Livin Housing Limited (202435389)

Background

1. The resident complained to the landlord about its delays and change of position about wall insulation. The landlord explained that external wall insulation was not possible and acknowledged it had given inaccurate advice. It apologised, offered compensation and said it would carry out alternative works to improve insulation. The resident was dissatisfied with its actions and with some of its staff conduct and brought his complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s insulation concerns.
   2. Response to the residents staff conduct concerns.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlords response to insulation concerns.
   2. The staff conduct concerns complaint is outside our jurisdiction to investigate.
   3. No maladministration in the landlords complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

Insulation

4. The landlord offered compensation in line with its policy, and provided clear and accurate explanations for its decisions, which were supported by its inspections of the property.

Staff conduct

5. The complaint about staff conduct is separate to the complaint considered in this investigation and has not completed the landlord’s complaint process.

The complaint

6. The landlord missed its stage 1 and 2 timescales by a short period, but the delay had no impact and does not amount to a service failure.

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.

What we have not investigated

7. The resident informed us of new issues concerning his ceiling, replacement kitchen and a bathroom leak. It is not apparent if these issues are related to his insulation and cold concerns. Nonetheless, before the Ombudsman can consider a complaint, it must have completed the landlord’s complaints process. The resident should therefore raise his new concerns with the landlord as a formal complaint. If he remains dissatisfied after receiving its final response, he can bring the matter to the Ombudsman as a new complaint.
8. As part of his complaint, the resident said the conditions of his home effected his daughters health. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that his households health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. Because this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.

What we have investigated

9. Throughout 2023 and early 2024, the resident reported poor insulation and cold in his home. He asked when new windows and insulation would be installed. The landlord said an internal insulation programme was proposed but unconfirmed, and window replacements were scheduled for 2030. Inspections followed, and repairs were raised for windows and doors. It offered window repairs, which the resident declined. Some front door repairs were completed, but the front door frame could not be fully refixed.
10. On 17 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that it would address the front door frame when external wall insulation was done. It said the work would also include door and window replacement. However, in September 2024, the landlord later explained external wall insulation would not proceed but it would continue to attend to repairs. The resident also reported radiator issues and the landlord raised works but the resident pushed back work due to family circumstances.
11. The resident complained to the landlord about its change in position on insulation and subsequent delays. The landlord acknowledged earlier references to external wall insulation were incorrect, apologised, and offered £150 compensation. It confirmed windows would be replaced in 2030/31 and heating in 2027/28 (with review for 2025/26).
12. The resident escalated his complaint. The landlord reiterated insulation was not possible, proposed repairs, and committed to replacing front and rear entrance doors and frames. The resident told the Ombudsman that he remained dissatisfied with the landlords response. Although he accepted the external insulation would not be done, he wanted the landlord to replace the windows.
13. Operatives inspected the windows in November 2024 and found them serviceable, raising minor repairs. The landlord explained replacement alone would not improve insulation and proposed solar panels. The resident declined repairs, claiming the windows were 34 years old. The landlord confirmed installation was in 1996/97 and provided records. It explained Decent Homes Standard advises windows have a 40-year life, meaning replacement by 2036, but its own standard sets 35 years (2031). The records confirm the landlord’s operatives’ view that window replacement was not required. Door replacements and heating upgrades were completed in early 2025. The resident clearly had a different view and disputed the landlord’s decision and records of the windows’ age. Nonetheless, a decision whether to replace or repair and renew windows is the landlord’s to make, based on the evidence it has about their condition.
14. Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It acknowledged it did not manage the resident’s expectations about insulation and offered compensation in line with its own policy. It correctly applied its own repair policies and Decent Homes Standard guidance for window replacement. It brought forward heating upgrades, replaced doors, and proposed alternative insulation solutions. It relied on its operatives’ inspections which confirmed the windows were serviceable, and raised repairs, but these could not proceed due to lack of agreement or access. There is no evidence of inaction beyond the failing it acknowledged and reasonably remedied.

15. The evidence shows that the resident raised concerns about staff conduct separately, but around the same time as the complaint considered in this investigation. The landlord referred these concerns to its complaints team on 19 September 2024. However, there is no evidence of what happened after this referral.
16. The landlord intended to treat the staff conduct concerns as a separate matter and did not address them as part of the complaint investigated here. No evidence has been provided of the complaint completing the landlord’s complaint process yet. For this reason, these concerns will not be considered as part of this investigation.
17. The landlord should ensure that it handles the resident’s staff conduct complaint appropriately under its complaints process. The resident has the option of bringing this complaint to us once he has received its final complaint response.

18. The landlord operates a formal two-stage complaints process. Its policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The policy is in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
19. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2024 and issued its stage 1 response on 7 October 2024, 12 working days later. On the same day, the resident requested escalation as he was dissatisfied with the response. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 November 2024, 23 working days after the escalation request.
20. The landlord missed its policy timescales at stages 1 and 2, by 2 and 3 days respectively. However, these were short delays. There is no evidence of any specific effect from them, and they are not significant enough to be considered formal complaint handling failures.