team so the insurers can assess it.
32. In its stage 1 response on 24 April 2024 the landlord offered the resident £100 for damage to her furniture. Its approach was confusing. Its policy says it can only apply discretion outside its policy in limited circumstances. It should have explained this and set out what its policy normally requires, which would have helped manage the resident’s expectations.
33. In its second stage 1 response on 31 May 2024 the landlord said it needed proof of purchase, photos of the damage, the date the damage happened, and reasons why the resident believed the landlord was responsible. It needed this information to compare with its survey and repair records. The resident said she did not have photos, and the landlord said it could not consider compensation without them.
34. The landlord did not say whether it would consider any other options if the resident was unable to provide photos. It would have been appropriate if the landlord signposted her to its insurers, in line with its policy. It did not do this.

35. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition.
36. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It states it will acknowledge a complaint by close of business the following day and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It says it will respond to escalations within 5 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
37. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 October 2023 to express dissatisfaction towards its handling of the damp and mould in the bathroom. She made contact on 5 January 2024 to raise a complaint.
38. The resident emailed the landlord again on 14 March 2024 with more information. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 April 2024. This was 188 days after she first raised concerns on 19 October 2023. In line with the Code, a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action.” The landlord should have accepted and logged this as a stage 1 complaint at that point. The landlord’s failure to log the complaint was not in line with the Code.
39. In its response on 24 April 2024, the landlord said it had spoken with the resident on 10 January 2024 and that she agreed to withdraw the complaint. The resident disputed this. Neither party provided evidence of this conversation, so we cannot confirm what was discussed. Although the landlord said it was withdrawing the complaint, it still sent a complaint response and offered the resident the option to escalate. This likely caused confusion, as its actions did not match its stated position.
40. The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 May 2024. As the landlord had issued the stage 1 response on 24 April 2024, it should have treated the 30 May contact as a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. Instead, the landlord treated it as a new stage 1 complaint. This was not appropriate. It acknowledged it the same day and sent another stage 1 response on 31 May 2024.
41. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 June 2024 to say she was unhappy with the compensation and the handling of the damp and mould reports. The landlord escalated the complaint and acknowledged it on 12 June 2024, 4 working days later, in line with its policy and the Code.
42. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 8 July 2024, which was 18 working days after the acknowledgment on 12 June 2024, in line with the Code and its policy.
43. The landlord’s handling of the complaint process caused confusion. It sent 2 stage 1 responses only a few weeks apart. The responses of 24 April 2024 and 31 May 2024 were very similar and covered the same issues. Sending 2 almost identical stage 1 responses in such a short time made it seem as though the landlord had restarted the complaint instead of moving it forward. This left the resident unsure about the status of the complaint and caused avoidable frustration.
44. The landlord offered £150 for its complaint‑handling failures in its first stage 1 response and £600 for further complaint‑handling failures in its second stage 1 response which included its missed opportunity to log a complaint and not keeping to its times frames. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and made an offer of redress to the resident which resolves its complaint handling failings.

Learning

45. The landlord failed to adequately address repairs, damp, and mould in this case. It should consider reviewing how effectively its policies are implemented in practice to ensure they achieve the intended outcomes

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

46. This case shows the need for clear and consistent record keeping when managing complaints. When a resident expresses dissatisfaction, the landlord must record this properly, confirm whether it accepts the complaint, and keep evidence if a resident chooses to withdraw it.
47. The records show long gaps between reports, inspections and repairs, unclear timelines for key works, and missed updates to the resident, indicating poor record keeping and inconsistent communication.
48. This case shows that the landlord needs to keep accurate records, follow its own timeframes, and maintain regular communication with residents so that damp and mould issues are properly monitored and resolved without repeated delays.