LiveWest Homes Limited (202440964)

Decision
Case ID	202440964
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	LiveWest Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a second floor flat. She is diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder which the landlord was aware of at the time of the complaint. She complained that the landlord had not replaced her windows as promised and that the roof needed repair. However, the landlord did not address the roof repair in its complaint responses. Therefore, we have not investigated this part of the complaint as it has not completed the landlord’s complaints process.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of window replacements.
We have also investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window replacements.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Windows

The landlord arranged for a contractor to replace the windows. However, there were issues with accessing the property. Following this it did not keep the resident updated regarding proposed new dates and we have seen no evidence that it communicated regularly with the contractor to ensure the work was rescheduled promptly.

Complaint handling

There were some delays in the complaint handling process. However, these were minimal and the landlord agreed extensions with the resident. The landlord did not address all the resident’s complaint points in its complaint responses.

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 provided by a manager. 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 05 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £350 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the replacement windows. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 05 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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 provided by a manager.
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

05 January 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows:

£350 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the replacement windows.
£100 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than

05 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should make sure that there is no longer an issue with the roof and ask the resident if she would like to raise another complaint about this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
23 February 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate a complaint she had made 9 months previously to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that: The landlord had still not replaced her windows and the roof still needed repair. She had received communications from the landlord that made her feel that she was to blame for this.
29 February 2024	The landlord told the resident that the deadline for escalating the complaint had passed. However, it could open a new stage 1 complaint and it acknowledged receipt of this.
5 March 2024	The resident told the landlord she wanted to withdraw the complaint.
11 March 2024	The resident told the landlord that she would like it to re-open the complaint. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint.
25 March 2024	The landlord asked for extra time to respond to the complaint. The resident agreed to this.
28 March 2024	The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. It said that: It had written to her on 30 May 2023 to advise her of provisional dates to replace her windows. It advised her that the provisional start date for works was 26 June 2023 but warned that this was subject to change. Work progressed more quickly than anticipated and the site team told it that it had arranged to do the work on 22 June 2023. However, the resident said she did not want the work done on that date. It agreed a second date of 3 July 2023 with the resident’s support worker. It confirmed this by email on 21 June 2023. On 3 July 2023 the contractor told the landlord that it had been unable to gain access to the property. It agreed a third appointment of 6 July 2023 with the resident. It stressed the importance of the work being carried out on this date because the contractors’ team would be leaving the site and removing the scaffolding at the end of that week. The contractor attended on 6 July 2023 but advised the landlord that they could not access the property. The resident emailed the landlord to tell it that she had not allowed access because the contractor had refused to wear PPE. The landlord contacted the site manager that day. They confirmed that operatives were prepared to comply with all the resident’s requests. These were: To wear boot covers. To put down floor protection. To clean out the gap caused by the previous windows not being fitted properly and remove debris prior to removing the windows To clean after themselves. To touch nothing other than what was required. The only thing they were unable to accommodate was allowing 1 person at a time into the property. This was because the windows were heavy and it was important that 2 people were present to protect her and the team. However, the site manager said that 1 person could be inside and the other out on the scaffolding. It had tried to rearrange the appointment for the following Monday. However, the contractor could not accommodate this. It apologised if she had been made to feel that it blamed her for this. It was disappointing that it had not been able to access the property to complete the work. It was committed to minimising any distress this would cause. However, realistically there would be some disturbance due to the nature of the work. It would also still replace the vinyl flooring in the living room once the work was complete as promised in its previous complaint response.
5 April 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. She said that: The landlord had only given 2 days’ notice for the appointment on 22 June 2023 which was not enough time due to her disability. She got a text about an electrician appointment on 3 July 2023 and when she called the landlord it told her the window appointment must be on 4 July 2023. The landlord had not made it clear that only 1 of her requests for adjustments could not be carried out. She had reported that the roof leak had returned for the third time 6 weeks ago but it had still not been repaired.
16 April 2024	The landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage 2 escalation request which it said it had received on 9 April 2024.
24 April 2024	The landlord asked for an extension on the deadline for responding to the stage 2 complaint.
2 May 2024	The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. It said that: It had escalated the issue to the directors of the window contractor. The window replacement at the property had now been added to another programme of works being completed by a different part of the same company. They needed to complete another survey which would take place from week commencing 20 May 2024.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The landlord replaced the windows in May 2025. It completed follow-on work to replace the windowsills and skirting on 22 August 2025. The resident asked the landlord to postpone laying new vinyl flooring in September 2025 and will contact the landlord when she would like this rescheduled. We understand that the roof issue is now also resolved.

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.

Complaint	Replacement windows
Finding	Maladministration

The resident previously complained about the disrepair of the windows because they were causing issues with damp and mould in the property. To resolve the complaint the landlord told her that it would replace them under a planned maintenance contract. There is evidence that the resident told the landlord that she accepted that this resolved the original stage 1 complaint. This included her accepting the proposed dates for replacement of windows during June 2023.
The landlord then gave the resident a provisional date of 26 June 2023 for the work to start. However, the contractors were working ahead of schedule and arrived on 15 June 2023. We have seen no evidence that this was communicated to her prior to that date which, particularly considering her medical condition, caused her distress.
There is evidence that the landlord arranged 3 other appointments for the contractors to carry out the work. However, they could not gain access to the property on these occasions. There is evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s medical condition during this time because it asked the contractors to make reasonable adjustments to their normal working procedures to accommodate the resident’s needs. It also communicated with her support workers and asked them to be present when the appointments were due to take place. There is also evidence that the landlord told the resident that it had asked the contractor to make the adjustments on 20 June 2023 and communicated the outcome of this to her by email on 6 July 2023. In the email it advised that the only thing it could not accommodate was having 1 workman in the property at a time, which was understandable given the nature of the work.
When the contractor had to leave the site without gaining access, the landlord told the resident that it was likely to replace the windows in September 2023. It said that it would put a plan in place and update her as soon as it knew more. However, we have seen no evidence that it did so which cost her time and trouble contacting it for an update in November 2023 and then making a complaint in February 2024.
While it is understandable that there might be a delay in rescheduling the work, especially considering that the resident did not live on the ground floor of the property and scaffolding was required, the landlord should have kept her informed of likely start dates. We have seen no evidence that it tried to re-arrange for the contractor to return to the property or escalated the matter until it investigated the stage 2 complaint. Had it done so the work might have been completed sooner. This was particularly concerning because the landlord knew from the original complaint that the old windows were causing issues with damp and mould in the property. However, there is evidence that the landlord offered to complete interim remedial works during this time to help alleviate the issue.
In summary, the landlord arranged for a contractor to replace the windows and arranged for the contractor to make reasonable adjustments. However, there were issues accessing the property. It then did not update the resident regularly regarding proposed new dates and we have seen no evidence that it communicated regularly with the contractor to ensure they completed the work as soon as possible. This meant that there was a delay of nearly 2 years between the original planned works and the time the windows were replaced.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this aspect of the complaint. We have made an order for it to pay compensation to the resident to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaint policy says that if a resident is not happy with the outcome of a stage 1 complaint, they should request an escalation to stage 2 within 10 working days. However, it recognises that in some circumstances residents may need extra time.
In this case it was 9 months before the resident requested an escalation of the original complaint to stage 2. There is also evidence that she confirmed that she accepted the outcome of the original complaint. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to raise a new complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. However, if it needs an extension, it will agree this with the resident. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code).
In this case the landlord took longer than its policy states at both stages of the complaints process. However, these were not lengthy delays and it agreed an extension with the resident which minimised any detriment the delay may have caused.
The Code says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. In this case the resident also complained that her roof needed a repair and took time and trouble to raise the issue again in the stage 2 escalation request. However, the landlord did not mention this aspect in its complaint responses or say why it was not investigating it. This failure means that the resident did not receive a full response and we are also unable to investigate that part of the complaint as it has not completed the complaint process. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation to reflect the time and trouble this caused.

Learning

The landlord should check that it has processes in place for the monitoring of works that remain outstanding at the end of a planned maintenance contract. This is to make sure that it completes the required work as soon as possible without the need for residents to chase it for updates.
The landlord should ensure that complaint handlers address all issues raised in complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

No issues identified.

Communication

The landlord should have continued to communicate with the resident after the stage 2 complaint response to ensure that it rescheduled the work as soon as possible.