Vico Homes Limited — case 202523270

Decision Case ID 202523270 Decision type Investigation Landlord Vico Homes Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 27 January 2026 Background The resident moved into the property by a mutual exchange. The previous resident had reported issues to the landlord about damp and a slug infestation in the property. The resident noticed these issues as she was moving in and reported them to the landlord. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 3 April 2025 because the issues were not resolved and she was concerned that the damp and slugs were a hazard.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and a slug infestation, and the related repairs. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Our decision (determination) We have found: There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, a slug infestation, and the related repairs. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of damp and a slug infestation, and the related repairs The landlord told the resident after she moved into the property that works relating to damp had all been completed. However, there was an open case with the landlord’s damp team and some works were outstanding. When the resident raised a report about damp and slugs, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment to determine the priority of the work. The landlord offered the resident appropriate tenancy support and carried out a number of inspections and repairs.

However, it did not consider the repairs history of the property. This meant that it did not identify a build-up of water beneath the property for 6 months, despite the landlord being aware of the issue 10 months earlier. It is unclear whether the slug infestation has been resolved, or if the landlord has made a lasting repair to the flooding issue. Although the landlord offered some compensation it was not proportionate to the impact of its failings. The landlord’s handling of the complaint The landlord failed to raise a complaint for 3 weeks after it was requested by the resident.

The landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation of £25. In our opinion this put things right for the resident and was reasonable redress for the minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided. 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 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident: £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of damp, a slug infestation, and the related repairs. The £185 offered in the stage 2 complaint response, if not already paid. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. No later than 24 February 2026 2 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 24 February 2026 3 Contact the resident The landlord must contact the resident to: a. Find out if the slug infestation has been resolved. b. Explain if it has completed a lasting repair to prevent a build-up of water underneath the property. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure that it has tried to contact the resident by the due date and provide us with documentary evidence.

No later than 24 February 2026 4 Inspection order If the landlord has not already carried out a lasting repair to prevent water build-up underneath the property, or if the resident reports that slugs are still causing an issue inside the property, then the landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.

What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that a suitably qualified surveyor inspects the relevant areas of the property (including the void underneath the property) and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: – Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. – Whether water building up underneath the property is the likely cause of the previous damp issues and/or slug infestation. – A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to damp and slug infestations.

– The likely timescales to commence and complete the work and whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary. No later than 24 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations Our finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is made on the basis that the compensation of £25 has already been paid or will be re-offered to the resident. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 12 February 2025 The resident contacted the landlord because of damp and slugs inside the property since she moved in.

The landlord raised a service request. 3 April 2025 The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint. She told the landlord that repairs had not resolved the issue. The resident has a young child with additional needs and was pregnant. She was concerned that the property was not a hygienic environment for her family because of the issues. 7 April 2025 The landlord sent an acknowledgement of the complaint and also telephoned the resident 3 days later to discuss her concerns.

14 April 2025 The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said that work had been carried out to resolve the issues. However, it would send its surveyor to reinspect the property and make sure all work had been completed. The landlord admitted that it could have done more to keep the resident updated. 7 July 2025 The resident complained to the landlord again. She said that it had not told her there were issues inside the property before she moved in. Although the landlord had carried out multiple repairs, the issues returned.

Her main concern was that slugs were getting into food, clothes, and toys. She asked the landlord to move her. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint acknowledgement. 31 July 2025 The landlord sent the resident an extension request for its stage 2 complaint response. The resident agreed to this the next day. 28 August 2025 The landlord said that it had followed its procedure when allowing the resident to move into the property. However, it acknowledged that it would have been reasonable to let the resident know about the ongoing works to resolve damp and it was reviewing its mutual exchange procedure.

The landlord also stated it had taken 5 weeks to start works. It offered compensation of £210 to the resident and said that moving her was not needed because works had been completed. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident contacted us the day after she received the stage 2 complaint response. She told us that although the landlord had completed various repairs, she believed the issues were ongoing. 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 damp and a slug infestation, and the related repairs. Finding Maladministration What we have not investigated The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the issues outlined in her complaint had a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of her family. 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 will decide if the landlord should pay further compensation for distress and inconvenience. What we have investigated During the mutual exchange process the landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 21 January 2025. The inspection report noted that major damp proof works had been recently completed.

According to the responsive repair records for the property, repairs relating to damp and a previous slug infestation had been closed down, but it is not clear from the job notes if these works had been successfully completed. On 3 February 2025 the resident reported issues of damp and slugs in the property to the landlord. The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 February 2025 and said she was upset that the landlord had not told her about the issues before she took on the tenancy.

The landlord’s damp and mould procedure says that when a resident makes a report of damp it will attempt 3 times to complete a questionnaire to inform the best course of action. The landlord raised a service request, but there is no evidence that it completed a risk assessment or questionnaire to identify the priority. On 17 February 2025 the landlord told the resident that damp works had been completed before she moved in. However, on 18 February 2025 an internal landlord email stated that there was an open case with its damp and mould team.

The evidence suggests that poor internal communication and record keeping by the landlord had led to miscommunication with the resident. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 21 February 2025. This was 14 working days after the resident had made the report. According to the landlord’s priority assessment matrix, the surveyor’s visit was within its stated timescales for all types of damp other than the most extensive cases. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

However, the landlord was aware that the resident had a young son in the property and was pregnant during the time of the complaint. If the landlord had completed a risk assessment or questionnaire, then the priority may have been increased. It was a failing by the landlord not to consider the potential hazard caused by damp and slugs by carrying out a risk assessment. The landlord has provided evidence that its tenancy support service contacted the resident and offered welfare support when she made a damp and mould service request.

It also advised the resident how she could contact it in the future if she wanted further support. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s damp and mould procedure and tenancy management framework to offer welfare support to residents. The surveyor identified 14 repairs needed and communicated these to the resident. The landlord carried out repairs in March 2025, but on 3 April 2025 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said that although the landlord had carried out repairs the problem was not resolved.

The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 14 April 2025. It said that work had been completed and it was hopeful this would now resolve the issues. However, it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect and make sure all the identified repairs had been completed. The landlord admitted that it could have kept the resident more updated during the repairs process. The landlord did not identify any other failures or offer compensation to the resident. The landlord completed further repairs in April 2025.

The resident contacted the landlord on 29 April 2025 asking for an update on the issues. On 13 May 2025 the landlord’s surveyor visited the property for another inspection and identified 4 outstanding repairs, which were put in writing to the resident. These works were completed by 13 June 2025. On 7 July 2025 the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said that although the landlord had carried out multiple repairs, the issues always came back. On 1 August 2025 the landlord sent its surveyor to the property.

The landlord did not identify any damp and therefore did not recommend any damp works. However, on 18 August 2025 the landlord found that there was a large volume of water in a cavity beneath the property and arranged for the water to be removed. In the repair records of the previous resident, the issue of water collecting under the property had already been identified. The evidence suggests that the landlord had not adequately assessed the repair history of the property using the information available.

This was not acknowledged during the complaint process and may have caused a delay in the resolution of the issues. On 28 August 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said that it should have advised the resident of the outstanding damp and mould works when she moved into the property. The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure at the time did not state that a landlord should communicate outstanding planned works with residents during the mutual exchange process.

As a result of its complaint investigation, the landlord stated that it was reviewing its process to prevent the situation from happening again. This was an appropriate response by the landlord to identify and apply learning from the complaint process. The landlord offered compensation to the resident of £185 broken down as: £100 for distress and inconvenience. £35 for the delays in completing works. £50 for not making the resident aware of any planned works during the mutual exchange process.

The resident had asked the landlord a number of times during the complaint process to rehouse her. We would not order a landlord to rehouse a resident. This is because we do not know the local housing need or available properties. However, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord told the resident that since all of the damp works had been completed, the landlord considered the property to be habitable.

The landlord’s surveyor had inspectedand not identified any areas of damp. However, the surveyor’s report did not address the issue of slugs in the property and state whether this had been resolved. When the resident contacted us on 29 August 2025, she was concerned that the issues had not been resolved. On 26 November 2025 the landlord inspected the property and confirmed in writing to the resident that no further repairs were required. However, it is unclear from the evidence whether the landlord had identified water collecting underneath the property as the main cause of the damp and slug issues or carried out lasting repairs.

We have been unable to confirm with the resident during our investigation whether the issues are ongoing. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.

Although the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings, the sum of £185 was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, especially considering the vulnerabilities of the household at the time. We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp, a slug infestation and related repairs. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £200. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration, where the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

We have made orders for the landlord to contact the resident to find out if the slug infestation has been fully resolved, and to explain if repairs are required to prevent water from collecting underneath the property. If the resident reports that slugs are still an issue in the property, or if it has not completed repairs intended to prevent underground flooding, then it must carry out an inspection to assess if any works are required. Complaint The landlord’s complaint handling.

Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. The stage 2 complaint response detailed that the resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 17 March 2025. We have not seen evidence of this request. However, it is not in dispute. The resident raised a further complaint less than 3 weeks later which the landlord responded to within its timescales.

Therefore the detriment to the resident was the delay she experienced in the landlord acknowledging that she was making a complaint. The landlord apologised for its error and offered the resident compensation of £25 for failing to raise a complaint on 17 March 2025. The landlord’s complaints policy states that any offers of redress will be fair, appropriate and proportionate to the complaint. The landlord has made an offer of redress with respect to its complaints handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Learning The landlord followed its procedure when arranging the mutual exchange of properties between 2 residents. However, the landlordrecognised that it is reasonable to advise a customer of outstanding works for the property that they are moving into and told the resident that it was reviewing its process. Landlords should empower front-line staff to identify and flag potential changes to procedures that improve customer experience. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The issues that had been identified in the property during the previous occupancy did not adequately inform the landlord’s plan of action after the mutual exchange.

It would improve the experience of the resident if the landlord thoroughly assessed the repair history of the property when looking at resolving property repair issues. Communication The landlord miscommunicated with the resident by telling her that damp repairs had been completed before she moved in, when the damp team still had an open case and repairs outstanding. If the landlord improves information sharing between teams it will be able to provide more accurate information to residents during different processes within the organisation.