LiveWest Homes Limited (202344704)

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344704

LiveWest Homes Limited

27 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Kitchen improvement work.
2. Bathroom improvement work.
3. Damp, mould and insulation work.
4. The resident’s reports about his front and back doors.
5. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. He lives in a 2 bedroom house with his wife. The landlord is a housing association. It knows the resident and his wife have multiple health conditions.
Between 7 November and 15 December 2022, the landlord replaced the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. During the work, it inspected damp and mould in those rooms and also decided to replace the back door. The resident had previously asked the landlord to change the handles on both external doors.
The resident complained on 2 November 2023. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the kitchen and bathroom improvements. He said there were unresolved issues including that damp and mould remained, inadequate insulation, a gap under the back door and the kitchen sink being too small. He also complained the back and front door handles had not been replaced.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response on 27 November 2023. It explained why the improvement work had taken longer than planned and confirmed it had inspected the damp and mould. It said it could arrange to replace the handles on both doors and offered £75 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
The resident escalated his complaint on 13 December 2023. He said the landlord’s response was not accurate and had not addressed some matters.
The landlord gave an interim stage 2 response on 9 February 2024 and its final stage 2 response on 26 February 2024. Its responses accepted it had not managed the improvement work or repairs as it should have. It was due to visit to scope the work needed and had ordered the back door replacement. It offered £875 compensation for the delays in repairs, the distress and inconvenience caused and its complaint handling.
The resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy with the scope and progress of work the landlord had agreed to do. He wanted the landlord to complete the work needed and pay him more compensation.
Before our investigation, the landlord progressed a programme of repairs. It wrote to the resident on 19 May 2025 confirming the work completed and its intentions for the remaining work. It also offered an additional £1,000 compensation for the delays and inconvenience since its final stage 2 response.
On 7 August 2025, the resident told us he remains dissatisfied. He wants the landlord to complete the remaining work and pay him more compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident brought other matters to the Ombudsman’s attention after we accepted his case for investigation on 9 May 2025. These were:
1. The landlord agreed to replace his front door but the work is not scheduled until March 2026.
2. The landlord agreed to repair external render and paint it but had not confirmed when the work would be done.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. Are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”

There is no evidence any complaints about the above matters have completed the landlord’s complaint process. As such, we cannot investigate them as part of this case. The resident can complain to the landlord and ask us to investigate if he remains dissatisfied after completing its complaints process.

Kitchen improvement work

The resident complained the kitchen improvement work took too long and was distressing and inconvenient. He complained of delays and issues during the work, the conduct of staff and the standard of work. He said the work had not been finished.
In July 2022, the landlord was preparing to update the resident’s kitchen and bathroom as part of its planned improvement work. The resident asked if his wife’s Occupational Therapist (OT) could be involved in planning the work. It was appropriate the landlord agreed as it has obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider reasonable adjustments for disabled people.
The landlord then communicated with the resident and the OT about the scope of the work and adaptations that may be needed. The OT attended the landlord’s survey visit and, on 28 September 2022, sent it a specification for minor adaptations which were:
1. A wider work surface along one wall.
2. Drawer units on each side of the cooker and under the wider section of worktop.
3. Pull out shelves in a corner unit.
4. A sink unit with doors that opened differently and taps positioned to maximise work top space.
It was appropriate the landlord agreed to include the adaptations in the improvement work. Doing so was in line with its Aids and Adaptations Policy which said it would do minor adaptations if needed.
Before starting work, the landlord met with the resident on 26 September 2022 to explain the work and agree his choice of units, worktops and flooring. It also sent him copies of the layout and design plans for his new kitchen. It continued to communicate with him answering multiple queries about the planned work.
It is clear the resident knew the work would start on 7 November 2022. It is not clear if the landlord managed his expectations about how long it would take or the level of disruption anticipated. Its evidence shows the work was due to take 2 weeks but the resident’s correspondence says it told him it would take just over a week. The evidence does not explain why the resident and landlord had a different understanding of how long it would take.
The landlord sent the resident a letter to notify him of the start of the work. It was not dated but the resident received it on 10 November 2022 after the work had already started. The letter gave an incorrect start date. The landlord should make sure it gives accurate and timely advice to residents when planning future improvement work.
The work was done by the landlord’s repairs team. On the first day of work, an operative asked the landlord if a gas meter should be moved from inside a kitchen unit. The landlord considered moving the meter but decided not to. This was because it would have to ask the gas supplier for permission and doing so would delay the work. The decision was reasonable and there is no evidence it delayed the work.
On 8 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying its electrician did not know where to put sockets. In his later complaint, the resident said this was resolved on 11 November 2022. It is not clear if this issue delayed the work.
On 14 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying he could not have his chosen flooring because of a problem with the kitchen floor level. The landlord made appropriate internal enquiries. On 15 November 2022, it confirmed it would install the resident’s chosen flooring.
There is no evidence the landlord could have anticipated a problem with the kitchen floor level. It is not clear how it resolved the problem or if this caused a delay. However, it was reasonable the landlord wanted to provide the resident with his chosen flooring and replied to his concern quickly.
On 15 November 2022, the resident told the landlord the new sink fitted was smaller than his previous sink. He wanted the landlord to change it for a bigger one. The landlord replied on 16 November 2022 saying his OT had not specified a required sink size and it had fitted its standard sink. It said the OT would need to recommend a different sink if a bigger one was needed for disability reasons. It said the resident could change the sink himself if it was a matter of personal choice.
The resident was not happy with the landlord’s position and said the smaller sink was not an “improvement”. In our view, the landlord’s position was reasonable in the circumstances. Its response gave the resident options to resolve the matter.
The work should have finished by 20 November 2022. The kitchen fitters told the landlord that, despite working over that weekend, there was 3 days of work left to do. The discovery of mould behind kitchen units on 17 November 2022 could have caused some delay. It is not clear if there were other causes of delay up to this point. But, from 21 November 2022, progress was slower because the operatives could not attend every day.
On 28 November 2022, the resident sent the landlord a list of outstanding work. The landlord replied saying its operatives would return on 30 November 2022 to finish the job. The evidence shows the outstanding work was completed by 5 December 2022. This means the kitchen improvement work had taken 2 weeks longer than planned.
Throughout the work, the resident raised issues about the operatives’ time keeping. The landlord had asked him to be available for work to start from 9:00 a.m. each morning. The landlord knew this meant a change to his usual routine and was inconvenient for him. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered a later start time as a reasonable adjustment when planning the work.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord its operatives were not arriving before 10:00 a.m. most days and sometimes left early. The landlord’s replies explained why the operative had been late or finished early on specific occasions. But it did recognise at the time that work started late most days. The landlord may have avoided this part of the resident’s complaint if it had intervened to address the time keeping issues.
When the resident complained on 2 November 2023, he was still unhappy about the landlord’s handling of the kitchen improvements and its decision not to replace the sink. He asked the landlord to label switches in the kitchen and pay him compensation
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 27 November 2023 inaccurately said the work was completed in November 2022. It accepted there were delays and said they were due to the condition of a wall and needing to repair the floor.
It also said the resident not moving his appliances in advance had caused delay. In our view, this was unreasonable as there is no evidence the landlord had asked the resident to move his appliances before it started the work.
In his escalation request, the resident said the stage 1 response was not accurate and had not addressed his points about the kitchen sink, or its staff’s conduct.
In its stage 2 responses the landlord accepted it had not managed the work as it should have. It agreed its operatives’ time keeping was part of the cause and said it would address the matter through the relevant process. It also addressed other points about staff conduct the resident had raised. It repeated its position in not agreeing to replace the sink. But said it would consider the matter further after visiting the resident. It was reasonable the landlord apologised for its failings.
While the landlord made provisions to accommodate the resident, it could have managed the improvement works better. We have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen improvements. This is because:
1. The work took 2 weeks longer than it should have which was inconvenient and disruptive for the resident.
2. It did not address the issue of time keeping during the work despite the resident raising the issue multiple times.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for its handling of the kitchen improvements.
The landlord labelled the electric switches during a visit on 20 March 2024 and replaced the sink with a bigger one on 29 November 2024. This means it gave 2 of the outcomes the resident wanted after the end of its complaint process.

Bathroom improvement work

The resident complained the bathroom work took too long and was distressing and inconvenient. He said at times he was left without a useable toilet or bath.
It was reasonable the landlord arranged to survey the resident’s bathroom with his OT when planning the improvement work. The OT specified the required position of a new bath and additional grab rails as well as the type of taps and toilet flush handle needed.
Given the issues raised by the resident in the ongoing kitchen work, we would have expected the landlord to have taken steps to avoid similar problems when planning the bathroom work.
As with the kitchen work, it is clear the resident knew when the work would start. It is not clear if the landlord managed his expectations about how long it would take or the level of disruption anticipated. The resident’s correspondence shows he understood the work would take a week.
On 20 November 2022, the resident asked the landlord to clarify the size and specification of the new bath. The landlord confirmed the bath would be the same size as the existing one and sent the resident the product specification. But this did not address the resident’s question about the type of plug it would have.
The work started on 5 December 2022. On 7 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying he did not think the work would be finished on time. He raised concerns about work starting late and ending early each day.
The landlord replied on 8 December 2022 assuring him the work would be finished that week. It also said it could not guarantee its operatives would arrive at the same time each morning as arrival times depended on the needs of the job. As such, the landlord again missed the opportunity to consider if there was service failure in its time keeping during the work.
On Sunday 11 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord saying the work had not been finished. He said the new toilet cistern had been constantly filling and emptying since it was fitted the previous Thursday. The plumber had not arrived until the afternoon on Friday and had not fixed the cistern because of difficulty in refitting the radiator. He explained he had called the landlord’s out of hours repair service. The on-call plumber had fixed the toilet cistern but said the toilet had not been fitted correctly and needed further adjustment.
The resident also said the new bath had not been sealed to the wall causing water to leak onto the floor. He gave a list of the outstanding work in the bathroom. He asked the landlord to arrange for its operatives to return on 13 December 2022.
The landlord replied on Monday 12 December 2022. It apologised for the problems and said its operatives would return the following day. It was reasonable the landlord arranged the operatives’ return on the day the resident wanted.
The operatives attended as promised. The landlord’s evidence includes a checklist completed by the operatives which said the job was completed on 13 December 2022.
However, the resident emailed the landlord later that day with a list of work not yet complete. His list included the toilet still not working properly, grab rails not fitted and pipework not boxed in. This suggests the landlord’s completion checklist is not accurate.
It is not clear when the remaining work was done but the landlord emailed the resident on 15 December 2022 saying it understood all the issues had been resolved. This means it took longer than a week to do the bathroom work.
The landlord’s stage 1 response agreed the work had taken longer than it should have and said this was due to mould having to be cleaned off the walls. It also said the resident had signed off the bathroom work and had not reported repairs since. There is no other reference to mould being cleaned off the walls or the resident signing off the bathroom work in the evidence seen.
The resident’s escalation request said the response was not accurate including because no mould was removed during the work. He also said the work had not been completed but did not explain what he felt was outstanding.
In its stage 2 responses the landlord accepted it had not managed the work as it should have. It agreed its operatives’ time keeping was part of the cause and said it would address the matter through the relevant process. It was reasonable the landlord apologised for its failings but it should also have asked the resident what work remained outstanding.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom improvement work. This is because there were similar failings to those in its handling of the kitchen work. This suggests the landlord had not learned from its mistakes.
We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation for its handling of the bathroom improvement work.

Damp, mould and insulation

The resident complained that no repairs were done following a damp and mould inspection during the kitchen improvement work. He said mould had come back in the kitchen and the landlord had not resolved mould in the bathroom. He also complained “poor” insulation was causing the damp and mould and meant his energy costs were higher than they should be.
The landlord inspected on 17 November 2022 after mould was found behind units during the kitchen improvement work. It also found mould in the bathroom. There is no evidence of a report from this inspection or other record of the repairs identified which the resident told the landlord about in his later complaint.
The mould was cleaned off the kitchen walls during the improvement work. But there is no evidence any was cleaned off in the bathroom.
On 24 November 2022, the landlord’s surveyor emailed its asset management team. They said the cavity wall insulation was damp and asked for the resident’s home to be added to a future programme to replace the insulation.
In our view, the landlord’s evidence does not show it took sufficient action to address the cause of the damp and mould following its inspection on 17 November 2022.
There is no further reference to damp, mould or insulation in the evidence seen until the resident’s complaint of 2 November 2023. The complaint put the landlord on notice that repairs were needed.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had inspected previously in 2020 and found no problems with loft insulation. It said it had no need to inspect the cavity wall insulation as the inspection found no defects and had treated “stains” at the time. It confirmed its inspection of 17 November 2022 had found the cavity wall insulation was damp.
The stage 1 response failed to explain why the landlord had not addressed the damp and mould following the inspection. Nor did it address his points about repairs the surveyor had said were needed, his energy costs or mould having returned in the kitchen.
Under its Damp and Mould Policy (effective from March 2023), the landlord should have assessed if the mould was a hazard, removed it and investigated the root cause. There is no evidence the landlord did any of those things following the resident’s complaint of 2 November 2023.
In his escalation request of 13 December 2023, the resident said the stage 1 response was not accurate because he had been reporting damp and mould since 2015. He also pointed out parts of his complaint the landlord had not addressed.
On 11 January 2024 the landlord told the resident it had instructed replacement of his loft and wall insulation and removal of the mould. It said it would investigate the cause of the damp and mould to decide what other repairs were needed. The evidence shows it ordered the mould removal. But there is no evidence it ordered replacement of the loft and wall insulation.
On 12 January 2024, the resident asked for a discussion before the mould was treated. On 15 January 2024 he told the landlord mould was behind panelling in the bathroom and behind units in the kitchen. There is no evidence the landlord responded to either contact at the time.
In its stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord accepted it had not arranged repairs following the inspection on 17 November 2022. It was reasonable it apologised and offered £700 compensation for not completing repairs and the impact on the resident.
It was reasonable the landlord set out proposals to address the damp and mould including:
1. Removing a kitchen unit to check the wall behind and remove any mould.
2. Getting a quote for the insulation work needed.
3. Checking if there were any defects with the damp proof course.
Its final stage 2 response also said it would consider his request for compensation for high energy costs after assessing his loft insulation during a planned visit. There is no evidence it did so after assessing the loft insulation on 20 March 2024.
The landlord did the mould wash and other minor repairs on 20 March 2024. It also inspected the damp and mould. Its survey report says it did not find any rising damp but planned to install additional drainage as well as the insulation work it had already agreed to do.
From 17 April 2024 the landlord and resident communicated about the scope of the work needed and how and when it would be done. On 16 May 2024, the resident challenged some findings from the inspection of 20 March 2024 and the landlord’s plans for the further work.
Progress stalled from May 2024 initially because the landlord’s lead officer was away from work for several weeks. The landlord wanted to progress the repairs but the resident asked to wait for the lead officer’s return. The evidence seen does not explain why there was no progress from June to October 2024 or why the landlord did not respond to the resident’s email of 16 May 2024 until 28 October 2024.
From 25 October 2024, a different officer supervised the work and the landlord communicated with the resident to agree the scope of repairs and plan the work. It was reasonable the landlord considered new concerns the resident raised and added further investigations and work to its plan.
On 11 November 2024 the landlord sent the resident its proposed work plan. The resident replied saying it showed 5 weeks’ of work which was not acceptable to him. He was concerned it could affect Christmas and asked for some work to be done between 18 and 29 November 2024. It was reasonable the landlord revised its plan to reflect the resident’s priorities and access request.
Between 20 and 29 November 2024, the landlord replaced loft insulation and installed the additional drainage. It also had an independent building survey done and had a specialist contractor inspect the wall cavities. It was reasonable the landlord had independent assessments done as they gave it expert opinions on the work needed.
On 13 January 2025, its contractor attended to remove the cavity wall insulation but did not gain access. The contractor removed the insulation in February 2025 and later cleared debris from the cavity.
The independent building surveyor inspected again around 14 February 2025. Their report dated 17 February 2025 concluded the mould and condensation in the kitchen had been caused by the defective cavity wall insulation. It said the cause would have been resolved by the removal of the insulation. It recommended the cavity be left unfilled for at least 10 weeks to allow it to dry out. It was reasonable the landlord followed its consultant’s advice.
On 9 May 2025, the resident told the landlord the drying out had “stalled”. While he did not want a dehumidifier, it was reasonable the landlord offered to provide one and contribute to the running costs. The cavity wall insulation was replaced in August 2025 after the cavity had dried out.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp, mould and insulation work. This is because:
1. It failed to order repairs following its survey on 17 November 2022.
2. It failed to act on the mould reported in the resident’s complaint of 2 November 2023 and did not follow its Damp and Mould Policy.
3. It did not reply to the resident’s request for compensation for high energy costs after assessing the loft insulation on 20 March 2024.
4. It did not respond to some of the resident’s emails within a reasonable time frame.
5. It did not progress repairs between June and October 2024 and the evidence seen does not give any good explanation for this.
In making our decision we have considered the efforts made by the landlord since 11 November 2025. This includes its consideration of new repair issues raised by the resident, his concerns about scheduling of work and his access requirements.
Through its complaint process, the landlord offered £700 compensation for delays and impact up to March 2024. It later offered an additional £1000 for the further delays to August 2025. These sums are in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for long term impact.
We have ordered it to pay £50 additional compensation for not replying to the resident’s request for compensation for high energy costs after assessing the loft insulation on 20 March 2024.
We have also ordered it to arrange another independent damp and mould survey. This is because the resident told us he still has mould in his kitchen and bathroom. The landlord should complete any repairs recommended in the survey in line with its Repair Policy timescales.

Front and back doors

The resident complained the landlord had not replaced his back door or fitted the handles recommended by his OT to both external doors.
During preparations for the kitchen and bathroom the resident’s OT recommended changing the handles on his front and back doors. It was appropriate the landlord agreed to do so as this was in line with its Adaptations Policy to do minor adaptations.
There is no evidence to explain if, or when, the OT gave the landlord a specification for the handles.
On 11 November 2022, the landlord raised an order to replace the back door. This was because of a problem with the kitchen floor level arising during the improvement work. The landlord’s operatives had adjusted the door to progress the kitchen work but this left a gap at the bottom of it. The resident also reported he had difficulty in locking the door after the adjustment.
The landlord also chased the OT for the specification of handles and locks required on 11 November 2022.
On 28 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord with a list of work outstanding for the kitchen improvements. It included the replacement of the back door and handle on the front door.
There is no evidence to explain what happened next until the resident emailed the landlord on 14 February 2023. He said he had received a text with a repair appointment. The landlord confirmed its contractor was due to visit him on 22 February 2023. The resident reminded the landlord he needed specific handles.
There is no evidence to explain what happened next until the resident complained. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 27 November 2023 incorrectly said it had replaced the back door and that it should also have replaced the mechanism.
In his escalation request, the resident said neither the back door nor the front door handles had been replaced. The landlord emailed him on 11 January 2024 to confirm it would replace the door and raised another order with its contractor. The resident again reminded the landlord he needed specific handles on the new back door and also on the front door.
In its stage 2 complaint responses, the landlord apologised for not replacing the back door or front door handle yet. It confirmed it had ordered the work and given its contractor details of the type of handle to use on both doors.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 5 March 2024. There is no evidence it responded. When the landlord inspected on 20 March 2024 it noted the back door was still on order with its contractor. But it is not clear if it updated the resident during the inspection.
The resident chased again on 16 May 2024. He said the contractor had measured up for a new door on 8 April 2024 but said it was not aware a specific handle was needed and had not been asked to replace the front door handle. He said the handles were needed urgently because his wife could not open the doors with the existing handles.
On 22 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord saying he had received an appointment for the back door to be fitted on 5 June 2024. He said he would prefer it to be coordinated with other planned repairs to avoid multiple appointments over different days. The landlord replied offering other dates.
This happened at the time the lead officer dealing with the damp and mould issues was away from work. On 27 May 2024, the resident told the landlord he preferred to put all work on hold until the lead officer returned. As with the damp and mould work, there is no evidence to explain why nothing happened between June and October 2024.
On 28 October 2024, the landlord apologised for the “poor” communication about the door replacement and assured the resident it had specified the handles he had requested. It said it would arrange to change the handles urgently and it raised an order for this the same day.
On 1 November 2024, the resident asked the landlord to clarify if it still intended to replace the back door. It had not responded by 6 November 2024 when the resident asked to cancel the order to replace the handles until he had spoken with the lead officer.
The landlord then emailed him to explain it had ordered the replacement handles as an urgent repair. It confirmed the back door was ready to be fitted and it would include this in its plan of works. It would also include replacing the handle on the front door.
The landlord sent the resident its work plan on 11 November 2024 which included the door and handle replacements. It was reasonable the landlord adjusted its plan when the resident raised concerns on 13 November 2024.
The back door and front door handle were replaced on 22 November 2024. This was in line with the resident’s request of 13 November 2024.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about his front and back doors. This is because it did not replace the back door and front door handle within a reasonable timeframe after agreeing to do the work in November 2022.
In its stage 1 response of 27 November 2023, the landlord offered £75 compensation for delays in replacing the back door. This is not sufficient given the back door and front door handle were not replaced until November 2024. We have ordered it to pay £125 additional compensation.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2022 edition.
The Code and the landlord’s complaints police defined a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual or group of residents”.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction multiple times during the kitchen and bathroom improvement work. For example, on 14 November 2022, he said he was “angry and disappointed” and, on 28 November 2022, he told the landlord he was dissatisfied with its decision not to change the sink.
In line with the Code and its policy, the landlord should have considered if these were complaints that should be dealt with under its policy. There is no evidence it did so, which meant it missed the opportunity to investigate and address its handling of the improvement work at the time.
The resident’s complaint of 2 November 2023 gave a 50-page account of events and his points of dissatisfaction. The Code required the landlord to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. The landlord told us it could not show it had acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 as it should have.
We have explained earlier in this report how the landlord’s stage 1 response of 27 November 2023 failed to adequately address the points raised in the complaint. It was also late because the landlord gave its stage 1 response 17 working days after the resident complained. The Code required the landlord to give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 3 working days. The Code at the time did not specify a timescale for acknowledging an escalation request. The landlord’s response time was reasonable in our view.
On 2 January 2024, the landlord asked to meet the resident to discuss his complaint. Given the length and complexity of the complaint, and the issues raised in the escalation, this would have been a good way for the landlord to understand the complaint and resolutions the resident had asked for.
The landlord acted appropriately when it accepted the resident’s decision to decline a meeting and preference to communicate by email. It was reasonable the landlord left the option of a discussion open should the resident change his mind.
The Code required the landlord to give its stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy at the time specified a shorter response time. In its acknowledgement, the landlord said it would give a stage 2 response by 5 January 2024.
The Code and the landlord’s policy allowed the landlord to extend its response timescale in exceptional circumstances. As the complaint was complex, it was reasonable the landlord extended its response timescale to 26 January 2024.
However, it did not give its response within the extended timescale given. It had also committed to updating the resident each week but the evidence shows it did not do so. This caused inconvenience to the resident because he chased for updates and the stage 2 response when he had not received it by 26 January 2024.
The landlord extended the response timescale further to 9 February 2022. This was inappropriate because the Code did not allow for further extensions.
The landlord gave an “interim” stage 2 response on 9 February 2024 followed by a final stage 2 response on 26 February 2024. We understand the landlord will have wanted to meet the revised timescale it had given but this meant there were two stage 2 responses, which was not in line with the Code.
In its final stage 2 response, the landlord offered £100 compensation for its complaint handling. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
In our view, the landlord’s compensation offer resolved the complaint satisfactorily. As such, there was reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s complaint. We recommend the landlord considers the failings identified in this case to ensure it complies with the requirements of the Code in future.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen improvement work.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Bathroom improvement work.
2. Damp, mould and insulation work.
3. Resident’s reports about his front and back doors.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £375. This is made up of:
1. £100 for its handling of the kitchen improvement work.
2. £100 for its handling of the bathroom improvement work.
3. £50 for not replying to the matter of energy costs after assessing the resident’s loft insulation on 20 March 2024.
4. £125 for its handling of his reports about the front and back doors.
The landlord must arrange another independent survey to investigate the damp and mould in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. It must send the resident and us a copy of the survey report within 6 weeks of the date of this report. It should complete any further repairs recommended by the survey in line with its repair policy timescales.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord:
1. Pay the £1,875 compensation offered through its complaint process and letter of 19 May 2025 if it has not already done so.
2. Considers the failings identified in this report and decides if it needs to make improvements to its complaint handling, record keeping and handling of improvement and major repair work.