Vivid Housing Limited (202446195)

Decision
Case ID	202446195
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Vivid Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	10 June 2026

Background

1. The resident was a shared owner of a property with the landlord. In February 2023 he requested permission from it to put fencing in his front garden. He moved from the property in December 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its request that he remove fencing from his front garden.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its request that he remove fencing from his front garden.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of concerns about its request that the resident remove fencing from his front garden

5. The landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s request to install fencing to his front garden. It awarded some compensation. However, the award it made did not adequately recognise the impact of its failings at that time.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s complaint responses were timely, but the remedy it offered did not reflect the impact on the resident of the failings.

 

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about its request that he remove fencing from his front garden. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its complaint handling.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 08 July 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its communication following permission to erect fencing in his front garden. He said it had given him this permission in February 2023. But it had then asked him to remove the fencing.
21 January 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it had sent the resident a retraction letter in respect of permission as this work was not allowed under the lease. It said that as a shared owner the resident had a joint responsibility to ensure work undertaken was in line with the lease. It offered him £100 for failings in its service and the misinformation.
28 January 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he wanted to keep the fence.
28 January 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It referred to the section of the lease which outlined that fencing was not allowed in the resident’s front garden. It said that the letter of permission should never have been issued to him. It said he should remove fencing and rectify damage to paving. It increased its compensation award to £150.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He wanted appropriate compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings.

 

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 handling of the resident’s concerns about its request that he remove fencing from his front garden.
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident’s lease required prior permission for works. He appropriately contacted the landlord on 1 February 2023 to request permission to install fencing in the front garden. The landlord gave this permission the next day. Although its letter included some conditions, it did not refer to any lease restrictions.
8. On 26 June 2023, the landlord asked the resident to move the fence, initially referring to boundary and right-of-way issues. On 5 July 2023, it noted internally that the lease restricted fencing in the front garden.
9. We have not seen the landlord’s 5 July 2023 communication to the resident. But he responded the same day, disputing its request that he remove the fence. He set out his belief that its earlier permission letter amended the lease.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s contact on 7 and 11 July 2023 but did not provide a full response. It made no further contact with him until December 2024, when he was enquiring about selling the property. In response he said he had assumed the matter had been resolved. The landlord’s 18-month delay in clarifying its position was a failing that caused confusion.
11. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about its miscommunication, threats of legal action and the money he had spent installing the fence after obtaining permission. The landlord acknowledged it had failed to take follow up action after logging the issue in 2023. It also accepted that its February 2023 permission caused confusion. It committed to reviewing leases more thoroughly in future prior to making permission decisions. This was appropriate learning from the complaint.
12. The landlord said permission had been granted in error but maintained that the resident should also have checked the lease. It required that the resident remove the fence and repair paving. However, the resident told us he sold the property in December 2025, without removing the fence, after disclosing the issue to his and the buyer’s solicitors.
13. We acknowledge that the resident had said when escalating his complaint that the only outcome he wanted was for the fence to stay. But it is clear the landlord’s position remained that the fencing would need to be removed. It had already acknowledged it had failed to check the lease before giving the permission. Given the circumstances that had led to the resident installing the fence, it should reasonably have considered potential costs he would incur in removing it. It should have considered a fair contribution towards these. Its £150 award in recognition of the misinformation and “mixed messages” did not provide a fair and reasonable remedy to the situation at that time. We have therefore found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about its request that he remove fencing from his front garden.
14. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s miscommunication, including concern about its threat of legal action following an extended period without communication. The landlord’s award made at stage 2 did not provide a fair resolution to the situation at that time. But we have considered all the circumstances, and the subsequent events. The resident did not incur any costs removing fencing. The award the landlord previously made of £150 compensation is now an appropriate amount in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. It is in line with the range set out in our compensation guidance for maladministration which has not had a permanent impact.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

15. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. We have found that the landlord’s published complaints policy complied with the Code in respect of timescales and the definition of a complaint.
16. The landlord provided its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses to the resident within timescales set out in its complaints policy. However, as set out earlier, the landlord failed to put things right through the remedy offered during its complaint responses. This was a complaint handling failing which meant the resident had to spend time and trouble referring the matter to us. Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered that it make an award to the resident of £50. This amount is in line with the range set out in our compensation guidance for complaint handling failings which had a low impact.

Learning

17. The landlord should ensure that it checks lease agreements before providing permission for work.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord did not provide copies of all communication it sent to the resident. It should retain and supply all records so it can fully demonstrate how it acted.

Communication

19. The landlord did not respond fully to the resident’s communication of July 2023. It missed an early opportunity to clarify the position and did not do so for a further 18 months. This caused confusion about its position on the fencing.