LiveWest Homes Limited (202338791)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy that, despite repairs carried out by the landlord, she is still living with damp and mould several years after first reporting this. She is also unhappy that the landlord has not made alterations to her kitchen to allow space for her appliances.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. damp and mould
   2. problems with her kitchen and the attached outbuilding
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould
   2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with her kitchen and the attached outbuilding
   3. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord failed to follow-up on works carried out to ensure it had resolved the issue, despite the resident’s continued reporting of damp and mould. The damp and mould issue remains outstanding more than 3 years after she first reported it.

Kitchen/outbuilding

6. The landlord made a commitment at stage 1 to resolve the resident’s issues with the kitchen layout and failed to do so. It did not address her outstanding concerns at stage 2 and has left this issue unresolved.

Complaint handling

7. While there were delays during the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord recognised this and offered appropriate compensation in its stage 2 response.

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.

Recommendations

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

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 have not considered

8. The resident told us that the ongoing damp and mould issues have impacted her daughter’s health. It is not clear from the information available whether she made the landlord aware of this. It told us she had referenced disabilities in her communication with it but had declined a home visit in January 2025 to discuss this further.
9. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts 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 will consider whether the landlord considered the resident’s circumstances and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.

Damp and mould

10. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2023 to let it know there was water leaking from her walls following insulation work it had carried out. The landlord’s internal records of February and March 2023 indicate it had found evidence of damp and mould, with external cracks that needed resolving. We have seen no evidence it carried out any work at that time, which was not appropriate.
11. The landlord conducted a survey on 1 June 2023, where it identified cracking to the render. It found signs of damp on the lounge wall and inside a storage cupboard in the kitchen. It identified works it needed to carry out, but its records do not show that it completed these, which again was not appropriate.
12. The resident reported that guttering was leaking at the back of the property on 30 November 2023. It partially resolved this on 18 December 2023 but was unable to complete the job as a trampoline was in the way, which was not unreasonable. It said it would book in a follow-up job to finish this.
13. The resident raised a complaint on 18 January 2024, as she was unhappy the landlord had not resolved the damp and mould issues. She said it was damp in her living room and it had not fixed her hallway as it had promised. The landlord’s internal records of 6 February 2024 acknowledged there had been a long delay since the resident reported the problems without it resolving them.
14. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 20 February 2024, it said it had not booked a follow-up visit to finish the guttering within a reasonable time. It confirmed it had now booked for contractors to visit that day. It acknowledged that it had identified damp and mould works in March 2023. It said a communication issue had led to it not booking the works in, but that it had now scheduled work for 29 February 2024. It offered her £500 compensation to recognise these delays, which was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
15. The landlord also advised the resident to claim on her home insurance for her damaged belongings, if she had this. It said that if she did not have insurance, it could provide details of the company it had partnered with and offered a £250 goodwill payment towards the cost of taking out insurance. This was proactive from the landlord and a reasonable offer.
16. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 February 2024 and said she was unhappy it had not offered any compensation for redecorating. She told it that vents it had installed in the kitchen storage cupboard had not reduced the damp.
17. The landlord’s repairs records show it raised a job to carry out further investigation into the cause of water ingress on 5 March 2024. It did not carry out this inspection until 15 May 2024, which was not in line with its repairs policy timescale of providing appointments within 28 days. During this visit, it identified that the concrete porch canopy was the source of the ingress and was beyond repair.
18. The landlord delivered dehumidifiers to the resident on 24 June 2024 and removed the old porch on 10 July 2024. In its stage 2 response of 9 July 2024, it said that it would arrange an appointment to install a new porch. It did not give a date or any timescale for this, which was not appropriate. It said that once the moisture levels had reduced within the property, it would carry out reinstatement work. It also confirmed that a leaking drainpipe had been fixed.
19. The landlord offered the resident additional compensation of £710, to cover the cost and intrusion of the dehumidifiers, redecoration costs, replacement of damaged belongings and the anxiety caused to her. This brought its total compensation offer to £1,210. This amount was proportionate, and within the range of its compensation policy for high level impact.
20. The landlord’s repairs records show that it installed the new porch on 26 August 2024. While this was not within the timescale of its repairs policy, we appreciate it likely required parts that needed to be ordered, so this was not an unreasonable delay. It raised a job on 2 September 2024 to assess the damp stains in the property once it had dried out and it collected the dehumidifiers on 1 October 2024.
21. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 October 2024 to say that water was still getting into the property. It booked an appointment for 26 November 2024 to carry out an inspection but its records say the resident cancelled this on the day. It is not clear from the records whether the landlord attempted to book a new appointment, which it should have done. The resident continued to report damp during December 2024 and January 2025. The landlord visited the property on 13 January 2025 and identified issues with the window cavities which it thought could be causing the damp.
22. The resident continued to contact the landlord during February and March 2025. On 7 March 2025 the landlord told her it was actively chasing its contractor and agreed that photos she provided showed that the plaster was not drying out. The resident replied to say the landlord had not yet rendered the porch, which may have been part of the problem. The resident said she stopped receiving any contact from the landlord and it had not resolved the damp issues.
23. The landlord has told us that it did some redecoration work in April 2025 and has no open repair requests for damp and mould. However, its records do not demonstrate that it carried out any repairs following the visit in January 2025. So, it has failed to show that it took appropriate action to get to the root cause of the damp issue and resolve this, despite being aware of outstanding issues.
24. We have made our award of compensation with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind where there has been a persistent failure over a protracted time. While the landlord has carried out some repairs and offered compensation during its internal complaints process, it has not resolved the damp issue more than 3 years after the resident first raised it.

25. In her complaint of 18 January 2024, the resident said that she was having trouble with her appliances in her utility room as it was too cold and damp. She said that when she moved in the landlord had told her it was a utility room and was where she would have to put her fridge freezer and washing machine as there was not room in the kitchen. When speaking with her about her complaint on 9 February 2024, the landlord said it would look at the kitchen layout.
26. In its stage 1 response of 20 February 2024, the landlord said the room was an outbuilding rather than a utility room. It said the room was not built to a habitable standard as it was not intended to be a part of the living space. It has been unable to provide any evidence to show that it made this clear to the resident when she moved into the property. However, as the resident moved into the property in 2015, it is not unreasonable that it cannot provide this. Given that the resident did not raise this issue until 2024, we have not investigated what the landlord did or did not tell the resident when she moved in. We have only considered how it responded to her when she raised the issue in 2024.
27. In its response, the landlord said it was due to replace the kitchen that year and it would redesign it to resolve problems with the layout. This set an expectation that it would carry out a redesign that would allow for the appliances to be inside the property. The resident responded to the landlord on 23 February 2024, saying that it had led her to believe the outbuilding was a utility room and told her that was where she would need to put her appliances. She said it did not tell her she might need specialist equipment.
28. The landlord completed kitchen replacement work in April 2024, but the resident was not happy with this. She has told us that she can no longer access the sink safely when the cooker is in use and she is still unable to fit her fridge freezer in the room. On 12 June 2024 she emailed the landlord to say that the point of the kitchen refurbishment was to make space for her fridge freezer.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 9 July 2024 did not respond to the resident’s ongoing concerns about the kitchen, despite her making it clear she felt this issue was unresolved. It was not appropriate that it failed to address this in its final response.
30. The landlord’s internal communication records from 15 July 2024 show that it did not want to consider upgrading the outbuilding to make it habitable. It said this would require planning permission and would not be economical. This was not an unreasonable decision for the it to make. It said that it would be best to optimise the current space and said it had suggested knocking through the wall between the kitchen and dining room. Its records said the resident did not want this as one of her children sometimes slept in the dining room, and the resident has confirmed this is accurate.
31. The resident gave the landlord a valid reason for not wanting to lose the separate dining room. However, this was a reasonable proposal from the landlord, given the layout of the property.
32. The landlord’s records also state it suggested redesigning the kitchen to remove the built in store cupboard/larder and moving the door. Its notes say the resident was not happy with this suggestion. The resident has confirmed this option was problematic due to the larder having a sloping roof under the stairs.
33. We have made our award of compensation with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind where the resident has had good cause to complain and has suffered a moderate level of inconvenience. It did not follow through with the commitment it made at stage 1 and failed to address the issue at all at stage 2. It missed the opportunity to redesign the kitchen in a way that would allow space for her fridge freezer, despite saying it would do this. And, it has not demonstrated that it has considered alternatives to removing the wall between the kitchen and dining room.

34. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord sent its stage 1 response 23 working days after the resident raised the complaint (18 January to 20 February 2024) – which was not in line with its complaints policy timescale of 10 working days
    2. the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request after 1 working day (26 April to 29 April 2024) – in line with its policy timescale of 5 working days
    3. the landlord sent its stage 2 response 48 working days after it acknowledged the request (29 April to 9 July 2024) – which was not in line with its policy timescale of 7 working days
35. Although the resident formally requested escalation of the complaint on 26 April 2024, she first expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 23 February 2024. It said it would review her response for more compensation but failed to do so. Given that it was clear at that time she was not happy with its offer, it may have been appropriate for it to have discussed escalation at that time.
36. The landlord did acknowledge complaint handling failures, including a delay to escalation, in its stage 2 response. Its offer of compensation of £300 to recognise the delayed escalation and its failure to follow-up on the resident’s request for the stage 1 compensation offer to be reconsidered was proportionate to its failings and in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

37. The landlord’s repair records are not clear, which likely contributed to its failure to raise damp and mould works following its inspection in March 2023. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlord may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.

Communication

38. The landlord’s records do not show that its overall communication was good. While it recognised communication failings during its internal complaints process, it failed to implement improvements after this. It did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on her to chase it for updates. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while investigations and repairs are ongoing.