Vivid Housing Limited — case 202527798

Decision Case ID 202527798 Decision type Investigation Landlord Vivid Housing Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Applicant Date 13 May 2026 Background In July 2024, the applicant told the landlord that she wanted to buy one if its shared ownership properties and asked whether there were any fire safety issues associated with it. The landlord explained that fire safety works were completed in 2021 and the property did not require a EWS1 form. Around September 2024 the landlord later produced a EWS1 form which was required.

However, the form was invalid. The applicant withdrew her application to buy the property. She was later billed by her solicitor for the cost of the abortive sale. She asked the landlord to reimburse her for this as she considered it gave her misleading information about the property that caused her to withdraw from the sale. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a shared ownership application process. Our decision (determination) There was reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a shared ownership application process.

Reasons It is not within our remit to determine whether the landlord is responsible to pay the applicant’s legal fees. This is best placed for the courts. Rather, our role is to review the evidence and determine whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it does not offer compensation to non-customers (by which it appears to mean non-residents). Following the landlord’s response to her July 2024 enquiry, the applicant progressed her application to buy the property.

In September 2024 her solicitor asked the landlord for information about the property’s fire safety checks. The evidence shows that, following the enquiry, it was identified that the property required a EWS1 form and that the landlord had one issued in 2023. Also around September 2024, the housing sector and associated industries became aware that the fire engineer that issued the 2023 EWS1 was under investigation. As such, some mortgage lenders during this period started to decline applications where this particular engineer’s work formed part of it.

In the landlord’s complaint responses, it: Appropriately acknowledged and apologised for incorrectly telling the applicant that the property did not require a EWSI form in July 2024, when it did. Said it would be for the applicant’s solicitor to carry out checks as part the process and to identify any issues. Said the main reason the applicant withdrew her application was because her solicitor told her that they would have to inform the mortgage lender of the issue with EWS1 form.

Said it did not offer non-customers compensation. We acknowledge that the applicant was a first time buyer, and that when she learned the landlord initially provided incorrect information to her, it would have caused her some distress. However, the landlord’s response was reasonable in the circumstances and aligns with the evidence provided. This is because, as the property did have an EWS1 form, that the landlord said it did not need one initially was not main cause of the issue.

The issue arose when the EWS1 form was identified as invalid during the time the applicant was progressing her application to buy the property. That the EWS1 form was identified as in invalid during that time was unfortunate, but outside of the landlord’s control. It is noted that there may have been a delay in issuing a new EWS1 form, given the circumstances. However, it would have been for the applicant and her solicitor to discuss her options at the time as to whether she withdrew from the sale or waited for the new form.

Therefore, the landlord’s apology was appropriate redress in the circumstances. Also, it is generally accepted there is some level of risk, including risk of delay and unrecoverable costs, associated with any property sale process. Prospective buyers are liable for these costs. The applicant’s solicitor should have explained this.