Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202450569)

Background

1. The resident told the landlord that the asbestos in her home was disturbed when works were carried out. She asked the landlord for a copy of the asbestos report for the property and an explanation on why the asbestos had not been removed previously. She also said there was damp and mould in the property and it was getting worse.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
4.  There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord delayed in notifying the resident that an asbestos survey had already been carried out. The landlord also failed to provide evidence confirming the bedroom floor tiles were inspected on 2 September 2025 and did not set out its position regarding undertaking a further asbestos survey until it issued its final complaint response.
7. The landlord did not resolve the problem with damp and mould in a timely manner. This was despite undertaking a number of inspections and raising repairs.  
8. The landlord delayed in logging, acknowledging and responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It also failed to address the resident’s complaint of damp and mould in its complaint responses or offer any compensation in keeping with its compensation policy.

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.

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 did not investigate

9. The resident referred to a possible impact upon her health in her complaint. While these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health.
10. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused for a court or insurer to consider. They 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. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience

What we did investigate

11. The housing records confirm the resident asked the landlord on 17 March 2025 to check if there was asbestos in her home. Whilst the landlord responded on the following day, it did not confirm whether it would carry out an inspection. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have told the resident that an asbestos survey had previously been completed and to have shared the findings with her. This would have helped to alleviate any concerns the resident had at the earliest opportunity.
12. The resident made a complaint on 18 July 2025. She said she wanted a copy of the asbestos report and an explanation on why the asbestos had not been removed previously. She told the landlord on 27 August 2025 that she believed the asbestos was disturbed when the storage heaters in the bedrooms were removed and the kitchen and windows were replaced. The resident asked the landlord to complete an asbestos survey and move her to a neighbouring property.
13. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 August 2025.
14. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
15. In this case, the landlord confirmed that an asbestos survey was completed on 16 November 2016 and no asbestos was found in the kitchen or around the window lintels. Whilst this provided clarity and offered the resident some reassurance, the landlord did not provide her with a copy of the asbestos report or confirm whether it was in a position to do so. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this as this would have helped build trust and manage the resident’s expectations.
16. The landlord noted that asbestos was found in the bedroom floor tiles. It said it was safe to leave any asbestos in place unless it was disturbed. This was consistent with guidance from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). This confirms asbestos materials are not dangerous if they are in good condition and not disturbed. It also says asbestos should not be removed unnecessarily, as doing so could release asbestos fibres into the air, which would likely be more dangerous than leaving it in place and managing it.
17. The landlord said it would arrange for the bedroom floor tiles to be inspected on 2 September 2025. It also said it would carry out remedial works if it was identified the floor tiles were damaged. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
18. The landlord confirmed it would not move the resident and provided an explanation to support its decision. This was consistent with the guidance in its managed move policy.
19. Whilst the landlord carried out an inspection on 2 September 2025, there is no evidence the bedroom floor tiles were inspected. This was a failure and led to the resident chasing up the landlord on 3 September 2025. She said there was asbestos in the property and she would arrange for an asbestos survey to be carried out. She escalated her complaint on 30 September 2025.
20. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 3 November 2025 in its final complaint response. This included noting that there was no asbestos in the kitchen floor tiles or around the window lintels. It also confirmed the kitchen installation and replacement of the windows did not involve asbestos-containing materials and no disturbance was identified in these areas. In addition, the landlord said the asbestos that was found in the bedroom floor tiles had been assessed as low risk and deemed safe to remain in place provided it was not disturbed. This provided clarity.
21. Whilst the landlord said the bedroom floor tiles were inspected during the visit on 2 September 2025, there is no indication on the inspection report provided to this Service that they were inspected. An order has been made for the landlord to inspect the bedroom tiles due to this. The landlord also said it was not necessary to carry out a further asbestos survey. It said this was because an asbestos survey had already been completed and there was no evidence the asbestos had been disturbed. This provided clarity and ensured the landlord managed the resident’s expectations.
22. In summary, the landlord delayed in notifying the resident that an asbestos survey had already been carried out. It also failed to provide this Service with evidence confirming the bedroom floor tiles were inspected and did not set out its position regarding undertaking a further asbestos survey until it issued its final complaint response.
23. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of service failure has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. An order for compensation has been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

24.  It is noted the resident has reported issues with damp and mould for a number of years and this Service has previously undertaken an investigation into the landlord’s response into these reports. The Ombudsman issued its determination on 19 July 2024 (case number 202220665) and concluded there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord was ordered to carry out an inspection of the property and complete any identified repairs.
25. This Service has undertaken a further investigation into the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is because she continued to report problems with damp and mould and raised concerns in her complaint and complaint escalation request.
26. Whilst the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses, the Scheme allows us to investigate matters which have not completed a landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure where there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. The landlord’s reliance on a complaint process that ended 18 months prior to this complaint was unreasonable. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the period after this Service issued its determination in June 2024 up to when the landlord issued its final complaint response on 3 November 2025.
27. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. In this case, the records provided by the landlord lacked detail and has made it difficult to determine what works were ordered and when the repairs were completed.
28. The housing records confirm the landlord raised a programme of works on 24 July 2024 to address the issue of damp and mould in the resident’s home. This included clearing the gutters, replacing roof tiles and felt, installing a drainage channel, replastering a number of walls and installing extractor fans in the wet room and kitchen. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
29. The landlord asked its contractor to carry out the work urgently and noted the resident might need to be rehoused temporarily whilst the work was completed. Whilst this was consistent with the landlord’s condensation, damp and mould policy, there is no evidence it followed the matter up. This was a failure and meant the landlord did not consider the resident’s needs and the habitability of the property.
30. The landlord provided the resident with an update on the scope of works on 29 July 2024. This was consistent with the landlord’s condensation, damp and mould policy. This says it will provide clear and effective communication with regards to the action it will take to resolve problems with damp and mould.
31. Whilst the landlord noted the work was completed on 31 July 2024, it is unclear from the housing records what repairs, if any were completed.
32. The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s home on 2 August 2024. Damp and mould were identified in the wet room, living room, bedroom, hallway and kitchen. The mould in the bedroom, hallway and kitchen was classified as being ‘‘extremely high.’’ It was also noted the carpet in the bedroom was saturated. The landlord completed a risk assessment and an overall risk score of 3 out of 5 was identified. Again, there is no evidence the landlord considered whether the resident needed to be temporarily rehoused. This was a further failure.
33. The landlord noted during the inspection that the gully at the front of the property was full of soil and needed to be cleared. It was recommended a damp proof membrane and drain were installed, sections of the roof membrane were replaced and a mould wash applied behind the kitchen units. In addition, the landlord noted the cavity wall insulation needed to be inspected and replaced if required.
34. It is unclear from the housing records when the landlord arranged for the identified work to be completed or when it was done. It is also unclear if the resident was provided with an update. This was a failure. Landlords should ensure they keep residents informed regarding the progress of repairs as this helps build trust and manage their expectations.
35. The landlord arranged to carry out a joint inspection with its contractor on 10 September 2024. It was noted during the inspection that the moisture level readings on the rear and internal walls had dropped significantly since the previous visit and were no longer an issue. High moisture readings were, however, identified on the external bathroom wall. The landlord noted the extractor fans had been switched off at the isolation sockets.
36. The landlord recommended a passive vent was fitted in the bedroom to increase airflow and a mould wash applied in most of the rooms. It was also recommended a drainage channel was installed at the front of the property and the gullies were cleared. In addition, it was noted guttering works were required on the front elevation. The risk assessment was reduced to 2.67 out of 5.
37. It is unclear from the housing records when the landlord arranged for the work to be completed or when it was done. The landlord noted on 9 October 2024 that there was a delay in starting the work because of adverse weather conditions. The cavity wall insulation was replaced on 28 October 2024.
38. The landlord carried out an inspection on 8 November 2024 and noted there could be a leak in the wet room underneath the floor. It said it would check the pipework when the wet room was replaced, although it is unclear from the housing records when this would be done. It was recommended the toilet was checked in the interim for any leaks.
39. An appointment was arranged on 11 November 2024 for 26 November 2024 to check the toilet, but the landlord was unable to gain access. Whilst the landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay in carrying out the work at this point, there is no evidence it followed the matter up. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this given the resident’s ongoing reports of damp and mould.
40. The resident told the landlord on 12 March 2025 that the damp and mould was getting worse. The landlord carried out an inspection on the following day and noted the humidity levels were high and there were elevated moisture levels in the wet room and adjacent, hallway. It said this could be due to a leak around the toilet. It was also noted the damp proof course had been breached near the front door, the roof space was not ventilated and the bedroom cavity wall could be blocked.
41. It was recommended that a further investigation was undertaken to establish if there was a leak near the toilet and the plaster was replaced in the wet room, bedroom and hallway. The surveyor also recommended the extractor fans in the wet room and kitchen were overhauled and ventilation installed in the roof space.
42. The landlord issued a programme of works to its contractor on 28 May 2025. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
43. The contractor visited the resident’s home on 23 June 2025 and noted the work had previously been completed. It asked the landlord to arrange a joint inspection to discuss what work was required. It is unclear from the housing records whether the appointment arranged for 20 August 2025 went ahead.
44. The landlord arranged for an inspection to be carried out on 2 September 2025 to assess the damp and mould.
45. No damp and mould was identified during the inspection. The landlord did, however, note that the gable and rear wall needed to be repointed. It was also noted the resident had switched off the extractor fans. The resident was provided with information on the costs of using the extractor fans. This was appropriate.
46. The gable and rear wall were repointed on the 16 October 2025, after the landlord made several failed attempts to make contact with the resident. It noted on 8 November 2025 that the resident was refusing to allow its contractor to start the work because she felt the proposed repairs were insufficient. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay at this point. It said it would arrange for an independent contractor to complete a survey. This was appropriate and would have helped rebuild trust.
47. In summary, the landlord did not resolve the problem with damp and mould in a timely manner. This was despite undertaking a number of inspections and raising repairs.
48. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. An award of compensation has been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

49. The resident made a complaint on 18 July 2025. There is no evidence the complaint was logged or acknowledged by the landlord. This was not consistent with its complaints policy. This says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint meant the resident was not clear when she would receive a response and led to her asking this Service for support in raising a complaint.
50. This Service contacted the landlord on 5 August 2025 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 27 August 2025.
51. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 August 2025 and confirmed the nature of the complaint and the outcomes she was seeking. Whilst this was appropriate, it did not do this until the complaint deadline date. The landlord did not tell the resident when she would receive a response. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days.
52. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 29 August 2025. Whilst it acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, it referred to the complaint it received from this Service, on 5 August 2025, and not the original complaint the resident made on 18 July 2025. The landlord also failed to offer the resident compensation. Its compensation policy says it will do this for ‘poor complaint handling’.
53. The landlord said it could not address the resident’s complaint about damp and mould. It said this was because the matter was being investigated as part of a different complaint. This caused confusion given there was no other open complaint and the resident’s previous complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaints policy in January 2024. This meant the landlord failed to review its handling of the damp and mould since that date.
54. The resident escalated her complaint on 30 September 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and said someone would contact her within the next 5 working days. It told her on 7 October 2025 that it would respond to the complaint by 4 November 2025.
55. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 3 November 2025. This was consistent with the 20-working day timescale set out in its complaints policy. It acknowledged its stage 1 complaint handling did not meet the expected standard and it would undertake a review to ensure lessons were learnt. This was appropriate.
56. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint of damp and mould in its final complaint response. It said this was because it had previously addressed the matter as part of a different stage 2 complaint. This was not appropriate or consistent with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code). It was evident the resident continued to experience ongoing problems with damp and mould after exhausting the landlord’s complaints policy in January 2024 and she made reference to this in her complaint and the complaint escalation request.
57. In summary, the landlord delayed in logging, acknowledging and responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It also failed to address the resident’s complaint of damp and mould or offer any compensation in keeping with its compensation policy.
58. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the resident’s complaint. An order for compensation has been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

Learning

General learning

59. The landlord ensures effective monitoring arrangements are put in place to track complaints through to a satisfactory conclusion. This includes ensuring it addresses all the points raised by residents in its complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

60. The housing records provided by the landlord were limited and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.

Communication

61. The landlord failed to appropriately respond to the resident’s initial request to check if there was asbestos in her home.