LiveWest Homes Limited (202336483)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom fifth floor flat with his wife. The landlord’s records note the resident reported mobility issues in 2024 and one contractor discussed the resident and his wife being elderly in terms of the impact the ongoing leak had on them. In March 2023 the resident reported a leak reoccurred in his kitchen ceiling. The landlord did temporary works to the balcony above before the leak reoccurred again. After this the landlord inspected and attempted further temporary repairs. The landlord then considered its plan for permanent repair. It has confirmed to us it has not yet completed a permanent repair, but it has completed a lasting temporary repair.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Leak Repair

4. We have found maladministration as the landlord considerably delayed trying to find the source of the leak and making an effective temporary repair even after its stage 2 response promised major works. It delayed making a plan for a permanent repair or to update the resident on a repair plan. It is unclear whether its last repair has fully resolved the issue. We have seen no evidence the landlord fully considered the impact on the resident and his vulnerable household. As such, we have found the compensation it offered during its complaints process to be insufficient.

Complaint Handling

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord slightly delayed acknowledging the resident’s complaint and escalation request. It also made a factual error in its stage 1 response. However, these did not impact the overall complaint outcome for the resident or cause any detriment. As such, the compensation the landlord offered for its complaint handling failures in its process was enough to put things right.

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.

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.

6. The resident and landlord agreed this leak had been intermittently ongoing for several years. We do not dispute this, and the landlord acknowledged some events from 2019 and 2020. However, due to the time that has passed and lack of evidence we are not able to assess those historical events. The landlord also said there was a gap in leak reports from October 2020 until March 2022. We have seen evidence the resident’s reports became continuous from March 2022. As such, our investigation will focus on the events from March 2022 leading to the resident’s formal complaint in November 2023.
7. We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of mould the resident reported in April 2024 as the landlord has not had a chance to consider this as part of its internal complaints process. If the resident wants to pursue this, he may raise a new complaint with the landlord and exhaust its process before we can investigate.
8. The resident reported the leak on 4 occasions between March 2022 and September 2022 and chased further remedial decorating repairs on another 2 occasions. While we have seen evidence the landlord attended the leak and temporarily resolved it, due to its reoccurring nature the remedial repairs remained outstanding in November 2022. This caused considerable inconvenience and distress to the resident.
9. In March 2023, the resident reported again the leak had reoccurred and the landlord cancelled the outstanding decorating works from November 2022. At this point the landlord should have considered exploring and planning a permanent solution. This would have been reasonable due to the resident and his household’s age and vulnerability, and the reported worry and inconvenience the reoccurring leaks had caused him.
10. However, the landlord did not do this and raised a temporary repair again. While it was reasonable to the landlord to take some temporary measures, the leaks continued until April 2024 when the landlord said it provided a more effective temporary repair. The landlord’s repairs log is unclear as the repair this month was related to the landlord boarding up damp and mould not a repair to the guttering. Further repair to the guttering was logged in July 2024. This was considerably outside of the landlord’s 90-day timeframe for planned repairs in its policy, and just over 2 years since the resident reported the leak in March 2022. During this time the resident reports the reoccurring leak on multiple occasions and chased repairs.
11. The landlord’s repairs log does not clearly evidence when some of the leak repairs and attached decorating works were completed. While we appreciate identifying a leak may be complex and longstanding, we have not seen the landlord attempt to fully inspect this issue until 13 October 2023. Additionally, until October 2023 its communication with the resident was not effective and this caused the resident further frustration and worry about the situation and when the leak might next reoccur.
12. It was positive following the inspection in October 2023, the landlord improved both its communication and handling of the issue. It appointed a single point of contact which improved communication. It appropriately followed its surveyor’s recommendations and attempted to reline the gully and balcony floor on 13 December 2023. It attempted this within its 90-day repairs timeframe but did not reline the gully due to a health and safety wind risk. This was a reasonable decision and demonstrated the landlord had considered its obligation to ensure the residents and staff safety.
13. In its final response on 9 January 2024 the landlord acknowledged some of its failures relating to the reoccurring leak, apologised, and offered £650 compensation. The offer recognised the inconvenience the reoccurring leak caused the resident, its failure to resolve the issue permanently, and its delays. It also recognised the reported inconvenience related to the resident having to move their freezer every time a leak occurred. The landlord also provided a plan for major works which was a reasonable step to take.
14. However, there are further delays we have identified, for example the landlord:
    1. Delayed arranging for its new building consultant to survey until 3 months after its appointment in January 2024, and we cannot see it chased to provide results sooner than July 2024.
    2. Significantly delayed conducting any leak testing until February 2024, 22 months after the resident reported the leak reoccurring in March 2022.
    3. Delayed making a temporary repair to the guttering until 8 July 2024 after its testing in mid-April 2024 identified this as the main source of the leak. This was 6 months following its stage 2 response.
    4. Significantly delayed submitting an insurance claim to deal with the major works required until April 2024, 2 years following the resident’s reports of the leak reoccurring, and 3 months since its response where it decided to explore major works.
15. We appreciate this leak was complex, involved an insurance claim, special considerations of the building type, and the landlord did attempt the repair when reported. However, there were some considerable unnecessary and avoidable delays on the landlord’s part it has not yet acknowledged.
16. We have also received conflicting evidence about whether the landlord has now made a lasting temporary repair. The landlord said its guttering repair in July 2024 withstood later water testing and the resident had made no leak reports since April 2024. Its evidence says it raised further minor repairs to the gutter and balcony following water testing. It provided no evidence showing if or when it completed these further repairs or the results of the testing. The resident has told us about further leaks from the kitchen ceiling in spring 2025, and new water staining recently. Due to this conflicting information, we have ordered the landlord to commission a new inspection from an independent surveyor to assess this.
17. The landlord told us it had not completed a permanent repair because it needed a specialist contractor in line with fire safety and building regulations. The evidence it provided to support this only referenced repairs to external walls with no mention of roofing and guttering. We have not seen evidence of appropriate communication with the resident or giving reasonable cause for its delays in completing the permanent repairs it promised in its final response in January 2024, and the work recommended by both its and its insurer’s surveyors in July 2024.
18. The landlord’s delay in permanently repairing this leak means the resident and his wife spent at least 22 months with an intermittent leak since March 2022. For 7 months following October 2023 the resident and his wife experienced significant disruption to their weekly schedule discussing the repair with the landlord and allowing access for multiple contractors or monitoring testing results. This was often multiple times a week.
19. While this showed good engagement from the landlord, it also required ongoing communication, time, and effort from the resident. The resident reported that he and his wife had been consistently worried either about an active leak or it reoccurring during both during this period and currently. The resident said he was still uncertain about the landlord’s plan for permanent repair or when this was due to happen causing him further worry.
20. Every time it rained the resident said he and his wife had to empty out bowls and buckets regularly and change towels on top of the kitchen cupboards. In April 2024 he also reported mould for the first time as a result of the ongoing and reoccurring leaks. We have seen the circumstances caused the resident and his household significant worry and inconvenience, and he spent considerable time engaging with the landlord throughout its delay.
21. Exacerbating this is the fact the resident and his wife are elderly. The resident told us this made it harder for him to physically respond to the leak. We cannot see the landlord considered their vulnerability and the additional impact on them in any significant way. We also cannot see it considered if there was any way it could mitigate the impact on him and his household beyond providing buckets to collect the water. Given the additional delays, the uncertainly of the repair, and the lack of planned works communication, we consider the compensation the landlord offered to be an insufficient remedy for the failures identified and the impact on the resident and his household.

22. We have seen no evidence the landlord delayed issuing its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The landlord showed a minor delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and escalation request. As these delays in acknowledging and escalating the complaint were a few days each time we have seen no evidence this caused significant inconvenience to the resident.
23. The landlord’s policy at the time was not in line with the Code, we have seen evidence it later updated these, which demonstrates that it had taken steps to improve and update its complaint handling procedure and services.
24. We have also found that the landlord’s overall record keeping was at times unclear and this affected its complaint responses too. In its stage 1 response, the landlord wrote the resident had not reported any leaks between September 2022 and September 2023. However, the evidence from the landlord’s file suggests the resident reported the leak reoccurring in March 2023. This casts doubt on the landlord’s investigation and record keeping.
25. This error and the minor delays did not significantly impact the outcome of the resident’s complaint. During its complaint process the landlord acknowledged some complaint handling failure and offered £75 compensation. While it is not clear exactly what the landlord acknowledged, the level of compensation was sufficient to recognise any inconvenience to the resident from the failures we have identified in this report.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. We saw many instances of incomplete or unclear records. The landlord should make sure to keep complete records of its complex repairs. This will help it evidence its actions. It should also be careful to document entries at the time of the events as in this case we saw a lot of entries added in May 2025 covering several months before.

Communication

27. We have seen instances of poor communication and the resident needing to chase the landlord, even with a point of contact in place. The residents say he is currently unsure if or when the landlord is going to complete a permanent repair. The landlord should consider how it can improve its proactive communication with residents during complex repairs.