Our Business Plan 2026-27 consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Vivid Housing Limited (202427889)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427889

Vivid Housing Limited

3 October 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 request for works to her water-logged garden.

Background

  1. The resident and her husband have a shared ownership lease with the landlord. They moved into the property in May 2021. The property is a house with a private garden. The landlord is a housing association and is the freeholder of the property.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord, via its web chat, on 12 March 2024. She said her garden was water-logged and “completely unusable”.  The landlord confirmed the resident was a shared ownership leaseholder and she was therefore responsible for repairs and garden maintenance.
  3. On 29 May 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said she was “fed up with the garden situation”. She said there was “no drainage” and the “turf hadn’t been laid properly”.
  4. On 31 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. The resident had moved into the property in May 2021 and had until May 2023 (the 2-year defects period) to raise any issues. It stated the resident had not reported the water-logged garden until March 2024.
    2. It could not “go back to the developer” to ask it to resolve the garden issue because the issue had not been reported within the first year of the resident living at the property.
    3. It had processed a claim to the NHBC (the warranty provider for the property) on the resident’s behalf.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 17 June 2024. She said she wanted the landlord to pay for drainage to be put in the garden and for it to be re-turfed.
  6. On 25 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It re-confirmed its position, which it had provided at stage 1 of the complaints process, and stated it had not found any failure in its service.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to us. She said she wanted the landlord to resolve the issues so that she could use the garden.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s water-logged garden

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states shared owners are responsible for their own private gardens serving their individual properties. The resident’s lease agreement also confirms this. Therefore, when the resident contacted the landlord regarding the garden, it was reasonable for it to tell her that it would not be able to assist her.
  2. Furthermore, the landlord’s website provides information for leaseholders. This includes details regarding the “defect period” and what the leaseholder is responsible for. The defects period is the first 2 years after a new property is first sold. The landlord is responsible for fixing defects which are reported during this 2-year period. A defect is a problem with the construction of the building which would have been present when the property was built and affects the use of the property.
  3. When the resident contacted the landlord, on 12 March 2024, it signposted her to the National House Building Council (NHBC). The property was built in 2021 and the resident had a 10 year warranty (Buildmark) with the NHBC. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to advise her to contact it.
  4. The landlord provided call notes, from March 2024, which showed it was proactive in explaining to the resident how the NHBC warranty worked. It liaised with the NHBC to provide the resident with her warranty policy number. This was supportive and showed it was committed to helping the resident. On 17 April 2024 the landlord raised a claim with the NHBC on the resident’s behalf. This was evidence of good practice as it was not obliged to do this because residents can raise claims themselves without the landlord’s involvement.
  5. On 29 April 2024 the NHBC declined the resident’s claim. It said the structural warranty section of the policy did not cover the garden. It explained the garden would only be covered by the builder’s liability section of the policy which operated “2 years from completion”. Therefore, the resident needed to have reported the issue prior to 19 May 2023 in order to be covered.
  6. The landlord provided internal emails which showed it had checked the resident’s records to see if she had reported anything within the building warranty period. It also asked her for any evidence to show she had reported anything previously. This was evidence of the landlord being pro-active and supportive.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were reasonable. It reiterated its position that the resident had not reported the water-logged garden within the defects period and was therefore not covered under the building warranty. It also explained that the resident was responsible for the garden and provided a copy of its repairs responsibilities document. While we appreciate this may have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord followed its policies and procedures and was therefore not required to provide the outcome the resident wanted.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for works to her water-logged garden.