LiveWest Homes Limited (202346555)

Decision
Case ID	202346555
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	LiveWest Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 April 2026

 

Background

1. The resident, who has fibromyalgia, lives in a house which had a back boiler heating system that was due to be upgraded. The roof and chimney also needed to be repaired.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roof repairs.
   2. The installation of a new heating system and reports concerning the standard of workmanship.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of roof repairs.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the installation of a new heating system and reports concerning the standard of workmanship.
   3. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Roof repairs

4. The landlord did not complete the initial repairs within a reasonable time and failed to provide timely updates or agree target dates with the resident. While it did not properly refer the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings to its insurance team, the compensation it offered overall was reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The installation of a new heating system

5. The landlord identified appropriate actions to put things right but failed to complete them within the timescales promised in its stage 2 response and missed at least one appointment. These delays, combined with poor communication and record keeping, caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident and amounted to maladministration.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not handle the complaint in line with its policy or the Complaint Handling Code, as it delayed its responses and relied on interim replies unnecessarily. However, it acknowledged its failings and offered reasonable compensation, which resolved the complaint handling failures

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by delays completing the actions it promised in its stage 2 response. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 08 May 2026

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord implements staff training to improve its handling of potential insurance claims.
We recommend the landlord reviews its record keeping procedures for repairs.
If the landlord does not replace the roof within 3 months of the date of this report, we recommend it write to the resident to confirm its position and how it intends to resolve any ongoing issues with leaks.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22   May 2023	The resident complained because scaffolding had been up for a month, but no work had started to repair a roof leak. She said the leak was causing damage to decoration and belongings stored in the loft. She also said the landing window was leaking.
25 May 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would respond by 1 June 2023. It included the following issues in addition to those raised by the resident on 22 May 2023: the resident’s concerns about the safety of the fireplace that the resident had not received an update following a heating survey.
2 June 2023	The landlord issued an interim complaint response and said: the resident reported a roof leak on 9 January 2023, but the report was ‘stuck in the system’ until 21 February 2023 it serviced the solid fuel heater and issued a safety certificate on 27 February 2023 it’s heating contractor would attend on 12 June 2023 to install a new heating system, remove the open fire and back boiler, and block up the chimney once the heating contractor was finished, its roofing contractor would attend to complete the roof repairs it was investigating whether the resident’s tenancy agreement gave her permission to store belongings in the loft it had resealed the windows at the rear of the property and painted the reveals with water repellent paint, it would reseal the front windows after the scaffolding was removed it needed another 20 working days to provide the stage 1 response.
26 June 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said she was “fed up, stressed out” and the situation had caused her fibromyalgia to flare up.
27 June 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In addition to the information already included in its interim response it said: its specialist team would provide advice in response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of repairs to the roof the resident should claim against her contents insurance policy for damage caused to belongings stored in the loft it had asked its heating contractor to resolve the issues identified following the heating upgrade it upheld the complaint, apologised and offered £250 compensation for delays completing the repairs, and the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
4 July 2023	The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2.
21 July 2023	The landlord issued another interim complaint response. It said: some of the new heaters were not suitable for the property and needed to be replaced it would make good all snagging and damages, including cleaning  the living room carpet it would repair the vented tile which it believed was the source of the current roof leak it would ensure it completed the outstanding work swiftly in agreement with the resident it had extended the date for its stage 2 complaint response by 5 working days.
14 August 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. In addition to the information provided in its interim response it said: the initial roof repairs were successful however the vented slate was incorrectly positioned and caused a further leak it was dissatisfied with the performance of its heating contractor and its in-house team would carry out heating installations in the future it would resolve the outstanding issues, snagging and damages it upheld the complaint, apologised for delays, the poor standard of service the resident received, and the inconvenience caused by this it increased its compensation offer from £250 to £650; this was made up of £150 for delays completing roof repairs, £300 for inconvenience and £200 for complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because: there were ongoing issues with roof leaks the landlord failed to attend appointments and had not completed the actions it promised in its stage 2 response the landlord had not honoured a verbal offer to replace the carpet if the resident was unhappy with the results of the cleaning the landlord had discriminated against her by not considering her disability.

 

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 did not consider

We are aware that the resident raised further complaints to the landlord concerning repairs to the windows, the roof, and the replacement of loft insulation. The resident has referred these matters to us under a separate case reference. This investigation focuses on the issues addressed by the landlord, and the commitments it made, in its stage 2 response dated 14 August 2023.

The resident told us the situation has affected her health. We cannot decide whether a landlord’s actions (or lack of action) have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for these matters to be considered by a personal injury claim or court. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. However, we have considered what the resident told us about how she was affected, and any distress or inconvenience that was caused because of any failings by the landlord. 

We do not have the legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010. This can only be decided by the courts. However, we can consider whether a landlord has properly considered its obligations under those Acts and followed its own related policies and procedures.

 

Complaint	The roof repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

 

7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will agree a target date with the resident for the completion of a managed repair or minor project, such as structural and external repairs. It says it usually completed this type of repair within 90 days. It aims to provide appointments within 28 days for all responsive repairs.
8. Theresident’sreport of a roof leak was not actioned for 43 daysbecause of a system error. There was a further delay of 49 days from when it identified the system error to when it ordered the scaffolding on 11 April 2023. This meant the repair had already exceeded the landlord’s usual target of completion within 90 days. Once it ordered the scaffolding, the landlord completed the repair within 76 days.
9. In total, it took the landlord 168 days to complete the repairs which was an unreasonable delay. There is no evidence it discussed or agreed target dates with the resident, or that it provided any updates until after she raised a complaint which was unreasonable.
10. The resident told the landlord the leak had damaged her belongings. Her tenancy agreement does not prohibit her from storing belongings in the loft. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the damage and advised the resident to claim on her contents insurance. In line with its compensation policy the landlord should have referred a claim for loss due to negligence to its insurance team. That it did not do so is a service failure. We have recommended the landlord provides its staff with training in relation to potential insurance claims.
11. On 17 July 2023, 3 weeks after the landlord completed the repairs, the resident told it the roof leak had become worse. The landlord promptly carried out an inspection and raised an order to replace and reposition the loft vent slate. While its records are unclear, the landlord told us it completed this work, as promised in its stage 2 response, on 11 August 2023.
12. However, on 17 September 2023 the resident reported that the roof was continuing to leak. The landlord attended to reposition the vented tile away from the chimney within its policy timeframe of 28 days for a responsive repair. The landlord’s records do not clarify whether this was needed because a different tile needed to be repositioned or because the repair it said it carried out on 11 August 2023 was unsuccessful. This is a record keeping failure.
13. We are aware the resident continued to report roof leaks. Roof repairs can be complex, and it was not clear whether the leaks were caused by one recurring fault or multiple issues.It would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out a comprehensive survey of the roof to identify the cause of the leak and the appropriate repairs to carry out. We have not seen any evidence the landlord did this which is unreasonable.
14. The resident has confirmed receipt of compensation from the landlord. It offered £150 for delays completing the roof repairs, plus £300 for inconvenience caused to the resident. This is a reasonable offer and in line with our compensation guidance for failures which adversely impacted the resident. In March 2026 the resident told us the landlord had recently erected scaffolding because it is replacing the roof. We have recommended that if the landlord does not replace the roof, it writes to the resident to provide an update.

 

Complaint	The installation of a new heating system and reports concerning the standard of workmanship
Finding	Maladministration

 

15. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will do things right first time, protect carpets and furniture, and leave properties clean and tidy during works.
16. On 17 April 2023, after hearing from a contractor, the resident asked the landlord if it was planning to upgrade the heating system. There is no evidence the landlord provided an update to the resident until it issued its stage 1 response. This was a delay of over 2 months, which was unreasonable. This poor communication left the resident unclear about the planned work.
17. The landlord’s internal communications confirm the work was planned for the week commencing 12 June 2023. However, the landlord told the resident it would install a new heating system on 12 June 2023. The contractor started work on 13 June 2023. The landlord’s communication error caused inconvenience to the resident who prepared for the contractor to start work on 12 June 2023.
18. The resident contacted the landlord several times on 13 and 14 June 2023 to express dissatisfaction with the contractor’s standard of work. She said the contractor:
    1. did not bring the correct tools
    2. did not protect her furniture or carpet which was ruined by dirt and dust
    3. installed a cylinder tank that was too big
    4. skimmed plaster over the wallpaper
    5. left holes in the new plaster
    6. misplaced the loft hatch
19. The landlord inspected the property on 15 June 2023. It recognised it had not met its policy commitments in relation to the quality of work and promptly contacted its contractor. It asked the contractor to rectify the issues as soon as possible and included the resident’s request that the same operative who completed the work did not return. It also emailed the resident to apologise and confirm the action it would take to resolve the matter. This was a reasonable response and demonstrated that the landlord was taking the matter seriously.
20. On 18 June 2023 the resident told the landlord she had identified further issues, queried whether the new heaters would be more expensive to run, and said she would prefer it to replace the carpet rather than clean it. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email 2 days later. However, it did not provide a full response to her queries and did not say when it would be able to do so. Given that the resident had already explained she was dealing with the situation alone because her husband was away, had fibromyalgia and was distressed and in pain due to stress, this was unreasonable.
21. The contractor’s work specification (contract) says the landlord will give the contractor the opportunity to resolve any dispute concerning its performance and quality of work. The contract does not specify a timeframe for resolution. However it says the landlord will cancel the work order/contract if the contractor fails to remedy the problems. It was appropriate that the landlord initially asked the contractor to resolve the problems caused by its poor standard of work. However, the landlord is ultimately responsible for the quality of work and service provided by a contractor on its behalf. By 28 June 2023, 2 weeks after the resident first reported her concerns, the landlord was aware that:
    1. the contractor had failed to respond to 3 emails concerning its standard of work
    2. the same operative who carried out the original work attended again to complete plastering repairs on 28 June 2023 and the resident said she asked him to leave after 45 minutes because he started work without using dust sheets to protect her furniture.

It would have been more reasonable for the landlord to act sooner and take ownership of the outstanding actions at that time, rather than 3 weeks later on 21 July 2023.

22. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it would attend on the following dates:
    1. 11 August 2023 – to repair the vented roof slate
    2. 25 August 2023 – to replaster the chimney breast and relay the flooring
    3. 14 September 2023 – to upgrade the heaters in the kitchen and bedrooms, and replace the cylinder tank with a smaller sized tank
    4. 25 September 2023 – to make good any damages.

It said that once it had completed all of the outstanding repairs it would arrange for the resident’s carpet to be cleaned.

23. However, there is no evidence the landlord completed repairs on the dates it promised to. It failed to provide clear and accurate records of its actions to us and referred to job references it did not provide evidence of. Its records did not clearly show attendance dates, the reasons for rescheduled works or completion dates. This is unreasonable and means we cannot fully assess its actions.
24. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 September 2023 to say it had missed the appointment to ‘make good any damages’. The landlord’s internal communications note that whilst it apologised to the resident, it could not see any jobs booked, or any commitment in the stage 2 response that it would attend on that date. There is no evidence the landlord raised this repair as stated in its stage 2 response. This is a record keeping failure and caused further inconvenience to the resident.
25. The carpet was cleaned on 17 November 2023.  However, the resident was dissatisfied with the results and asked the landlord to replace the carpet. The resident recalls a verbal offer from the landlord to replace the carpet if she was not satisfied with the cleaning. We do not doubt the resident’s recollection. However, our assessment must be based on facts and there is no evidence the landlord offered to replace the carpet. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to review the cleaning contractor’s photographs and decline to replace the carpet, having been satisfied with the outcome.
26. The landlord recognised its failings and proposed appropriate resolutions in its stage 2 response. However, it failed to complete the promised actions in line with the timescales it provided and missed one appointment entirely. It did not complete the final task of cleaning the carpet until 17 November 2023 which was 53 days after the date it said it would complete the repairs it promised in its stage 2 response. This amounts to maladministration. Therefore we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 in compensation in recognition of the delays and inconvenience caused to her.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

 

27. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint said it will:
    1. respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days
    2. discuss and agree with the resident any extension to its stage 1 response timeframe, which is usually no more than 20 working days from receipt of the complaint
    3. agree its response timescale at stage 2 with the resident, which is usually no more than 7 working days from the date it acknowledged the complaint.
28. The landlord did not adhere to its policy because it did not provide its responses at either stage within the extended timeframes it says it agreed with the resident.
29. The Complaint Handling Code in place at the time of the resident’s complaint said the landlord must send a complaint response when the answer to the complaint is known, not when it has completed the outstanding actions to resolve the complaint. The landlord unreasonably delayed the complaint process by relying on interim responses at both stages of the complaint. This also caused confusion for the resident who asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 before receiving the stage 1 response.
30. The landlord did not provide a copy of the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 4 July 2023. We would expect the landlord to be able to provide this information and its failure to do so is evidence of poor record keeping.
31. The resident has confirmed receipt of compensation from the landlord. It offered £200 compensation in recognition of its delayed response and complaint handling. This offer is reasonable and in line with our compensation guidance.

 

 

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord should keep accurate and complete repair records to ensure it has an accurate audit trail of the actions it has taken. Comprehensive records should include the repair report it received, when it (or its contractor) attended, survey findings, what remedial works were carried out, whether any follow up action was required and why the order was closed.

Communication

33. The landlord should proactively communicate with residents concerning complex and/or delayed repairs. This provides reassurance to residents and reduces frustration caused by chasing for updates.