Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited (202554027)

Decision
Case ID	202554027 and 202601674
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bromford Flagship LiveWest Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured
Date	24 August 2026

Background

The resident received a terminal cancer diagnosis in June 2025, and the landlord knew of her condition. She has since passed away. The resident previously complained about the landlord’s handling of her damp and mould reports. We investigated and determined that complaint in June 2024.
The resident continued to report delays in the damp and mould works. She also reported pests for which the landlord arranged treatment. The resident requested a management move but arranged her own move in November 2025 and contacted the landlord to end her tenancy and settle her rent account.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Damp and mould repairs.
2. The resident’s reports of pests.
3. The resident’s request for a management move.
4. The resident’s final rent payment.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of damp and mould repairs.
The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of pests.
The landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its handling of the resident’s request for a management move.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s final rent payment.
There was service failure 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

Damp and mould repairs

The landlord completed extensive damp and mould works and some repairs within its target timescales. However, it delayed completing several outstanding repairs linked to our June 2024 orders, delayed agreeing remedies, and did not provide clear updates or a work schedule.
As a result, the resident experienced distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble pursuing the matter, particularly given her terminal cancer diagnosis. The landlord offered some remedies to resolve the complaint, but it did not award compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused.

The resident’s reports of pests

The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s reports and took several steps in line with its pest control policy. It appointed a contractor, carried out treatments, addressed the likely source of the infestation, and completed a recommended repair within its policy timescale.
However, before she moved out, it did not act on all the contractor’s recommendations or adequately consider the resident’s health concerns. The landlord acknowledged these failings and its poor communication, offering £40 compensation. Given the short period of impact and the landlord’s overall response, this reasonably addressed the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The resident’s request for a management move

During the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged that it failed to submit the resident’s management move application. It offered proportionate compensation for this.

The resident’s final rent payment

The resident said she moved out due to a rat infestation and concerns about her health. There is no evidence that the landlord charged rent beyond the tenancy end date or applied charges incorrectly. The landlord clearly explained the contractual basis for its decision and its position was supported by the tenancy agreement.

Complaint handling

After acknowledging the resident’s complaints, the landlord issued complaint responses within its published timeframes. It also appropriately explained its reasons for not combining complaints.
However, it delayed acknowledging both the resident’s stage 2 escalation of the first complaint and her second complaint stage 1 complaint. There is no evidence that the delays affected the overall outcomes of the complaints. The landlord’s failure to identify and acknowledge these shortcomings meant it did not offer the resident appropriate remedies for the inconvenience caused.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 05 October 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay £990 compensation to the resident. This is inclusive of the offer it made during the complaint process and it should deduct any amount it has already paid toward this. This is made up as follows: £540 payment that it offered during the complaint process towards the costs of the living room flooring, internal doors and paint £400 compensation for the inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of damp and mould £50 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 05 October 2026
3	Specific order The landlord must review its reimbursement for the living room flooring using the rate of £14.99 per square metre, as offered during the complaint process. If this results in a higher amount than previously offered, it must pay this directly to the resident, less any amount already paid towards the flooring costs. The landlord must provide evidence of the review and any payment by the compliance date.	No later than 05 October 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £40 it offered for its pest control failings and the £225 it offered for its management move failings, if it has not already done so. Our findings of reasonable redress are based on the landlord making those payments.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 September 2025	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of outstanding damp and mould works following orders we made on a previous case. She also raised concerns with the landlord’s handling of her request for a management move and reported pests. The resident sought compensation for the cost of living room tiles, redecoration, internal doors and damaged personal belongings.
20 October 2025 (Ref: CAS-882013-X8N9V8)	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move it was helping the resident with her housing application on the council’s choice-based lettings scheme, as this was the most effective route to securing a move it identified outstanding repairs, which we had ordered, such as tiling, plastering a cupboard and repairs to the back door the resident had refused access for the outstanding repairs because of health concerns it offered the resident temporary accommodation, which she refused because of health and access concerns it told the resident to claim through her content insurance for damaged belongings in the attic and did not accept liability for the damage it apologised for not replacing the living room flooring after concreting the room it would not normally pay for flooring, but as a goodwill gesture it would offer compensation so the resident could arrange suitable replacement flooring it acknowledged that the resident had replaced internal doors and redecorated it said decorating was her responsibility, and it would not normally pay for those costs but agreed to contribute towards the paint it offered the resident £300 compensation, made up of £250 towards flooring and £50 towards paint
2 November 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She asked for the management move criteria and why the landlord refused her request after an occupational health assessment. She repeated the request she made in her stage 1 complaint for reimbursement of her costs.
22 November 2025	The resident complained about her final rent payment. She asked the landlord to confirm that she would not need to pay rent for the final month. She also raised concerns about its lack of action following her reports of rats in the property.
12 December 2025 (Ref: CAS-918308-N0M7Z0)	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: it explained the criteria for a management move and clarified that it would make only one reasonable offer of suitable accommodation, which might not be in the resident’s preferred area it told the resident to register with the council‘s choice-based lettings scheme to maximise her chances of securing a property in her preferred location it apologised for the delay in providing the management move application form the resident had not obtained permission before replacing the internal doors, and it would not normally reimburse this cost, but offered compensation as a goodwill gesture it reiterated that it was not responsible for damage to belongings stored in the loft and referred the resident to its compensation policy, which said that residents should make such claims through their contents insurance following our determination, it agreed to complete the outstanding damp and mould works, including tiling, plastering a cupboard, and replacing the back door it had paid the resident £1,500 towards the bathroom tiling, completed the plastering on 1 August 2025, and would replace the back door by April 2026 it would review its £250 contribution towards the cost of the flooring once the resident provided the measurements and would reimburse up to £14.99 per square metre it offered an additional £465 compensation, comprising £25 for the delay in progressing the management move application, £200 for the inconvenience caused during the management move process, and £240 towards the cost of replacing the internal doors and frames this brought its total compensation offer to £765
5 January 2026 (Ref: CAS-955036-P1P1F1)	The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the second complaint. It said: it previously responded to the resident’s concerns about damp and mould through earlier complaint responses and had already offered compensation in relation to this between September and November 2025, it carried out pest control treatments to address the reported rat infestation its contractor had recommended further treatment it confirmed that it would not require the resident to redecorate or repaint the property for the end of the tenancy the resident remained liable for any outstanding rent balance and would be expected to settle this at the end of the tenancy
8 January 2026	The resident escalated her complaint, disputing the landlord’s handling of the case, including its decision not to consider the rat infestation as part of the current complaint despite reports of ongoing activity. She reiterated that the landlord was responsible for her damaged belongings and did not adequately consider her medical circumstances or progress a management move. In addition, she disputed her rent liability from 7 November 2025 and asked that the landlord considered all related complaints as part of the stage 2 review.
12 February 2026 (Ref: CAS-974219-P4R6V0)	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: it already provided formal responses to the resident’s earlier complaints and would not combine them into the current stage 2 review it acknowledged that the resident experienced a pest infestation until she left the property on 7 November 2025 there were delays in addressing the infestation, failures to complete necessary actions, and shortcomings in its consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities and alternative accommodation options it did not say whether this element of her complaint was upheld or not at stage 1 the resident gave notice on 13 November 2025 and was therefore liable for rent until the notice period expired although she vacated the property before the end of the notice period due to health concerns and unresolved pest issues, the tenancy did not end until 14 December 2025 it reiterated that it would not require the resident to repaint the property it offered £40 compensation to recognise the delays, poor communication, and lack of progress in addressing the pest control issues between September and November 2025
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaints to us because she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses. She sought compensation to reflect the impact of the landlord’s failings. She also wanted compensation for damaged belongings and costs she incurred.

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	Damp and mould repairs
Finding	Maladministration

On 13 June 2024 we issued a determination on a complaint the resident brought to us about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould. We ordered the landlord to complete the remedial works identified in a condensation, damp and mould survey. This investigation does not consider the repairs the landlord completed within the timeframe specified in our order. Instead, it focuses on repairs the resident subsequently reported as outstanding, together with any related damp and mould repairs raised since.
The landlord told us on 9 July 2024, and again on 11 September 2024, that it had completed the surveyor’s recommended repairs, including drainage works and adjustments to ground levels. The resident disputed this and said several repairs remained outstanding. While the landlord completed extensive works, it did not provide clear evidence that it fully completed them. Although it supplied some repair records, these lacked key details, including completion dates. Its poor record keeping also made it difficult to distinguish between repairs linked to our order and newer damp and mould reports.
Our June 2024 order required the landlord to complete repairs identified in a condensation, damp and mould survey, including checking the living room floor for signs of damp and mould. On 29 October 2024 the landlord raised a job to remove and replace the flooring and install insulation. It did not explain the delay of 4 months in raising the works after our determination or show that it kept the resident updated on the repair. This was unreasonable, caused inconvenience to the resident, and was a missed opportunity to rebuild trust.
The landlord repaired the living room floor in November 2024. However, the resident said it left a concrete floor and did not replace the flooring. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged this and offered £250 towards replacement flooring. It also accepted that it should have made this offer sooner. At stage 2, it reasonably agreed to reimburse £14.99 per square metre and asked the resident to provide measurements so it could review the amount it had previously offered. The resident told us in March 2026 that the matter remained unresolved. We have therefore ordered the landlord to review its offer.
During the complaint process, the resident asked the landlord to reimburse the cost of decorating and internal doors she had bought. It explained that it would not normally reimburse these costs because she had not obtained prior approval to replace the doors and remained responsible for internal decorations. However, it offered £50 towards paint and £240 towards the doors and frames. This was reasonable and exceeded the requirements of its compensation policy.
In May 2025 the resident said that the landlord had not completed the bathroom tiling, addressed the drainage issues at the front and rear of the property, lowered the external ground levels, or replaced the back door. The landlord provided evidence that it had completed the required repairs, apart from plastering the cupboard and replacing the back door. It also said it was discussing compensation with the resident so she could complete the bathroom tiling herself.
In its December 2025 stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged delays in resolving repairs and outstanding actions linked to our June 2024 determination. It completed the cupboard plastering in August 2025, almost a year after our determination and order to complete the damp and mould works. In December 2024 it agreed to pay the resident for the cost of the bathroom tiling but did not do so until June 2025. In December 2025 it confirmed that it would replace the back door by April 2026.
While these actions ultimately progressed the outstanding works, the landlord did not explain the reasons for the delays in addressing these. It took significantly longer than the landlord’s published timescales of 20 days for routine repairs and 90 days for complex repairs to complete the required works.
The landlord did not show that it provided the resident with a work schedule or regular updates after our June 2024 determination. This was not in line with its condensation, damp and mould procedure, which required it to provide residents with a summary of the necessary works. This failing was particularly concerning given the communication issues we already identified in our June 2024 determination. As a result, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and spent considerable time and effort pursuing a resolution between June 2024 and November 2025.
We understand the resident needed to isolate for 10 days following cancer treatment, which contributed to some repair delays. However, this did not explain the overall delay of around 1 year in completing some repairs linked to our June 2024 order. The resident did not receive her diagnosis until June 2025 and only began treatment after that date. Therefore, her isolation did not cause the earlier delays. The landlord unreasonably delayed completing repairs and providing suitable remedies, causing inconvenience as the resident had to repeatedly chase progress and raise a further complaint.
The resident said some of her belongings stored in the loft were damaged and the landlord was responsible for this. She said it sealed the loft hatch in 2023, while her belongings remained inside. We cannot determine liability or negligence for property damage, as insurers or the courts normally consider such matters. However, we can assess how the landlord handled the resident’s claim and request for compensation.
In its October 2025 response, the landlord told the resident to claim through her own insurance for the damaged items. The resident disagreed with this and reiterated that it was liable for the damage. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it would investigate whether its actions caused or worsened any damage before referring a claim to its insurer. After discussing what happened with the resident and investigating the matter, the landlord concluded it was not liable for the damage and shared its conclusion with the resident in its December 2025 stage 2 response. This was in line with its compensation policy.
We recognise that the landlord carried out extensive damp and mould remedial works at the property. It also completed some repairs within the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy, including some raised following our June 2024 determination and works identified during an inspection in July 2025. However, it delayed completing other repairs associated with our June 2024 order. It also delayed agreeing a resolution in relation to the bathroom tiling works and providing clarity about the timescale for replacing the back door.
In line with our Compensation Guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of the impact of its failings. The delays in resolving the issues caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and unnecessary time and effort. This was particularly significant given the resident’s terminal cancer diagnosis, as the unresolved issues prevented her from focusing fully on her health and wellbeing. The award also reflects the cumulative impact of the landlord’s repeated failures to complete agreed repairs within reasonable timescales, together with its poor communication and lack of regular updates.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of pests
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident reported a rat infestation on 3 September 2025. She moved out of the property on 7 November 2025, after securing a new home. While the landlord had not fully resolved the infestation by the time she vacated the property, our investigation is limited to the period between 3 September 2025 and 7 November 2025. This is because the issue no longer had a direct impact on the resident once she moved out.
It is clear that the rat infestation significantly affected the resident. She was especially concerned about the potential impact on her health because of her cancer diagnosis. However, while distressing, a rat infestation does not in itself indicate service failure by a landlord. Our investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of the issue once aware.
There is no fixed timeframe for responding to rat infestations. However, rats multiply quickly, pose health risks, and fall within hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. It is therefore reasonable to expect landlords to act promptly and with urgency when receiving reports of infestations of this nature.
On 3 September 2025 the resident reported seeing rats in her neighbour’s garden and hearing them in her loft. The landlord appointed a pest contractor on the same day, in line with its pest control policy. This showed that it took the issue seriously and acted with a sense of urgency.
Between 10 September 2025 and 7 November 2025, the pest control contractor carried out treatments and visited the property several times, placing and monitoring traps. These were positive steps towards resolving the pest infestation and in line with the landlord’s pest control policy.
In September 2025 the landlord found that neighbours keeping chickens at their properties was the likely cause of the rat infestation. In October 2025 it confirmed that it had issued the neighbours with 28 days’ notice to remove the chickens. This showed that the landlord took the matter seriously and was taking steps to identify and address the underlying cause of the infestation, in line with its pest control policy.
On 18 September 2025 the pest control contractor recommended repairing a drain cover. The landlord raised a job on the same day and fitted a new gully grid 12 days later. This was in line with its repairs policy timeframe of completing routine repairs within 20 days.
Although the landlord took some steps to address the rat infestation in accordance with its pest control policy, there were shortcomings in its handling of the matter, which it acknowledged.
In September 2025 the pest control contractor recommended a drain survey and removal of overgrown vegetations around the property. The landlord did not raise these jobs prior to the resident moving out. It did not explain the delay in acting on its pest control contractor’s recommendations.
The landlord recognised the resident’s vulnerabilities and made reasonable adjustments. It postponed a loft inspection on 25 September 2025, following her cancer treatment. It also sought advice from her cancer nurse about whether she could safely remain in the property. It had offered temporary accommodation, which the resident declined because of health concerns. We understand that the resident secured her own accommodation 8 weeks after reporting the rat infestation. Although considering temporary accommodation was reasonable, the landlord later accepted that it had not adequately escalated the health and safety concerns. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged these shortcomings and identified where its response could have been improved.
In its February 2026 stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged not acting on some of its pest control contractor’s recommendations and not effectively communicating with the resident. It also accepted that the resident continued to experience rat problems until she moved out. The landlord recognised that it had not adequately considered the resident’s circumstances. It further acknowledged not providing an outcome on this aspect of the complaint at stage 1. In recognition of these failings, it offered a goodwill payment of £40, despite resolving the issue within its 90-day policy timeframe.
The compensation is within a range that we would recommend where a landlord’s failings caused distress and inconvenience for a short period. Given the impact on the resident between September and November 2025, the landlord’s compensation offer was reasonable. This reflected that, although it acted on the resident’s reports, there were also minor failings.

Complaint	The resident’s request for a management move
Finding	Reasonable redress

During the complaint process, the landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of the resident’s request for a management move and offered compensation to her. Where a landlord admits failings, we consider whether its offer of redress put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In doing so, we assess whether the redress aligns with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We also consider whether any compensation offered is consistent with our Compensation Guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy.
In January 2024 the resident requested a management move due to damp and mould in the property. The landlord refused the request in February 2024, saying that she did not meet the relevant criteria. We have seen no evidence that the resident challenged this decision or made a complaint at the time. As her September 2025 complaint concerned the landlord’s handling of a subsequent management move request following her cancer diagnosis, we have focused our investigation on that later request.
On 28 July 2025 the landlord informed the resident it would start the process for a management move. At the landlord’s request, and after her cancer diagnosis, the resident obtained an OT assessment, which the landlord received on 15 September 2025. The OT recommended an urgent move.
It was reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to consider this as part of both her banding review and management move request. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered whether she met the criteria for a management move in light of her medical circumstances and the OT assessment. The landlord later acknowledged that it failed to progress the resident’s management move application. It recognised that this was unreasonable and caused frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord said it directed the resident to the council’s choice based lettings scheme to maximise her chances of moving. This was reasonable and in line with its management move procedure. In September 2025 it also supported her with submitting a panel referral to review her banding. This showed it understood her circumstances and urgent need to move.
However, while this may have been a more realistic and quicker way to secure a suitable property, the landlord did not show that it explained this to the resident prior responding to her complaint. This was unreasonable and contributed to her belief that it was unwilling to support a move.
During the complaint process, the landlord accepted failings in its handling of the resident’s management move request and offered £225 compensation. This was in line with our Compensation Guidance for failings that adversely affected a resident. The amount was proportionate to the frustration and inconvenience caused in the second half of 2025.
The compensation level also reflected that there was no evidence the failings caused the resident to miss an earlier opportunity to move. There was no evidence that a suitable property was available during the relevant period or that the resident would have had priority over other applicants.

Complaint	The resident’s final rent payment
Finding	No maladministration

The resident moved out of the property on 7 November 2025 and gave notice on 13 November 2025. The resident said she left because of a rat infestation in the property and concerns for her health.
The resident asked the landlord not to charge rent for the final month of the tenancy. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would reimburse the rent she paid in advance and would not expect her to redecorate the property. It also clarified that it would require payment of the final month’s rent. The resident considered this unfair and maintained that the landlord should waive the charge because of her circumstances. In its stage 2 response, the landlord gave a detailed explanation for its decision. It referred to the tenancy agreement and explained that rent remained payable until 14 December 2025, when the tenancy ended.
We have considered whether the landlord acted reasonably in charging rent for the final month of the tenancy. The tenancy agreement required the resident to pay the rent until the tenancy legally ended, which in this case was 14 December 2025. We understand the resident had sought a move from some time because of the property condition and potential impact on her health.
However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord charged rent beyond the tenancy end date or outside the terms of the tenancy agreement. It demonstrated a contractual basis for the charge and explained its position clearly to the resident. In the absence of evidence that the landlord applied the charge incorrectly, we cannot conclude that it acted unreasonably.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at both stages, respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. Where delays occur, the landlord will explain the reasons and agree a new timeframe.
The resident raised 2 complaints during the investigation period. For the first complaint, the landlord responded at stage 1 within its policy timescale. However, it acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation late, which resulted in its response being issued 5 working days outside the timescale set by its complaints policy. In its stage 2 response, it incorrectly interpreted the Code and said the 5-day acknowledgement period began when it logged the complaint. Under the Code, the period begins when a landlord receives the complaint. This misinterpretation prevented it from identifying and acknowledging its failing.
For the second complaint, the landlord issued its stage 1 and stage 2 responses within its published timescales. While this was positive, it repeated its earlier failing as there was a 12 working days delay in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint. This was unreasonable and not in line with its complaint policy. The landlord also incorrectly recorded the date the complaint was raised, which meant it did not identify this failing during the complaints process. It said that the resident had raised her complaint on 10 December 2025, when she had made the complaint on 22 November 2025.
The resident asked the landlord to combine all her complaints into a single stage 2 response. In February 2026 the landlord explained that it could not do so because the first complaint had exhausted the complaints process and concerned different issues. This was reasonable and the landlord clearly explained its decision to the resident. Its approach was also consistent with its complaints policy and the Code, which describes that new issues raised during an ongoing investigation can be treated as a separate complaint.
In line with our Compensation Guidance, we order the landlord to pay £50 compensation to reflect the impact of its complaint handling failings on the resident. This award recognises that the delays in acknowledging both complaints caused some inconvenience but were short in duration. It also reflects that there is no evidence the delays significantly affected the resident or impacted the overall outcome of either complaint.

Learning

The landlord could learn lessons to ensure management move decisions are correctly administered in future.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not promptly and appropriately log some of the resident’s complaints, resulting in delays in its acknowledgements and responses. It could look to learn lessons from this case to ensure complaints are logged promptly so that it can respond within the timescales set out in its complaints policy and the Code.

Communication & repairs

The landlord could consider how it may provide residents with a work schedule and timely updates on repairs, particularly where delays occur, in future. This may include clearly explaining repair decisions, timescales, responsibilities, and the reasons for any changes, to manage residents’ expectations.