LiveWest Homes Limited (202417299)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom terraced house with her partner and 3 children. She has physical disabilities affecting her mobility. Two of her children and her partner are autistic. One of the children with autism also has asthma. She complained to the landlord about the amount of time it took to resolve a roof leak and associated ceiling repairs in that child’s bedroom. She also complained it had not taken any action to address damp flooring in the downstairs of the property where she slept due to her disability. She was unhappy with the landlord’s final response to her complaint and asked us to investigate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of roof repairs.
   2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp flooring.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
   2. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp flooring.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Roof repairs

6. The landlord delayed in repairing the roof. It did not take vulnerability into account and prioritise the work. Its communication with the resident about timeframes was poor.

Damp flooring

7. The landlord delayed in investigating and resolving the damp flooring. It carried out numerous inspections but did not communicate findings or next steps to the resident. It did not take vulnerability into account and prioritise the work.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord should have recognised much sooner than it did that the resident had complained and that it should respond in line with its complaints policy.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that:
   1. It did not resolve the roof leak on the first attempt given it reoccurred in August 2024. It explained that initial repairs may not always succeed, but recognised the distress caused by the reoccurrence and offered £100 compensation.
   2. Its communication with the resident when repairing the roof both times “could have been better”. It explained that sometimes delays can occur while it is seeking quotes from contractors but recognised that it did not clearly communicate timeframes which added to the resident’s distress. It offered £400 compensation.
10. While the above meant the landlord accepted some fault, it suggested in its stage 2 response that aside from the communication issues, it had complied with its repairs policy. We disagree.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy committed it to completing repairs within 28 days and ideally in one visit. We accept that the complexity of roof repairs mean it may take more time and more visits than this to resolve. However, it was excessive that it took 6 months in total to fully complete the roof repair following the first leak.
12. An initial cause of the delay was that the landlord was seeking quotes from contractors. Over two months passed from the resident’s report before scaffolding was erected and investigations began. While the landlord is required to ensure value for money, it must balance this against its statutory repairing obligations and the needs of its residents. Its repairs policy stated that it would take vulnerability into account when prioritising repairs. We saw no evidence it did this, despite the resident telling it when she reported the leak that the affected bedroom belonged to an autistic child with “severe” asthma.
13. The resident complained to the landlord during 2024 that her child “spent the whole winter with a leaking bedroom roof”. When she reported the further leak on 1 August 2024, she said the child had been admitted to hospital for their asthma earlier that year and was now “unable to sleep in their room”.
14. The landlord should have provided an emergency response in line with its repairs policy given the resident indicated the leak was significant enough to stop her vulnerable child sleeping there. It did not do so. It did not carry out an initial inspection until 13 August 2024. It then took a further month before it returned with its contractors to determine the scope of the work. It was not until 25 September 2024 that it raised works orders for the required repairs. This was 8 weeks after the resident’s initial report. The reason for this delay is unclear, but we have not seen any evidence to show it was avoidable. It was, in our view, an inappropriate delay, particularly given the health conditions of the resident’s child.
15. Once the landlord raised the works orders in September 2024, it completed the repairs to the roof within 2 weeks. In November 2024 it repaired internal damage to the bedroom ceiling. It believed the ceiling only required decorative repair and did not agree with the resident that there was mould in the plasterboards. However, it recognised these concerns were distressing her so reasonably agreed to replace the plasterboard before completing the decorative work.
16. Overall, we have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs. In its complaint responses it acknowledged shortcomings in its communications and fairly compensated the resident for this. However, it failed to acknowledge its delays in completing the roof repairs. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we order it to pay her an additional £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays.
17. The roof repair completed by the landlord in October 2024 resolved the leak at that time. However, the resident has recently told us that there have since been further roof leaks affecting the same bedroom and also a bedroom to the rear of the property. She has reported these to the landlord and raised a new complaint about its response. We therefore make no further orders in relation to the roof but may consider this new complaint if she refers it to us once the landlord’s internal process is complete.

18. In January 2024 the resident told the landlord that the floor in the kitchen of her open-plan kitchen and living room was “squidgy” and uneven, causing her cupboards to sink. She told it she slept in the room as she was disabled and the uneven floor was affecting her balance. In the months that followed she told it the problem had spread and the flooring throughout the room was “mouldy” and “wet”, with “black sludge” coming out of a hole in it. She also raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her child with “severe” asthma, who had already “spent the whole winter with a leaking bedroom roof”.
19. Given these vulnerabilities, the landlord should have prioritised its response to the resident’s reports in line with its repairs policy. It failed to do so. For example:
    1. It took over a month before it carried out an initial inspection. This was not in line with its repairs policy, even for non-urgent repairs, which required it to carry out an initial inspection within 28 days of the resident’s report.
    2. It conducted 3 inspections before it asked a surveyor to carry out the fourth inspection. It is unclear why it did not instruct a surveyor sooner. This would have minimised disruption to the residentin line with its repairs policy.
    3. In took 9 months, 5 inspections, and repeated contact and complaints from the resident before it devised an action plan for resolving the issue. This delay was excessive and inappropriate, particularly given the vulnerabilities in the household and that it was the main living, cooking and dining space affected.
20. In its complaint responses the landlord set out a timeline of events from April 2024 onwards. It said its surveyor inspected the property on 21 May 2024 and 14 October 2024. It acknowledged the surveyor identified remedial work was required during his first inspection, but it did not ask its contractor to carry out this work until after the surveyor’s second inspection. It offered the resident £1,000 compensation for this, citing “moderate level impact” in line with its compensation policy.
21. While this went someway towards the landlord making amends for its failings, it did not go far enough. The landlord did not acknowledge the full extent of its delay, given its timeline only started 3 months after the resident’s initial report. Although it offered compensation for its failure to appoint a contractor sooner, it did not apologise for this and said it had otherwise “acted in accordance” with its repairs policy. It did not acknowledge the other ways in which it had not. For example, its repeated inspections and failure to prioritise the repairs taking into account the household vulnerabilities.
22. We also note that in its complaint responses the landlord said its surveyor had not identified what the source of the damp was, but that he thought it may have been due to water coming from a worktop dishwasher. The landlord later discovered when carrying out the remedial work that the source of the damp was an incorrectly fitted soil stack. It is difficult to understand how it had not identified this by the time of its complaint responses given it had by then carried out 5 inspections. That it had not done so was not in keeping with its repairs policy which requires it to investigate and resolve the root-cause of damp and mould “at an early stage”.
23. Following its stage 2 complaint response, we are satisfied the landlord acted appropriately in overseeing the repair work through to completion. The work included removing flooring throughout the downstairs, letting the floor dry out, laying a damp proof barrier and new flooring, replacing damaged kitchen units, and repairing the soil stack. It had identified there was a risk mould spores could be released when the floor was lifted. The resident was also concerned about the impact of the disruption on the 3 members of her family with autism. The landlord therefore appropriately arranged for the family to move into temporary accommodation for 5 weeks while it completed the work
24. Overall, we have found that there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp flooring. The extent of the damp and mould, the length of its delay in resolving the issue, and the impact on a vulnerable household are all aggravating factors we took into account when reaching this decision.
25. The landlord has already paid the resident £1,000 compensation through the complaints process for its delay in appointing contractors between May 2024 and October 2024. However, it overlooked that it should have appointed the contractors shortly after the resident’s initial report in January 2024. We have therefore ordered it to pay her a further £600 to take account of this additional 4 month period of delay.
26. The resident has recently told us that she is concerned the new flooring in her kitchen and living room is not well fitted and has become uneven. She is concerned this is a sign of further damp. We have therefore ordered the landlord to inspect this.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy, which is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), states:
    1. A “service request” is usually a first time request from a resident asking the landlord to put something right. If a resident who made a service request indicates that they are dissatisfied at any time with the landlord’s response or actions being taken, it would raise the concerns as a complaint.
    2. A “complaint” is an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf.
28. The resident first reported that the roof was leaking in September 2023 and that her floor had sunken in January 2024. As these were first reports, it was appropriate for the landlord to treat these as service requests. However, in numerous follow up emails throughout 2024, she expressed dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled these issues. For example, she complained to the landlord on at least 3 occasions in April 2024 that it had not yet taken any action to resolve her “mouldy and wet” flooring and that her living conditions were “not acceptable”. She said within an email sent that month that her autistic and asthmatic child had “spent the whole winter with a leaking bedroom roof”. She sent similar emails complaining about the same issues in May 2024 and June 2024.
29. In line with its complaints policy and the Code, the landlord should have asked the resident if she wished it to respond to these concerns through its formal complaints process. Instead,it did not raise a formal complaint until months later in October 2024 when an elected representative asked it to respond to the resident’s concerns. It should not have taken for her to spend time and trouble asking for the elected representative to intervene, before the landlord recognised her complaint.It should have listened to her when she told it directly she was dissatisfied and it should have responded in line with its complaints policy. That it did not do so was maladministration in its complaint handling.
30. We have ordered the landlord to review its complaints training. In line with our Remedies Guidance, we have also ordered it to pay the resident £150 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling in this case. Had it investigated and responded to her complaint sooner, it may have resolved the issues with damp and mould in the flooring months earlier than it did. She would also have been saved the time and trouble of contacting an elected representative and repeatedly asking the landlord for updates on the works.
31. Once the landlord accepted in October 2024 that the resident had raised a formal complaint, it adhered to the procedural requirements of its complaints policy and the Code. This included acknowledging the complaint at both stages and issuing responses within appropriate timeframes.

Learning

Repair timeframes

32. From the end of this month, Awaab’s Law comes into force and the landlord will be legally required to respond to hazards such as damp and mould within strict time limits. It should therefore learn from its delays in this case and consider what went wrong, which is why we have ordered it to carry out a case review.

Vulnerability

33. The landlord is reminded that its “Repairs Service Standard” requires it to take vulnerability into account when determining how to prioritise a repair.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was on the whole good. The information it supplied us with provided us with a complete picture of its handling of the repair issues. This assisted us in carrying out a thorough investigation and reaching our conclusions.

Communication

35. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It failed to manage her expectations about the amount of time it would take to complete the roof repairs. It carried out at least 4 inspections of the flooring before her complaint, but it did not let her know after these inspections what its findings were and what action it intended to take. Instead she had to repeatedly chase it for updates. The landlord should learn from this and recognise that when a resident has taken the time to facilitate an inspection, it should as a minimum update them on its findings and proposed next steps.