Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Vivid Housing Limited (202442572)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442572

Vivid Housing Limited

31 July 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to his reports about:
    1.  the condition of his windows.
    2. damp and mould and a roof leak.

Background

  1. The resident occupied his property, a one-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy together with his wife and 3 children. The tenancy began in 2017. The landlord had not recorded any vulnerabilities or “service adjustments” for the resident.
  2. On 27 August 2024, the resident made a complaint by telephone. According to the landlord’s Stage 1 response, it was about lack of hot water, delays to window repairs and the presence of damp and mould in the property. The resident reported that he had a newborn baby who had developed a cough. The resident did not escalate the complaint about the boiler to Stage 2 and therefore we have not investigated it.
  3. On 10 September 2024, the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
    1. It referred to repairs to the boiler which had taken place.
    2. It raised a job to repair windows in December 2023. It attended on 6 February and ordered parts but did not raise a follow-up appointment. It inspected again on 19 August 2024. It booked a job to replace the parts for 26 September 2024. It had not only failed to raise the order but did not inform him of this. This was a service failure.
    3. The resident had reported damp and mould in his property on 21 August 2024. It appreciated his concerns about the resident’s family’s health. A surveyor was due to attend 11 September 2024.
    4. It would monitor the above to make sure they would go ahead as planned and contact the resident on 12 September 2024 to follow up.
    5. It offered £150 compensation consisting of £65 for the hot water, £50 for lack of communication and £35 for the resident’s time and effort.
  4. On 24 December 2024 the resident asked to escalate the complaint on the basis that:
    1. The works remained outstanding following the inspection by the damp and mould surveyor.
    2. He was unable to open the windows. He was concerned about fire safety.
  5. On 29 January 2025 the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response as follows.
    1. The resident cancelled the job to repair the windows as the job required to remove the windows in order to replace the mechanisms and he was concerned about his newborn. He could re-raise the job anytime.
    2. The damp and mould survey took place on 11 September 2024. It set out the repairs it had carried out.
    3. On 14 January 2025, the resident reported that the damp and mould was ongoing. He considered it was due to a roof leak. He asked the landlord to inspect the windows and plaster repairs. A repair supervisor would attend on 30 January 2025 to assess the plaster and windows.
    4. It would contact the neighbour again about erecting the scaffolding and would escalate the matter if the neighbour did not consent.
    5. It had failed to keep the resident updated regarding the roof repairs and understood the resident’s frustration.
    6. It would contact the resident on 3 February 2025 to share the supervisor findings and recommendations and set a target date.
    7. It explained that its new system would assist with trancing repairs in the future.

Assessment and findings

The windows

  1. It was reasonable that the landlord raised an inspection for the window although with some delay. It was not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the repairs to the windows. Its obligation was to carry out repairs within a reasonable period. What is reasonable depends on the nature of the repair. Its service standards was to undertake repairs within 28 days. Given the windows were affecting the temperature of the property in the winter months, this was an unreasonable delay from 22 December 2023 to 6 February 2024.
  2. According to the landlord’s note of a conversation of 6 February 2024 between the resident and an operative, the resident was not happy with the landlord’s suggestion to secure the windows shut pending a repair. The resident said he wanted to open them for air.
  3. There was a further delay from 6 February 2024 to 19 August 2024 when the landlord re-inspected the windows. The landlord reasonably acknowledged this delay in its Stage 1 response.
  4. The works to the windows were arranged to take place on 24 September 2024. It was not disputed that the resident declined those works as he was worried about the windows being taken out during the works, with a newborn in the house. There was no evidence that the landlord discussed with the resident what arrangements could be made to minimise the disruption. However, it did explain it would remove the windows one by one. It also stated it would not offer temporary accommodation. There was no evidence that temporary accommodation would have been necessary.
  5. The works were rebooked for 22 October 2024. We do not know what happened about that appointment or an inspection due to take place on 31 January 2025, but the works have not taken place. The resident informed us on 17 July 2025 that he had not wanted the works to replace the windows to take place and had wanted temporary accommodation.
  6. We understand that some windows could not be opened, and some could not be closed. The landlord re-attended on 16 July 2025 to seal the windows which the resident declined. Given the issue of damp and mould in the property and a potential concern about fire safety, sealing the windows shut was not satisfactory. According to the Stage 2 response, the landlord left the resident to contact it. The job raised notes that the property “urgently” needed ventilation.
  7. While the resident’s concerns about dust and no windows, albeit temporary, are understandable, we do not attribute blame to the landlord that it did not carry out the works. This is because the landlord offered to carry them out and the resident chose for them not to take place. We appreciate the resident’s concerns about his newborn. However, we also note the resident had said the family had stayed away from the property at times because of the damp and mould. We consider that the disruption was inevitable.
  8. The landlord told us on 18 July 2025 that the works are now due to take place on 29 July 2025. We find reasonable redress in relation to the works to the windows. This is because the landlord recognised its initial delay from February 2024 to August 2025 when it failed to book the repairs. Given the resident declined the works to the windows since, we consider the level of compensation of £85 to be reasonable as the overall impact was not significant. The landlord recognised its failings and the compensation it offered was within the landlord’s own guidelines. The offer to repair the windows was left open and is booked for 29 July 2025.

The damp and mould and roof leak

  1. The resident has reported that the damp and mould had affected his family’s health, in particular his newborn baby. We have noted this as context, however, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because claims of personal injury need to be decided by a court of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. Following the resident’s report of damp and mould on 21 August 2024, the surveyor inspection of 11 September 2024. This found:
    1. Damp and green black mould in the whole property except the kitchen and a wet living room adjoining wall.
    2. While it categorised the hazard rating as “lowest risk” it stated the works (set out below) were urgent.
    3. The resident reported his child being unwell and needing medical attention.
  3. The works were carried out as follows:
    1. Mould washes in bedroom and bathroom on 10 October 2024.
    2. It upgraded the bathroom fan on 19 September 2024.
    3. It inspected the roof on 4 October 2024. The repairs required scaffolding. It needed the neighbour’s permission which it had not yet been able to get.
    4. On 18 October 2024, it cleared the gutter and on 18 November 2024 it removed ivy.
  4. It was reasonable the landlord carried out the works. However, there was an unreasonable delay, given the job was marked urgent, the resident had reported that his newborn baby suffered from health issues, and the property was overcrowded therefore more inclined to condensation leading to mould.
  5. Under its damp and mould self-assessment, the landlord says it would:
    1. Categorise all damp and mould cases on severity rating in conjunction with HHSRS and assess any vulnerabilities regarding possible decant (temporary accommodation).
    2. Attempt 6 weekly contacts until the damp and mould was resolved, and close the case after 6 months if all remedials are completed.
    3. Provide training to the damp and mould team on ascertaining root cause remedials with use of protimeter, thermal imaging and monitoring equipment.
    4. Adopt a “zero tolerance” to mould.
  6. On 26 September 2024, the landlord offered to support the resident for a move. It asked the local authority to assess the family for a larger property. This was reasonable however there was no indication it considered temporary accommodation. We do not know whether temporary accommodation was indicated but we would expect the landlord to have assessed the need. The local authority confirmed the family was on the “medium overcrowded band”.
  7. There was no evidence that the landlord monitored the situation in the property but was reactive rather than proactive. In response to a further report by the resident on 14 January 2025, it carried out a further mould wash and applied mould block on 14 February 2025 and 14 July 2025 respectively. These were further unreasonable delays in the circumstances.
  8. There were delays to the repairs due to needing the resident’s neighbour’s permission to erect scaffolding. The landlord’s contractors contacted the neighbour on 24 October 2024. There was reference in the landlord’s records to the landlord chasing the neighbour on 27 November 2024 and 11 December 2024 but no evidence of what steps it took. We appreciate it would have been difficult to have enforced erecting scaffolding on a third party’s property and there was an issue with satellite dishes. Repairs took place on 27 February 2025. The landlord told us on 18 July 2025 that there had been no further reports of leaks. However, the resident told us that on 17 July 2025 that the property was still experiencing damp and mould.
  9. The landlord carried out a survey in September 2024, periodic mould washes, and the remedial works raised to date have been completed. However, we did not see evidence that the landlord adopted a zero tolerance to mould, given the delays and the lack of monitoring. We are concerned that the mould returns periodically. The property requires continued proactive monitoring. We have not seen a report reviewing the assessment of the severity of the mould or a HHSRS assessment taking into account the household vulnerabilities after the surveyor report 11 September 2024. The landlord has not recorded the resident’s reports of his baby’s health or recorded service adjustments to its records centrally. In the circumstances, we find maladministration in relation to the resident’s complaint about the damp and mould in his property and will make orders accordingly.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the condition of his windows.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the damp and mould and a roof leak.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £500 for distress and inconvenience. This sum represents approximately 10% of 10 month’s rent (September 2024 to July 2025) which we consider to be a fair percentage, taking into account the resident’s distress and inconvenience, impact on his enjoyment of the property and household vulnerabilities.
    2. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should carry out a review of the damp and mould in the resident’s property and how to minimise the risk of mould including:
      1. Categorise the resident’s property on a severity rating in conjunction with HHSRS.
      2. Assess root causes of the damp and mould, and in accordance its Assessment, and carry out any works required to resolve the issue within a reasonable period.
      3. Assess the resident’s family vulnerabilities and record them centrally.
      4. Consider whether the resident’s circumstances require an offer of temporary accommodation.
    3. The landlord should provide to the resident and the Ombudsman within 6 weeks a copy of the review and any timescales where relevant.
    4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord write to the resident, with a copy to the Ombudsman, and commit to:
      1. Contacting the resident every 6 weeks to monitor the situation.
      2. Carrying out a mould wash at regular and frequent intervals such as bimonthly.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 6 weeks of this report.