Vivid Housing Limited (202536477)

Decision
Case ID	202536477
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Vivid Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	2 April 2026

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould since 2022 and complained about the landlord’s response to these reports in September 2025. She told it her and her household have health conditions which affect their breathing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to damp and mould

4. The landlord failed to complete a survey in an appropriate time in January 2025 or respond appropriately to the resident’s report of damp and mould in May 2025. It failed to show it completed several repairs or improvements within a reasonable time or offer frequent updates on outstanding work. It offered the resident compensation which was not proportionate to the failings identified.

The complaint handling 

5. The landlord acknowledgements and stage 1 response were responded to in line with its complaint policy. However, there was a short delay in it responding at stage 2 of its complaint process.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by a senior person the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 30 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows: £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to damp and mould £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and is in addition to the compensation it has already paid. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 30 April 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. What the inspection must achieve: The landlord must ensure the surveyor inspects the damp and mould in the property and produces a written report The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there has been a material change in the damp and mould, with due regard to the household vulnerabilities whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the underlying cause of the damp and mould together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution considering the outstanding recommendations  the likely timescales to commence and complete the outstanding work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works It must provide the resident and us with a copy of this report no later than the due date.	No later than 30 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 September 2025	The resident complained about continuing damp and mould.
1 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and after listing the actions it took between November 2022 and 28 April 2025 it said it: had booked a job to paint 4 walls with anti–mould paint for 6 October 2025 following an inspection in September 2025 completed a follow up visit on 25 September 2025 which involved a mould spore neutralising treatment recommended the replastering of 3 bedrooms and arranged an appointment for 28 October 2025 failed to complete the works recommended in its March 2025 survey or do a cavity wall inspection had asked a contractor to arrange a date for this and asked the resident to let it know the date she agreed could not find an escalation request and so agreed to escalate the complaint and to review how it handles damp and mould cases
21 November 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It provided a timeline of events between 1 October 2025 to 21 November 2025 and said: it accepted there had been a further service failure and it had not fairly compensated the resident it had completed all surveys and works except for a cavity wall check it agreed its handling of the resident’s management move request was poor and it failed to make some call backs it apologised it cancelled the survey on 2 October 2025, stating it provided feedback on the importance of communication and updates it introduced close monitoring and quality checking of its commitments and agreed to monitor any outstanding plastering repairs and the replacement bathroom and kitchen fans it recommended the resident make a claim on her home contents insurance for any damaged items she could also make a public liability claim if she felt it had been negligent it awarded £450 compensation (£100 for its communication over the management move, £50 for a missed appointment and £300 for distress)
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said she received the £450 it offered at stage 2 but wanted more compensation and for her landlord to move her. She told us she still has damp and mould in her bedroom and utility room.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

6. The resident told us the damp and mould has affected her and her household’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any 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 distress and inconvenience.
7. We can only consider issues which have exhausted the landlord’s complaint process, where a landlord has had an opportunity to investigate and put things right. While the landlord raised the possibility of using aqua boarding it made no commitment to replace it during the complaint process or in its stage 2 complaint response. We are unable to consider this as it is not within the scope of this investigation. The resident also told it she had mould behind her bedroom radiator and in the utility room on 30 November 2025. As she reported this after the stage 2 complaint response the landlord’s response to these specific reports are outside the scope of this investigation.

What we have investigated

8. Although the resident reported mould since November 2022, she did not raise a complaint about this until 15 September 2025. There was a gap in reports between January 2024 and January 2025. As such it would not be fair to look back to 2022. Instead, we will look at its response to reports since the resident’s report in 2025 until its stage 2 complaint response and any commitments it made in this.
9. The landlord completed a damp survey on 11 March 2025, 50 calendar days after the resident’s report of damp and mould on 20 January 2025. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with its 14-calendar day timescale in its damp, mould, and condensation policy where a resident reports mould which has not affected the plaster.
10. This policy required the landlord to complete work within a “reasonable time”, but it did not define this. Its repairs service standard stated it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days and planned work in a longer unspecified time. It completed a repair of a bedroom trickle vent on 28 March 2025 which was within 17-calendar days of the damp survey. This was appropriate as the survey assessed the risk of damp and mould as “low” and not an emergency. It completed this repair within the timescale for non-emergency work.
11. In contrast it took it 48-calendar days of the survey to paint 1 bedroom with antimould paint and complete a mould wash of 2 bedrooms on 28 April 2025. The landlord’s damp and mould policy did not specify a timescale for doing mould washes or preventive work. Given the household vulnerabilities it was unreasonable to take 48-calendar days to complete simple jobs. When the resident reported mould on walls and plaster coming off on 1 May 2025 it ought to have completed a new inspection as this was a deterioration. Instead, it told her to strip the wallpaper and confirm when she had completed this. This led to an avoidable delay in it acting and was not in line with its damp and mould policy.
12. The resident told the landlord on 22 July 2025 she had removed the wallpaper. It completed a mould wash 2-calendar days later and arranged a damp and mould survey for 31 July 2025, 9-calendar days later. These were appropriate steps to take which it completed in a reasonable time. This survey did not find any risks, but it recommended it fit a positive input ventilation (PIV) system which it did on 29 August 2025, within 29-calendar days of the survey. It also replastered 3.5 bedroom walls on 14 August 2025, 14-calendar days from the survey. These jobs were completed in line with its policy timescales.
13. When the resident told the landlord she still had damp and mould on 5 September 2025 it completed a mould wash within 4-calendar days. It inspected the property again on 19 September 2025 which was within 14-calendar days. It raised a job to stain block and paint 4 walls and completed this within a reasonable time in the context of its 28-day target for repairs. In contrast it completed the replastering work on 9 December 2025, 81- calendar days after the 19 September 2025 inspection which recommended this. This was not appropriate as it was outside its 28-day repair target.
14. While the resident requested temporary accommodation on 19 September 2025 the landlord assessed on this day there was no active damp and mould. However, this was inconsistent with its visit on 25 September 2025 to neutralise mould spores. It did not inform her of its decision that she did not qualify for temporary accommodation until 28 October 2025. It said it told her what her options were a day later but it’s unclear what this involved. It’s also unclear if it infilled the cavity wall having told her on 17 October 2025 it had agreed to do this.
15. We cannot be satisfied, based on its inconsistent actions, lack of clarity, and the delay, that the landlord acted reasonably. It was also unreasonable of it to cancel the survey appointment booked for 2 October 2025 and not to rebook this until 14 October 2025 without informing the resident.
16. On 23 October 2025 the landlord decided to assess if it needed to aqua board the bathroom and it raised a job to rake and reseal around the bath and paint. It completed the assessment on 4 November 2025 and resealed around the bath on 10 November 2025, 12 and 18-calendar days later respectively. It completed these within 28 days which was an appropriate time.
17. The landlord completed another inspection on 27 October 2025. This was on the day Awaab’s law came into force. This requires social landlords to complete damp and mould inspections and remedial work in set times where an emergency or significant hazard is found. This applies where landlords receive notice of damp or mould on or after this date or where there was a material change from a previous report. The inspection confirmed the presence of mould within the resident’s bathroom which is a potential hazard. It had already found out 6 days earlier there was mould in 3 bedrooms and the bathroom which could be a risk and hazard.
18. Once the landlord received the report, it ought to have considered if it disclosed information on whether:
    1. there was a potential emergency hazard – which is a hazard that poses a significant and imminent risk to the health and safety of the household, which a reasonable landlord with knowledge and information about the property and residents would want to make safe within 24 hours
    2. there was a potential significant hazard – which is damp and mould which poses a significant (but not imminent) risk to the health and safety of the household, which a reasonable landlord would want to make safe, but not necessarily within 24 hours
19. There is no evidence it took this step and was a failure to triage in line with Awaab’s law on receipt of the report. The provisions of Awaab’s law are clear that notice can come from a landlord’s own contractor or surveyor – so the landlord should have considered this.
20. There is evidence of a conversation between the landlord and resident on 28 October 2025, in which the landlord’s internal records state the resident “did not understand why they weren’t entitled to a decant, given the works that need doing and the evidence they’ve provided around the effect it was having on their health”. The landlord was aware of the health conditions of the household which placed them at greater risk and because of damp and mould it needed to show it considered this carefully. It is not clear that it factored this in as ‘relevant knowledge’.
21. The inspection of 27 October 2025 made several recommendations but did not consider the impact of the damp and mould on the household. This was not appropriate. As a result of the recommendations the landlord:
    1. assessed the wet rooms on 5 December 2025 which was within 39-calendar days of theinspection
    2. replaced the bathroom and kitchen fans on 6 January 2026, within 32-calendar days of it agreeing to
    3. replaced the kitchen and bathroom door on 3 March 2026, 126-calendar days after it raised the job on 28 October 2025
22. These jobs related to planned improvements and were not subject to the 28-day repairs target. However, as the replacement of fans and doors is a simple job the length of time it took the landlord to complete these was unreasonable without any explanation or updates.
23. It was also a failure of the landlord not to provide the resident with any timescales or address the other work recommended in its inspection report listed below:
    1. inspection of the PIV
    2. reinstatement of the cooker hood outlet if this is the chosen extractor device
    3. undercutting the bathroom door by 10mm
    4. checks on the area connected to the external wall plate
24. The landlord apologised for its failures and offered £450 compensation. It agreed to monitor outstanding plastering and works to replace the bathroom and kitchen fans in its stage 2 response. It also said it would provide feedback on communication and had introduced close monitoring and quality checking of work. This was in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. However, it did not provide the resident with regular updates on the outstanding works or explanations for any delays in completing works. This likely caused her distress and inconvenience, made worse by her vulnerabilities.
25. The compensation payment of £450 only covered the period to the landlord’s stage 2 response. As the failures were ongoing and the damp and mould remains unresolved, we have ordered it to pay additional compensation of £250 (£700 in total). This is in line with our remedies guidance. This allows for payments of this amount where there are failures which had a significant impact, but where the compensation is not proportionate to the failings. We have also ordered it to make an apology.
26. The resident told us she wanted the landlord to move her. This is not an order we can fairly make because we do not know the local housing need or the availability of properties. However, as the resident has said the damp and mould is still present, we have ordered it to inspect the property. The landlord should consider its obligations under Awaab’s law and state whether it has considered the definitions of emergency and significant hazards in its inspection reports.
27. While the resident said she would like all her doors undercut by 10mm and extra floor installation in the bedroom over the alleyway these were not recommendations it made or agreed to.
28. The resident asked the landlord to compensate her for the damage to her belongings. We understand the damp and mould damaged her mattress, clothes, pillows, furniture, and beds. It told her that she could make a claim on her home contents insurance but also said she could make a public liability claim through its insurer. This was appropriate as it was in line with its compensation policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

29. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in our Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
30. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaint procedure in line with its policy. It also issued its stage 1 complaint response within policy timescale. However, it took it 33 working days to respond at stage 2 against its target of 20 working days.
31. Although it extended its stage 2 timescale for responding on 12 November 2025 it had already exceeded the 20 working days deadline by then. It then failed to provide its stage 2 complaint response by the agreed extension date (18 November 2025). This was not in line with its complaint policy.
32. While this was a minor failure the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge this. We have ordered it to pay the resident £50 compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. This is in line with our remedies guidance which allows for payments of this amount where the failure was minimal and short in duration.

Learning

33. The landlord failed to show it completed several repairs or improvements within a reasonable time. Our learning from severe maladministration report (October 2025) contains important learning (see pages 42 to 43). Our service has also provided guidance on complaints involving hazards and training on the learning hub which offers important learning for landlords following the introduction of Awaab’s law. It is clear that the landlord did not consider assessing against the definitions under Awaab’s law and that was a missed opportunity.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s record keeping was good overall.

Communication

35. The landlord’s communication lacked any timeline for the work it agreed to do or frequent updates to explain to the resident the reason for any delays.