LiveWest Homes Limited (202310765)

Background

1. Following water ingress in the bedroom, the resident’s daughter submitted an insurance claim to the landlord on her behalf. She believed the landlord should cover the cost of the reported damage to the carpet, however the landlord’s insurance policy would not cover this. The resident’s daughter is now the executor of the estate, but for ease of reference they will be referred to as the “resident” in this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damage to the carpet following water ingress.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress offered by the landlord in response to the resident’s reports of damage to the carpet following water ingress.
   2. Reasonable redress offered for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord acknowledged there were communication issues and repair delays. It apologised for this and offered compensation that was proportionate to the failings.
5. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and it did not comply with the response timeframes set out in the Code. It apologised and offered compensation that was proportionate to its failings.

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.

6. The landlord is responsible for insuring the building and for repairing a leak when it’s caused by a problem with the structure of the building, but is not responsible for insuring contents.
7. In accordance with the lease, the resident can only claim damages if the landlord caused the problem through negligence or deliberate action. The Ombudsman does not have authority to determine negligence or liability. Only a court can issue a legally binding decision on negligence or liability matters, or order damages.
8. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We will take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
9. The landlord acknowledged that it had provided inaccurate and confusing information when it said there would be no cost to the resident. It also accepted that there were delays in responding to her repair reports, although it could not detail exactly how long the delays were. Due to these delays, the resident felt the landlord should cover the cost of the damaged carpet. While we understand the resident’s view, the landlord was not responsible for covering contents within the home.
10. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for the delay in addressing the water ingress and for the communication failings. It also provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, which was due to the pandemic, and it sought to put these failings right by offering compensation of £300.
11. It was also reasonable for the landlord to reimburse the resident for the £350 excess charge she paid when submitting a claim through its insurance policy. This action mitigated the impact of the service failure by ensuring that the resident was not left in a worse position than before the complaint.
12. Overall, we consider the landlord’s compensation offer to be proportionate with the failings identified. Whilst it was not obliged to offer reimbursement for the carpet, it did reimburse the resident’s excess charge which was fair, and it offered a further £300 to recognise the overall delays caused. This meant that its total offer of compensation was £650, which is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

13. The landlord should have logged a formal complaint as soon as the resident expressed disappointment in December 2022. However, it did not do so until February 2023. It missed an opportunity to formally address, and potentially resolve, the resident’s concerns at an earlier date.
14. When the landlord responded at stage 1, it did not explain why it would not cover the cost of the carpet. The landlord therefore re-issued its stage 1 response which caused further delay in its handling of the complaint.
15. The landlord did address all the resident’s concerns at stage 2 and provided a comprehensive explanation about why it could not reimburse the cost of the carpet. It reasonably signposted the resident to the LAS, given that the crux of the complaint related to liability for the damage caused by the leak. Its final response acknowledged there had been poor communication and it apologised for this.
16. The landlord acted fairly when it upheld the resident’s concerns about its handling of the complaint. It put things right by apologising and offering £150 compensation. This was in line with our remedies guidance and proportionate to the failures identified and the amount offered shows it had considered the effect these failures had on the resident.

Learning

Communication

17. Although the landlord upheld several aspects of the resident’s complaint, including issues with its communication, it did not identify any specific learning arising from the failures it acknowledged. To give residents confidence that lessons have been learned, the landlord could clearly explain in complaint responses what actions it has taken, or will take, in response to identified issues. Setting out this learning would demonstrate a commitment to improving the service and preventing similar issues in future.
18. It is encouraging that after its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was putting together a leaseholder handbook. This shows it had considered how it could improve its processes in the future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord did not provide clear repair records for the property. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.