LiveWest Homes Limited (202325385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325385

LiveWest Homes Limited

24 December 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. The air source heat pump (ASHP).
   2. The garden.
2. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a fixed term, assured joint tenant. He moved into the new build 3-bedroom semi-detached house in January 2021. The defect period ended late December 2021.
4. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 September 2022. This was in response to feedback from a surveyor regarding the resident’s concerns. The resident said:
   1. He believed his grass died because of poor ground preparation by the developer. It had not used topsoil prior to the turf being laid. The resident had also found rocks and builders waste in the soil. He did not believe the grass died due to his dog, or the decking and extra shed he installed as the surveyor said.
   2. The garden was undulated. An airbrick would be under the ground level if he were to level it.
   3. Some weep vents were hanging out or blocked up.
   4. There was a crack in the rear bricks.
   5. There was a groove in the render where the gate rubbed against it.
   6. He believed his ASHP was set too high and was resulting in higher bills, which was not his fault.
5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 23 September 2022. It did not uphold his complaint. It stated:
   1. Its surveyor said the decking was not the cause of the grass dying, but the construction of the decking along with some damage due to dog urine. Heavy usage will damage grass in a smaller garden. The developer used a mixture of topsoil and site soil, checked by the clerk of works fortnightly against National House Building Council (NHBC) standards. It is also possible that the topsoil may have been compressed and turf damaged due to leatherjackets.
   2. Airbricks should not be covered. Regulations call for 600mm of space in front of airbricks, if not possible a smaller space would be permitted by NHBC. The property was signed off by them and building control.
   3. If the resident was concerned about weep vents, he could raise a job for the landlord to come out. There are no regulations dictating how far they should protrude.
   4. The landlord had previously asked the resident to send in photographs of the cracked bricks to see if it was a latent defect.
   5. The resident raised the groove in the render in the end of defect checks. The developer would resolve this.
   6. It would visit to reassess the ASHP settings.
6. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on the same day and sent the requested photographs. After he did not receive a response, he sent this again on 12 December 2022. He did not agree that it had been overused to construct the decking. He said the garden had been near perfect until approximately September 2021. He installed the decking shortly after moving in. If the soil had been compacted, then it shows the ground was not properly prepared and there was no topsoil in the garden. He had only just got the dog, so it did not impact the grass. He did not want a level garden, just one without big dips and humps. This also represented poor preparation. The resident was not concerned about the regulations for the weep vents, but in having a good finish to the house. The landlord had additionally not visited to look at the ASHP. At the time the complaint was raised with the Ombudsman, he objected the surveyor’s findings attributing the deterioration of the grass to decking construction and dog urine.
7. The landlord sent its final response letter on 14 February 2023 after advising the resident it needed extensions. It said the resident wanted the landlord to investigate and resolve the garden, outstanding defects, and the ASHP issues. It partially upheld the complaint. The landlord was satisfied topsoil was used prior to turfing, this would have compacted, so any inspection would not be a fair reflection of what was put in at build. The landlord said the resident did not raise garden concerns at the end of defect checks. The landlord said it was not unusual to find builder’s waste in gardens but as the resident seemed to have more than was reasonable, it offered £300 compensation. The landlord found some blocked weep vents, so partially upheld this, and raised a repair. It had also wanted to inspect the airbricks, but as the resident was not home it could not. It would arrange an appointment. The hairline crack in the bricks was likely to be due to settlement. The landlord apologised as it had raised an inspection for the ASHP, however it had not done this. It awarded £50 for this oversight. It had been to visit and confirmed the ASHP was working correctly.
8. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the garden and ASHP elements of the complaint. As a resolution he would like the landlord to improve the garden drainage or install a soakaway, and increased compensation for the energy use.
9. The resident provided a survey report which was conducted in March 2025. This illustrated a number of present defects.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the ASHP.

10. We acknowledge the resident had previously reported a repair issue with the ASHP to the landlord. We cannot investigate this issue, however, as the resident did not raise this as part of this complaint.
11. In the resident’s complaint he told the landlord that he thought the ASHP was set too high. In the stage 1 the landlord said it would visit to assess this. This was an appropriate response.
12. The landlord recognised that it had not actioned this inspection as quickly as it should have. By the time the landlord had issued the final response letter it had been to inspect the ASHP and found there were no issues. The landlord’s policy states it will award £25 for missed appointments, in this case the landlord awarded £50.
13. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised the resident had waited for longer than he should have and doubled the compensation amount. We have considered this and have concluded that it made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving the complaint. This was proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance for a service failure of this nature.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the garden.

14. From time to time there will be defects and snagging in new build properties which may not have been identified at the point of handover. There is subsequently a 12-month defect period and an opportunity at the end of this period to report any defects or issues that do not meet the agreed standard. The NHBC provided further warranty, and the landlord’s repairs service standards may cover general repairs after the defect period ends. The existence of defects alone would not constitute a failure in the landlord’s service.
15. The resident was aware of the defect period and raised other issues during the defect visit in late November 2021. We have not seen evidence in the defect records either the landlord, developer, or resident raised the garden as an issue.
16. The resident advised us that he raised issues about the garden over the telephone with the landlord prior to the end of the defect period. He hoped he had evidence of this through an email exchange, however we have not seen this. We have also not seen reference he mentioned this in communications with the landlord. As an evidence-based service, we can only rely on the evidence available to us. Therefore, as far as our records go, it appears that the resident first reported the poor drainage in the garden on 14 March 2022.
17. The landlord’s repairs service standards put the responsibility for gardens with the resident. In the final response letter, the landlord highlighted it provided the resident with a home user guide. This was a guide to living in the property and gave information about specific things. It advised:
    1. It cannot guarantee grass will not require maintenance or is free draining.
    2. Work may be needed to improve drainage to keep the turf healthy.
    3. Dead grass is not considered a repair. Lawns, gardens, and landscaping are the resident’s responsibility.
    4. Any leatherjackets are to be treated before the lawn is killed off.
    5. Of practical tips to ensure the new lawn takes.
18. After receiving further reports of garden issues from the resident in April and May 2022, the landlord appointed a consulting surveyor to investigate. This survey was completed in June 2022 and concluded it was not a defect. This investigation formed the basis of the resident’s complaint.
19. When the resident escalated his complaint, we have seen the landlord approached a surveyor to explore whether there was a more intrusive way to establish the depth of the topsoil. The surveyor said this would not be a fair assessment as the garden was 2 years old by this stage and the soil would have been compressed. They confirmed the clerk of works who was following NHBC guidance and building control signed off the property.
20. We acknowledge the resident disputes the survey findings. While we cannot determine the reasons the resident has had issues with his garden, we will look at whether the landlord acted fairly in all the circumstances.
21. It is a fact the resident had made changes to the garden, we cannot determine whether the extra shed and decking would have significantly reduced the garden ability to absorb the rain, or whether the water run off would have created unfavourable conditions for the lawn.
22. When the resident contacted the landlord, it was appropriate for it to ask a surveyor to visit to see whether this was a defect. Through the investigation for the final response letter, the landlord took appropriate action to see whether there were further tests which could identify issues. In the final response letter, while the landlord did not find any further findings regarding the garden, it did recognise the resident had found more than expected items of builder’s waste and awarded £300 compensation for this. The landlord has shown it took the resident’s complaint seriously and took action to investigate.
23. We are aware after the final response letter the landlord said it would approach NHBC to see if they would cover the garden and it also commissioned a further survey which identified the same garden issues as previous surveys. This is outside the timescales for this investigation. It is also noted the resident asserts the landlord has not been back to inspect or repair the back garden airbricks, as such a corresponding order will be made for the landlord to inspect and complete and works as necessary.
24. As the landlord’s repairs service standards and the home guide put the repairs at the resident’s responsibility this means the landlord acted in line with what we would expect.
25. In summary, the resident experienced issues with drainage, items in the soil, grass dying off, and an uneven lawn. The resident said the grass started dying in approximately September 2021. This meant the resident had an opportunity to raise his concerns with the garden at the defect visit. However, it was raised too late to be the developer’s responsibility. The landlord was clear that residents were responsible for gardens, including the possibility that drainage improvements might be needed and dead grass is not a repair. The landlord seriously considered the resident’s complaint by instructing a surveyor to investigate the garden. It recognised the resident had experienced more builder’s waste than usual and awarded £300 compensation for this. This was in line with our remedies guide for maladministration. This was more than what we would have found. Therefore, in accordance with the Scheme, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the garden.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

26. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request dated 23 September 2022. The resident re-sent this on 12 December 2022, which was when the landlord picked this up. This was nearly 3 months later. The landlord made no reference to this delay in its final response letter. The landlord’s complaints procedure says it will respond to escalation requests, unless agreed with the resident beforehand, in 7 working days. We have not seen evidence the landlord acknowledged this service failure. It is likely the resident would have been frustrated by this oversight and lost confidence in the landlord’s ability to handle his complaint.
27. Once acknowledged the landlord sent interim letters as it was further delayed in providing its final response letter. In one of them it says it will recognise this delay when issuing the final response letter. However, the landlord did not do this. It was positive to keep the resident informed of its delays. However, it should have recognised the delay after promising to do so. Especially as the resident had been waiting for a resolution for such a long time.
28. In accordance with the Scheme we find there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
29. We have awarded the resident £100 in compensation for this failing. This is in line with our remedies guidance for service failure.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme:
    1. The landlord made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the ASHP.
    2. The landlord made an offer of redress prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the garden.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

32. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £100.
33. The landlord is to inspect the back garden airbricks and raise any repairs should this be necessary as a result of the inspection.
34. The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to us in 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

35. We would emphasise that we have made the reasonable redress finding on the provision the landlord has either paid or offers again to pay the resident the previously offered compensation of £350. If the landlord does not do this, it would undermine the reasonable redress finding and we may revisit this. We would like to see evidence of the landlord making the payment or offering it to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
36. The landlord is recommended to assess the survey report conducted in March 2025 and advise the resident whether any further works or recommendations will be implemented.