LiveWest Homes Limited (202451733)

Background

1. The resident reported that the landlord was due to carry out repairs to her ceiling and walls. She was unhappy with the way the landlord handled the repairs and that she had limited use of her living room and bedroom during the repair works. The landlord provided records confirming it has been aware since September 2021 that the resident has restricted mobility.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s reports of delays to repairs and subsequent room loss
   2. the resident’s report that her pet was injured as a result of the repair works
   3. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. service failure in its handling of the resident’s reports of delays to repairs and subsequent room loss
   2. no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s report that her pet was injured as a result of the repair works
   3. service failure in its handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays to repairs and subsequent room loss

4. The landlord offered compensation for loss of use of the rooms and provided additional remedies, including a goodwill gesture, in line with its compensation guidance. However, although it held records of the resident’s disability, it did not show that this was considered in its handling of the issue. It also delayed in completing the repairs committed to in its stage 2 response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that her pet was injured as a result of the repair works

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her pet. It said it would consider paying veterinary costs if the resident provided evidence. We have not seen that the landlord received this information, so the issue could not be taken further. In the circumstances, the landlord’s response was reasonable.

The associated complaint

6. The landlord delayed progressing the stage 2 escalation and did not acknowledge or address this delay in its response.

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.

What we have not investigated

7. The resident has complained that damp and mould has affected her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. 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. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for any distress and inconveniences.
8. The resident told us that the prolonged works caused damage to her personal belongings. She also told us of other repair issues, which she reported after the landlord’s complaint response. There is no evidence that she raised these matters as part of her complaint made on 1 December 2023. We can only investigate issues the landlord has first had the opportunity to address. It is therefore fair and reasonable for the investigation to focus on the issues raised in the resident’s complaint up to the date of the final response on 21 May 2024, together with any commitments the landlord made in that response.

What we investigated

9. The landlord’s repairs standard says it may inspect a property before starting work. For routine repairs, it should finish inspections and repairs within 28 days. For larger or complex works, it should complete them within 90 days. For managed repairs or minor projects, it should agree a completion date with the resident, usually within 90 days, and confirm appointments in advance.
10. On 14 March 2023 the landlord raised a work order after an inspection. The inspection found major works and said the job would take about 7 days. It also confirmed that asbestos removal was needed before repairs could start.
11. The inspection covered 3 ceilings and nearby walls across several rooms, including the living room and bedrooms. The works included replacing plasterboard, re‑skimming surfaces, and repairing damage from leaks and asbestos.
12. The landlord booked the works from 7 to 20 June 2023, around 85 days after raising the order. This was within its 90‑day target.
13. Between 7 and 29 June 2023, the landlord visited the property several times to carry out the works. While multiple visits were reasonable given the nature of the job, the landlord did not finish the works within the agreed timeframe.
14. On 10 July 2023 the resident told the landlord the walls were still in poor condition. The landlord agreed to inspect again and scheduled a visit for 16 August 2023. This was reasonable, as it allowed the landlord to check what work remained outstanding and whether it formed part of the repairs it identified from its previous inspection.
15. The landlord had arranged an appointment for 10 August 2023 to reinstate the lighting on the ceiling, even though the ceiling repairs were still incomplete. Before the appointment, the resident told the landlord that repairs to the landing and bedroom ceilings were not complete. The landlord said it would contact the electrical team, but records do not show whether it also contacted the team responsible for the ceiling repairs, which were linked to the lighting works.
16. On 14 August 2023 the resident again told the landlord that it had not completed the ceiling repairs. The landlord said its system showed the work as complete, which was incorrect. The landlord should have checked or updated its records at that stage. Although it re‑raised the repair the same day, this showed poor coordination and record‑keeping and caused avoidable confusion for the resident.
17. The landlord has not provided records or outcome notes for the inspection scheduled on 16 August 2023. It is therefore unclear whether this inspection took place.
18. Between 24 August and 1 September 2023, the landlord carried out further ceiling works. It completed the hallway works by 6 September 2023. From September to December 2023, it carried out further plastering in the front room over several visits, finishing on 1 December 2023.
19. At stage 1, the landlord accepted that the delays and loss of use of rooms had a high-level impact on the resident.
20. The stage 1 response also said the landlord visited on 14 December 2023, assessed the living room as habitable, and advised the resident to move her belongings back. However, the landlord has not provided records of this visit. This information would have helped explain how it reached its conclusion and provided assurance that the assessment was based on evidence and it took the residents personal circumstances into account.
21. At stage 2 the landlord upheld the concerns, apologised, explained the delays, set out a plan to finish the remaining works, increased the compensation, and offered a goodwill payment for dust and disruption. This was in line with its compensation policy for high level impact.
22. The resident said she had to store her living room belongings in her bedroom for about 8 months and could not use the living room during that time. The landlord assessed the impact as high and offered compensation for distress, delay, and loss of use, including a room‑loss payment. This was reasonable and in line with its guidance.
23. The landlord said it would complete bedroom works on 3 and 4 June 2024, with painting planned for 17 June 2024. It finished the bedroom works on 17 June 2024, but did not carry out the painting until 4 February 2025, about 7 months later. This likely caused increased inconvenience to the resident.
24. The landlord’s repairs standards say it should take account of vulnerability. It would use professional judgement, communicate sensitively, coordinate services, and adjust or prioritise repairs where vulnerabilities are known.
25. There is no evidence that the landlord checked with the resident despite holding historic information indicating potential vulnerability. The landlord did not show that it satisfied itself whether the resident needed adjustments, additional support, or prioritisation during the prolonged repairs.
26. In line with our compensation guidance, we have made an additional award to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the further delay in completing the works as it committed in its final response, as well as the landlord’s failure to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s known vulnerability in its complaint responses.

27. In line with the landlord’s compensation guidance, any claims for loss or personal injury caused by negligence should be referred to its Risk and Insurance Team for assessment.
28. The resident told the landlord that her dog developed a paw infection and that a vet advised this could be linked to dust left on the floor. Courts or insurance claims are best placed to decide liability cases. We have not investigated this further. Our role is to assess whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
29. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concern and said it would consider any veterinary costs if the resident provided the relevant details. While the landlord did not explicitly signpost the Risk and Insurance Team at that stage, it demonstrated a willingness to engage with the issue and consider reimbursement. There is no evidence that the resident provided invoices or receipts for veterinary costs. In the circumstances, and based on the information available at the time, the landlord’s response was reasonable.

30. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case was the 2022 edition. The landlord’s policy was compliant with the Code.
31. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The policy also says the landlord will acknowledge a request to escalate a complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement. If it needs more time, it should agree this with the resident in advance.
32. In line with the Code, the landlord should acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. At stage 1, it should issue a response within 10 working days (up to 15 working days). At stage 2, it should issue a response within 20 working days (up to 25 working days).
33. The resident complained on 1 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 December 2023, the next working day, and sent its stage 1 response on 15 December 2023, 9 working days later, in line with its policy and the Code.
34. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 4 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 1 May 2024, 83 working days after the escalation request and therefore not in line with its policy or the Code.
35. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 May 2024, 13 working days after it acknowledged the escalation and would, in isolation, have been in line with its policy. However, the resident asked to escalate the complaint on 4 January 2024, and the landlord took 96 working days overall to issue its stage 2 response. As a result, the landlord’s overall handling of the escalation was not in line with its policy or the Code.
36. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in escalating the complaint or recognise the impact this had on the resident. It also did not apologise or offer any redress for the delay. This was not in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which says it should consider proportionate remedies where service failures occur, including poor complaint handling.
37. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to reflect the time and trouble it caused the resident to escalate her complaint. This is in line with our compensation guidance for where it has not acknowledged the delays or made an offer proportionate to the delays with its escalation.

Learning

38. Early intervention with residents is important when repairs become prolonged or complex. Clear ownership of the case, strong coordination between teams and contractors, and regular, supportive communication help mitigate negative impacts and reduce the risk of resident distress and disengagement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. This case highlights the importance of clear, accurate, and up‑to‑date repair records. The landlord’s records suggest the resident often had to contact it to chase progress and clarify what work remained outstanding. This indicates that records were not always sufficiently clear or consistent, which made it harder to track repairs and manage expectations. Strengthening record‑keeping and internal coordination would support more effective repair management and reduce the need for residents to repeatedly follow up.

Communication

40. This case also highlights the importance of progressing complaint escalations promptly. While it was reasonable for the landlord to seek clarity on why the resident wished to escalate her complaint, this process delayed the escalation itself. Handling escalation requests in line with policy while seeking clarification in parallel would help avoid unnecessary delay and reduce frustration for residents.