LiveWest Homes Limited (202430995)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house. He is diagnosed with autism. The resident reported a number of repairs to the landlord. Some repairs have been completed but the roof leak, damp and mould and some of the works in the kitchen and bathroom remain outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s responses to:
   1. A roof leak, damp and mould, and associated repairs.
   2. Repairs to the kitchen cupboards, the bathroom toilet, shower, and the garden path.
   3. The resident’s request for the bathroom and kitchen to be replaced.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A roof leak, damp and mould, and associated repairs.
   2. Repairs to the kitchen cupboards, the bathroom toilet, shower, and the garden path.
5. The was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the bathroom and kitchen to be replaced.
6. The landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

A roof leak, damp and mould, and associated repairs.

7. There were significant unreasonable delays in the landlord’s handling of these repairs which remain unresolved. Although the landlord acknowledged some of its delays in its complaint responses, the landlord had not provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the adverse impact caused to the resident.

Repairs to the kitchen cupboards, the bathroom toilet, shower, and the garden path.

8. The landlord’s responses to the repairs to the bathroom toilet, and shower were reasonable. However, there were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen cupboards, and the garden path. The landlord has not provided an appropriate remedy to recognise the impact caused to the resident for its delays.

The resident’s request for the bathroom and kitchen to be replaced.

9. The landlord responded to the resident’s request in line with its procedures.

Complaint handling

10. There were delays in the landlord sending its stage 1 complaint responses. It appropriately apologised for this and awarded compensation in its final response to the resident’s complaint in June 2024.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

11. The resident first reported the roof leak in December 2023. The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to deal with responsive repairs within 28 calendar days. The landlord investigated two separate leaks in different rooms on the first floor, and the loft space at the property. Its operatives visited the resident’s property 6 times between 7 December 2023 and 8 March 2024 in line with its published timescales for responsive repairs.
12. The resident said the operatives who visited his property confirmed there was a leak. We are unable to corroborate what the resident has said the landlord’s operatives had told him. Where there is a lack of independent evidence, we as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what was said to the resident by the landlord’s operatives.
13. The landlord’s records show its operatives said they had been unable to locate any sign of water ingress in the roof. Its operatives replaced the loft insulation and installed vents stating the issue was with damp and mould, caused by condensation and a lack of ventilation in the roof space. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its professionals and that it raised works they had recommended to fix the issue. However, the landlord’s most recent survey (July 2025) said the loft insulation had not been laid in some areas of the loft. This included directly over the water stain in the bedroom. This is evidence of poor workmanship and is the reason we have raised an order for the loft insulation works to be completed in line with the surveyor’s report.
14. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to emergency repairs the same day if possible, and always within 24 hours. It was positive it responded within these timescales on 18 March 2024, after the resident reported the roof was leaking into the electrics in the main bedroom at the property.
15. The landlord acted appropriately by raising a further inspection of the roof and it then carried out the recommended repointing works within its published timescales. It also attempted to install more tile vents, but the resident refused this. We understand the resident was frustrated as the landlord’s repairs had not resolved the problem.

16. In November 2024 the resident said the leaks in the roof were getting worse. This resulted in damp and mould on the ceilings in the bathroom and the resident’s main bedroom. The landlord’s operative visited the property again and repeated there were no signs of any leak, and it was condensation. We have not seen any evidence the landlord sought to investigate the underlying cause or fix the damp and mould in the resident’s property. We understand the landlord’s lack of action caused the resident frustration.
17. In January 2025 the resident cancelled an appointment for the landlord’s operative to carry out another inspection of the roof. He asked for the landlord to arrange an independent inspection instead. This was a reasonable request as the issue had remained unresolved after 14 months. The landlord’s operatives had also carried out multiple visits and repeated the same findings, and its attempts to fix the issues had not worked. The landlord agreed to use an independent contractor 6 months later in June 2025. This significant delay in it agreeing, resulted in the damp and mould getting worse which had an adverse impact on the resident who was trying to get the matter resolved.
18. The independent roofing contractor submitted a quote on 24 June 2025. It recommended works which included fitting a lead saddle and lead cover flashing to the roof. We have not seen any evidence the landlord followed up on this quote which has now expired. If the landlord disagreed with the independent contractor’s recommendations it was entitled to get a second opinion. However, it is unacceptable that it failed to take any action and has not communicated with the resident about its decision.
19. This is the reason we raised an order for the landlord to carry out a further independent inspection of the roof. It is to also carry out an inspection of the damp and mould in the main bedroom and bathroom at the property which the resident said remains unresolved. It is accepted repairs to a roof can be subject to weather conditions and therefor may take longer than the landlord’s published timescale. However, we will expect the landlord to keep the resident updated, setting out a timescale that is reasonable to complete any recommended works.
20. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for such situations, where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. The landlord’s award of £100 it offered in its complaint responses does not adequately recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. Nor does it reflect the time and trouble caused to the resident pursuing a remedy for the damp over nearly 2 years. The landlord missed the chance to put things right resulting in this finding of maladministration.
21. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 in recognition of these failures. This level recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by trying to have the roof leak, damp and mould, and associated repairs resolved in his home.

The landlord’s responses to repairs to the kitchen cupboards

22. As part of the resident’s complaint on 28 March 2024, the resident said the doors on the cupboards in the kitchen were damaged and did not match. He also said the handles and hinges on the doors had rusted. The landlord raised an inspection which it then closed after the resident had not responded to a voicemail it left to arrange an appointment in April 2024. The landlord should have taken further steps to communicate with the resident about this inspection. Some residents may not listen to their voicemails. It should have been more proactive in its communication with the resident and considered alternative methods including by sending an email or a letter.  
23. The resident said he did not chase this issue due to a change in his personal circumstances which had impacted his family. It was positive the landlord reopened this issue once the matter was referred to us, and that it carried out an inspection in July 2025. This identified a number of repairs to the kitchen cupboards. Both parties have come an agreement to postpone these repairs, as the landlord has agreed to replace the kitchen between April 2026 and June 2026. For this reason, we will not raise any further orders in respect of these outstanding repairs.

The landlord’s responses to the bathroom toilet

24. In April 2023 the landlord fixed the soil pipe and fitted a plastic pan connector to the bathroom toilet. The resident complained 11 months later. He said the toilet was old, and the landlord’s temporary fixes had left a foul odour in the bathroom. In the landlord’s complaint responses (April 2024 and June 2024), it told the resident its repair in March 2023 had been permanent. There is no evidence the resident chased the repair during these 11 months and so it would be reasonable for the landlord to have considered that the repair had been resolved. Landlord’s need to be financially responsible so it is acceptable that where it could repair the toilet it did this rather than replace it.
25. The landlord also responded appropriately by advising the resident if there were further issues, he could report this, and it would carry out another inspection of the toilet.

The landlord’s responses to the shower

26. In March 2024 the resident complained the electric shower was expensive to run as it was not connected to the air source heating system at the property. This had been installed prior to the resident moving into the property in August 2022. The landlord appropriately investigated this issue and communicated to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response (April 2024), that it was its usual practice for the electric shower to run independently of the air source heating system.

The landlord’s responses to the garden path

27. The resident raised a repair about the concrete paths in his garden in March 2023. He said they were cracked and caused a trip hazard. The landlord delayed carrying out its initial inspection in May 2023. The landlord should have carried this out as a responsive repair within 28 calendar days.
28. It was positive the landlord completed repairs to a drain linked to the issue with the paths at the resident’s property, in July 2023. It is accepted the landlord then closed the works in September 2023, without repairing the paths. The landlord’s failure to complete these repairs will have caused the resident frustration, which he communicated in February 2024, when he chased the landlord to complete the works. 
29. In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response (April 2024) the landlord accepted it had failed to follow up on a recommendation to inspect and investigate the reason the concrete garden paths had dropped. The landlord then carried out some of these works in May 2024, after a short delay which had been caused by poor weather conditions.
30. In August 2025 the landlord carried out further works to level out the concrete path around a manhole cover which the resident said had not been carried out previously.
31. The landlord took multiple visits and 29 months to complete these works. The landlord is not responsible for the short delay caused by the poor weather conditions in April 2024. However, it is responsible for delays between March 2023 and April 2024, including for its errors in following up on its own recommendations, and poor workmanship which resulted in multiple visits to the property through to August 2025. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
32. The landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation for its delays in repairing the garden paths in its stage 1 complaint response on 30 April 2024. Whilst it was positive the landlord attempted to put things right; it has not gone far enough, and this did not consider the continued delays after its stage 1 complaint response.
33. The landlord failed to put things right during its complaints process and missed the opportunity to learn the lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from its mistakes resulting in us finding maladministration for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
34. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 in recognition of these failures. This level recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in trying to get the garden paths repaired at the property.

35. The resident has said the landlord agreed to replace the bathroom and kitchen before he moved into the property in August 2022. We have not seen any evidence to corroborate what the resident has said. Where there is a lack of independent evidence to support the account made by the resident, we as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what was said between the resident and the landlord.
36. The landlord acted appropriately by completing its post void inspection form in July 2022. The landlord recorded that the condition of the bathroom, and the kitchen had met its lettable standard. The resident also signed the landlord’s customer sign up checklist and acceptance form in August 2022. This included the resident accepted the property in its condition, and that he would raise any issues about this within 48 hours of him receiving the keys. We have seen no evidence the resident raised any concerns.
37. The resident complained about the condition of the bathroom, and the kitchen 18 months after he moved into the property. He disputed the landlord replaced each of these rooms in 2008. The landlord’s records show both rooms were replaced in 2008, and it was right the landlord communicated this to the resident.
38. It was also positive the landlord agreed for its surveyor to carry out a further inspection, and then agreed to replace the bathroom, and the kitchen as part of its planned works between April 2026 and June 2026. The landlord’s overall communication and responses to the resident were fair and reasonable in the circumstances and is the reason we find no maladministration for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

39. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 20 March 2024. He then raised his further complaints 8 days later. The landlord sent the resident its first stage 1 complaint response to his original complaint 11 working days after its acknowledgment. In the landlord’s first stage 1 complaint response on 5 April 2024, it said the resident would need to raise his further complaints separately, which the resident did the same day. The landlord then provided its further stage 1 complaint response 17 working days later.
40. The resident wanted his complaints to be responded to within a single stage 1 complaint response. It was a decision for the landlord whether to separate them out or provide a single response. However, its responses were sent outside the timeframes set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The landlord should have provided its stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days.
41. Whilst these delays were not excessive, it is worth noting any delay would have inconvenienced the resident. It was appropriate the landlord apologised for this in its second stage 1 complaint response on 30 April 2024.
42. The landlord sent its final response to the resident’s complaint 25 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. This was acceptable because the landlord explained to the resident that it needed further time to respond. The Code sets out that the landlord should provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. However, where the landlord may need further time to respond to a resident’s complaint, this should not exceed a further 20 working days.

43. The landlord accepted there were delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to 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 consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
44. The landlord’s apology and offer of £325 compensation for this aspect of the resident’s complaint was appropriate in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication

45. The landlord’s file of evidence submitted to us in this case, was a positive example of the standard of evidence we would expect which the landlord is encouraged to continue.
46. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory. In this case, the records show the landlord failed to listen to the resident’s concerns and this has delayed its repairs. This has included it resolving the issues with the roof over a prolonged period. The resident’s frustration and dissatisfaction may have been avoided if the landlord’s repairs and maintenance team had followed our spotlight report recommendations.