Livv Housing Group (202504367)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202504367

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Livv Housing Group

Landlord type

Housing association

Occupancy

Assured renancy

Date

26 June 2026

Background

  1. The resident made a right to acquire (RTA) application to buy her home. During the RTA process she complained about repairs to doors that she said were the landlord’s responsibility.

What the complaint is about

  1. The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with her reports about faults with external doors.
  2. We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports about faults with external doors.
  2. We have found there was service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
  3. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

  1. The landlord said it gave incorrect information about its repair responsibilities in its stage 1 response. It then arranged a survey but did not complete the repairs for a further 4 months.
  2. There was a delay in escalating the resident’s complaint, which contributed to a delay in arranging a survey of the doors.

 

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 found in this report. The landlord must ensure:

  • The apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic.
  • It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than 24 July 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £500 compensation. This is made up of:

  • £400 for distress and inconvenience caused by how it dealt with the resident’s reports about faults with external doors, inclusive of £150 already offered.
  • £100 for complaint handling failures, inclusive of £50 already offered.

It must pay this directly to her by the due date. It must provide us with documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.

No later than 24 July 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

We recommend the landlord updates its relevant policies to ensure they are clear on its repair responsibilities after a resident has made an RTA application.

 

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

14 February 2025

The resident raised a formal complaint. She said the landlord did not fit a lintel when it installed an external door 16 years ago. She said because of this, the door “bulged” and the surrounding wall had “dropped”.

6 March 2025

In its complaint response, the landlord said that when it inspected the door on 4 December 2024, it found it was “fit for purpose”. It said as she had made an RTA application, it would only do emergency repairs. It said it had recently done some repairs at her home that it should not have done and apologised for the confusion this caused.

11 March 2025

In her request to escalate her complaint, the resident said her contractor told her the landlord had not fitted a lintel when it installed the door 16 years before. She wanted to know why its recent survey did not find the problem. She said she was supposed to have new doors fitted when it installed solar panels and new windows.

1 May 2025

In its final complaint response, the landlord said it gave wrong information in its complaint response, as it still had a responsibility to do repairs. It said it had arranged a survey. On door replacement, it said it had previously inspected her home as part of an energy efficiency scheme and decided not to replace the doors. It said the RTA valuation noted door problems and other issues and because of these it had reduced the valuation by £5,000. It offered £200 compensation.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident told us she wanted the landlord to arrange a new valuation. She said the delays had led to her losing her mortgage and caused stress for her and her son.

 

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

How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about faults with external doors

Finding

Maladministration

What we have not investigated

  1. The resident said in her complaint that the fault with the rear door related to work the landlord did 16 years before. While we do not dispute this, we expect residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time. We have not seen evidence that she raised the issue as a complaint until February 2025. For that reason, we have not looked back to when the resident said the fault occurred, due to the passage of time and the availability of evidence.
  2. The resident told us that she wanted the landlord to arrange a new valuation of her home. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through another procedure. In this case, a review of the valuation is better dealt with by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ (HMRC) district valuer, because it can more effectively deal with this issue. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate this part of the complaint
  3. The resident told us that she lost her mortgage because of repair delays. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for her to make a claim for any financial loss caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of claim as they will have the benefit of independent advice to decide on the cause of any loss. We have not investigated this further.

What we have investigated

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has an obligation to repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes doors and external walls. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will do emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days.
  2. The landlord’s RTA policy says a qualified independent surveyor will do a valuation of the property, and it will use this to confirm the offer price. If a resident is dissatisfied with the valuation, they can appeal to HMRC’s district valuer.
  3. Neither the RTA policy nor repairs policy mentions responsibility for repairs after a resident has made an RTA application.
  4. The resident told the landlord on 4 December 2024 that her front door would not close. The landlord responded reasonably as an emergency the same day. However, we have not seen a report showing the outcome of the visit.
  5. It is unclear from the information we have seen what led to the inspection, but on 16 January 2025 the landlord did a survey of the back door. Its notes say there was a slight defect, but it told the resident the door was fully functional and did not need replacing. It also said it told her it only did emergency repairs when there was an RTA application.
  6. The resident complained on 14 February 2025 that there was no lintel above the back door and because of this the door bulged and the wall above had “dropped”. She said the landlord should have replaced the door before she made an RTA application.
  7. In its complaint response on 6 March 2025, the landlord said its inspection in December 2024 found the door was “fit for purpose”. It said while it was considering the resident’s RTA application, it would only do emergency repairs, in line with its policy.
  8. While it is standard practice for landlords to only do emergency and essential repairs after an RTA application, we have seen no evidence that this is set out in the landlord’s policies. Because of this, its complaint response did not reflect its policy position.
  9. In her complaint escalation on 11 March 2025, the resident said when the landlord did repairs in November 2024, its operative told her the back door was bowed. But she said at its survey in December 2024, it said there were no faults. She said a company that gave her a quote for a new door, told her a missing lintel caused the bow in the back door, and the front door had the same problem. She wanted to know why its survey did not find the problem in December 2024. She also complained that the valuation did not include a discount for the door issues. She said when it fitted new windows and solar panels, it was supposed to replace the doors.
  10. In an internal communication on 3 April 2025, the landlord noted the valuation found a lintel failure on the rear door and cracking above the front door. It said the valuation had made a reasonable allowance for this and other repairs needed in the property.
  11. On 24 April 2024, the landlord asked for legal advice on its responsibilities during the RTA application process. The advice said its responsibilities under the Landlord and Tenant Act on keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair remained until it completed the sale. We cannot question the advice given. However, we have noted that it does not match the standard approach to only doing emergency and essential repairs after it receives an RTA application.
  12. In its final complaint response on 1 May 2025, the landlord said there was misinformation about only doing emergency repairs in its stage 1 response. It said because of this it had arranged for a survey to take place survey on 15 May 2025. It said the valuation gave a reasonable allowance of £5,000 for repair works, including to the doors, which it included in the offer letter.
  13. On the reason for not replacing the doors, the landlord said they were fully functional and the work it did was part of a government energy efficiency scheme. It said it assessed her home and then fitted solar panels and installed loft insulation and triple glazed windows. It said it did not replace the doors as new doors would not improve energy efficiency.
  14. To acknowledge the inconvenience caused and its failures, the landlord offered £150 compensation. This included compensation for 2 other issues not covered by this investigation. As it did not give a breakdown of what it had offered for failures related to the doors, we have considered that £50 related to this.
  15. Following the final response, the landlord did an inspection as promised on 15 May 2025. The resident told us in September 2025 that it had completed the work, which she said it took 10 months to do.
  16. Overall, the landlord’s final response was reasonable, as it was based on the legal advice it received. It also reasonably said it would arrange a survey, gave a reasonable explanation of why it had not replaced the doors, and apologised for its failures. However, following the survey in May 2025, it appears that it took 4 months to complete the repairs, which is outside the timescales in its repairs policy. This was in addition to the delays between February and May 2025, while it dealt with the complaint. These delays caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was trying to buy her home, with all the stresses involved with this.
  17. In line with our compensation guidance, there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident. Although it made attempts to put things right, the compensation offered did not address the detriment to the resident. Because of the failings we have found, the landlord must pay her £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, inclusive of the compensation already offered.

Complaint

How the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint

Finding

Service failure
  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The resident complained on 14 February 2025, and the landlord acknowledged this on 20 February 2025, which was in line with its policy. It sent its complaint response on 6 March 2025, which was 10 working days later and in line with its policy and the Code.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 March 2025. On 25 March 2025, she chased it for an update. It acknowledged the complaint on 1 April 2025 and sent its final response on 1 May 2025, which was 20 working days later and in line with its timescale since the acknowledgement. However, 36 working days had passed since the resident asked it to escalate her complaint. This delay contributed to a delay in it arranging a survey.
  4. In its final response, the landlord offered £50 compensation for not dealing with all parts of the complaint in its stage 1 response but did not acknowledge the escalation delay. In line with our compensation guidance, there were failures by the landlord in its complaint handling of a short duration, which effected the overall outcome for the resident. In these circumstances, further compensation would be a suitable remedy.

Learning

  1. The landlord should ensure it escalates complaints promptly in line with its policy and the Code.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

  1. There are some gaps in the repair records in December 2024 and January 2025. A clear guide for repair teams and operatives is likely to ensure contractors know what to record and that landlords can access it. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.

Communication

  1. The landlord gave information to the resident about its repair responsibilities after an RTA application is made. We have not seen evidence to support its position in its policies. We have made a recommendation on this.