LiveWest Homes Limited (202400450)

Decision
Case ID	202400450
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	LiveWest Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	15 December 2025

Background

1. The resident owns the flat on a leasehold basis and sublets it to a tenant. This property is in the main building, which contains 53 flats and is owned by the landlord. The resident reported ongoing leaks from the exterior of the building that were affecting the communal area and inside his property. He then complained the leaks had caused damp, mould, and damage to asbestos containing materials.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the reports of leaks in the property and in the communal area, which resulted in damp and mould.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the reports of damaged asbestos in the communal area and in the property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the property and in the communal area, which resulted in damp and mould.
   2. Service failure in the handling of the reports of damaged asbestos in the communal area and in the property.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the reports of leaks in the property and in the communal area, which resulted in damp and mould.

5. The landlord failed to progress repairs promptly after repeated leaks and did not keep the resident adequately updated. It appropriately provided insurance details and offered compensation at stage 1 of its internal complaints process. The landlord assured timely completion at stage 2, but did not deliver on this commitment. Its offer of redress overall did not mitigate the impact of significant delays and poor communication.

Handling of the reports of damaged asbestos in the communal area and in the property.

6. The landlord did not fully address the resident’s asbestos concerns in its complaint responses. It acknowledged the issue at stage 2 of its internal complaints process and confirmed no evidence of exposure. Though, the response lacked sufficient detail or assurance about inspections of the asbestos. It also failed to provide clear guidance regarding asbestos inside the property, despite the resident raising this.

Complaint handling.

7. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on time. It corrected acknowledgement errors promptly and kept the resident informed when extra time was needed for stage 2. The stage 2 response was sent by the agreed extended deadline.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £600 (inclusive of the £300 already offered). Made up as follows: £300 for the delays to complete repairs associated with the leak. £100 goodwill gesture towards insurance. £50 lack of communication relating to the leaks. £150 inconvenience and distress caused by the lack of communication relating to asbestos. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 12 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 November 2023	The resident complained that the landlord failed to act after leaks were reported on 25 October 2023. He explained that the leaks were causing problems in communal areas and inside his property. This included damp, mould and asbestos exposure. He also said leaks were part of long-standing issues that the landlord had previously assured him were resolved.
27 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and defined it as: Ongoing roof leaks with no action taken. Being told the roof leak was resolved when that was not the case. Damp and mould in the property because of the leaks. Details of the landlord’s liability insurance were provided if the resident wished to make a claim in the meantime.
8 December 2023	The stage 1 response (which was incorrectly dated 27 November 2023) found: Since the more recently reported water ingress, the landlord had failed to offer temporary repairs, despite the severity of the leak. Poor communication with the resident as there were no updates made, and attempted contacts were unclear. Works were scheduled for 11 December to scope repairs. With regards to the reoccurring issues following historical issues from 2021, it was unreasonable to assure that the problem was fixed when this was not the case. It could not confirm the historical communications from 2021 due to missing records, which it agreed was a failure in record keeping. Damp and mould in the resident’s property was his own responsibility as a homeowner. Again, it gave signposting to the landlord’s insurance to make a claim. £250 compensation was offered for: £100 – Failure and delay to complete or offer temporary repairs. £100 – Goodwill gesture towards insurance. £50 – Lack of communication.
8 to 21 December 2023	The resident said that the stage 1 response did not address concerns about damaged asbestos in communal areas and private properties. The landlord apologised for this and on 11 December 2023 agreed to escalate the complaint to stage 2. Its escalation letter included the wrong response date, so the landlord issued a correct letter on 19 December 2023. On 21 December 2023, it extended the stage 2 response to 5 January 2024.
5 January 2024	The stage 2 response confirmed an inspection had found no evidence of asbestos exposure to residents in the building or inside the property. An explanation was provided about staining to the textured ceilings from the leaks. In summary, the landlord said the following plans were in place to put things right: Erection of scaffolding and full inspections booked for 10 to 12 January 2024, followed by a timely repair. Damaged textured ceilings to be removed and replaced in a controlled manner, with affected areas assessed for treatment and redecoration. An additional £50 compensation was offered for the inconvenience and lack of communication relating to the asbestos issue being missed in the stage 1 response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought the complaint to us on 4 April 2024 as the leak and repairs were still outstanding.

 

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	Handling of the reports of leaks in the property and in the communal area, which has resulted in damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

8. In accordance with the lease, the landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance to the structure and exterior of the building. The leaseholder is responsible for repairs and maintenance inside their own property. However, if the property is damaged or destroyed by an insured risk, the landlord will use insurance proceeds to reinstate the damage, subject to the terms of the policy.
9. When the leaks were reported on 25 October 2023, it was positive that the landlord provided its building insurance details so the resident could claim for the cost of damage inside the property. This was reasonable because the leak originated from a defect of the building structure that the landlord was responsible for maintaining.
10. However, there was a delay in inspecting the cause of the leaks. The roof and gutters were difficult to access, and there were challenges in arranging scaffolding and identifying the suspected defects. We accept scaffolding is not always readily available, and positively, the landlord made efforts to arrange as soon as possible. Despite these difficulties, the landlord should have kept the resident updated. It failed to do so, which meant the resident had to chase repeatedly for information about any planned action.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 response took reasonable steps to put things right. It offered £100 compensation for delay in temporary repairs, £100 towards the insurance claim (the excess was £150), and £50 for poor communication. It was also positive that the landlord planned to scope required repairs on 11 December 2023.
12. The contractor attended on 11 December 2023 but could not access the property because it missed the key safe instruction. It was fortunate that access was gained via the property above and the location of the leak was identified. Then an internal email suggests there was a successful visit to the resident’s property sometime the following week. Another visit on 22 December 2023 was delayed because the resident’s tenant had not left the key in the safe, so the water test was postponed until after Christmas.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord provided a schedule for the planned works, including further scaffolding and inspections on 10 and 12 January 2024. It also gave an assurance that the works would be carried out in a timely manner. However, there were further delays for several reasons.
14. There were delays in obtaining approvals for main works between 12 December 2023 and 15 February 2024, which considerably contributed to the overall delay. Some delays were unavoidable, such as staff sickness and adverse weather, which caused a few weeks delay. However, the landlord could have taken steps to mitigate the impact of staff sickness, for example by arranging alternative resources. External works planned to start from 12 March 2024 were postponed to 26 March 2024 due to heavy rain.
15. Following the completion of the complaints process, on 4 April 2024 the resident reported that the leaks were worse and said the property was uninhabitable. A temporary repair was carried out the next day, but further leaks were identified on 16 April 2024, and more temporary fixes were made. The landlord’s records on 24 April 2024 state inside the property was completely dry and works had been successful in stopping the leaks. More permanent works were carried during May, June and August 2024.
16. As noted above, the resident has stated that they considered the property to have been uninhabitable. We have not seen evidence of this. As the residents reports were after the end of the landlord’s complaint process, the matter is not within the remit of this investigation. We have not been provided with details whether the resident made a successful insurance claim to resolve the damage caused inside the property.
17. We have found maladministration because the landlord did not progress the repairs promptly after committing to do so in its stage 2 response. To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays, we order the landlord to pay £200 compensation. This amount is in addition to the compensation already offered in its stage 1 response.

Complaint	Handling of the reports of damaged asbestos in the communal area and in the property.
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord is responsible for asbestos management in communal areas of the building but not for internal asbestos management within the individual leasehold properties. This is compliant with regulation of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012. The resident as the leaseholder is responsible for asbestos inside their own property, including arranging safe handling and disposal of asbestos contained material. The results of an asbestos survey carried out in November 2020 shows detection of asbestos contained materials found in the hallway and landings. All of which were identified as low risk.
19. The resident reported concerns about exposed asbestos resulting from the leak. This was raised in the stage 1 complaint, though the landlord did not address these concerns in its stage 1 response. This meant the resident had to raise the issue repeatedly about asbestos in both the communal areas and inside the property. Although inspections took place in December 2023, the records do not specify any findings or actions relating to the asbestos concerns.
20. The landlord acknowledged the asbestos concern in its stage 2 response and confirmed there was no evidence of exposure to residents in the building or the property. It also offered £50 compensation for poor communication of missing the asbestos concern in the stage 1 response. It was positive that the landlord provided details of planned works and promptly removed the communal ceiling on 18 January 2024. Additional asbestos-containing materials were later removed from communal areas between 28 March and 4 April 2024.
21. However, the stage 2 response lacked sufficient assurance about inspections and did not fully address the resident’s concern about asbestos inside the property. While the landlord stated to us that internal asbestos was the resident’s responsibility, and that it had already provided insurance details for damage inside the property. It is unclear if this was explained clearly to the resident. The lack of guidance and assurance around the asbestos was a service failure. This could have caused understandable concern for the resident about safety for themselves or their tenant. We therefore order the landlord to pay £100 compensation in addition to the £50 already offered.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

22. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
23. The landlord followed the Code when managing this complaint. It issued the stage 1 response within the required timescale. Although the acknowledgement letters contained incorrect dates, the landlord promptly corrected these by issuing an updated letter. When it required more time to respond at stage 2, the landlord updated the resident. The stage 2 response was then issued by the agreed extended deadline. Based on this, we are satisfied that the landlord acted in line with the Code and communicated appropriately throughout the process.  

Learning

Communication

24. There were periods when the landlord did not contact the resident or provide updates on when repairs would be carried out after it became aware of the leak. It would have been good practice to provide regular updates and clear outcomes from inspections. Particularly regarding asbestos, to avoid safety concerns and to provide reassurance.

Record keeping

25. The landlord did not keep records from 2021, which meant it could not evidence the actions taken on previous related issues when related issues were raised in 2023. It would be useful for the landlord to review its record-keeping processes. To ensure inspection reports, communications, and repair updates for unresolved issues are stored securely and remain accessible for a reasonable period. This will help the landlord demonstrate compliance and respond effectively to future complaints.