LiveWest Homes Limited (202427297)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom, mid-terrace house and the resident’s tenancy began in July 2016. The landlord’s records show that the resident has respiratory or breathing difficulties. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp and mould and associated repairs, including works to the roof, gutters, chimney and the kitchen. The resident asked us to investigate his complaint because, at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response, the repairs were still outstanding and he had not received a schedule of repairs with dates. He was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s communications in relation to the repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp, mould and the associated repairs, including works to the roof, gutters, chimney and kitchen.
   2. The associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and the associated repairs, including works to the roof, gutters, chimney and kitchen.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There were delays in the landlord carrying out remedial works, including the works to the kitchen and installing the extractor fans. There were also delays in the landlord making a decision to renew the roof. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident about the outstanding repairs. Although the landlord offered compensation, at the time of its stage 2 response it had not carried out the repairs nor provided the resident with a schedule of the works with timescales.

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.

Our investigation

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.

6. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The structure includes walls, ceilings and the foundations, staircases, bannisters, internal and external plasterwork. The exterior is the outside of the building, including external walls and the roof. It includes drains, guttering and external pipes. It is also a requirement under Section 11 that the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
7. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. They must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
8. The landlord’s repairs and improvement handbook states:
   1. Emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours.
   2. Routine repairs, such as carrying out an anti-fungal mould wash, will be completed within 20 working days.
   3. For routine jobs, residents will be offered an appointment.
   4. Planned work programmes include items that require substantial repairs or replacements, for example renewal of guttering, rainwater goods or a roof.
   5. To achieve value for money, if works require scaffolding, the landlord will inspect and may decide to add the property to a planned programme.
9. The resident advised us on 13 February 2025 that he had been reporting mould in the property for the last 6 years. The landlord’s records show that prior to his last stage 1 complaint on 26 June 2024, he had submitted formal complaints about damp and mould in 2018 and 2019. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as us, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. We therefore consider it fair and reasonable for our investigation to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from 2024 when the resident made the most recent stage 1 complaint to the date of its final complaint response.
10. We have not investigated matters that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 response because a key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 April 2024 to report that the guttering was broken and water was flooding over the side of the property causing damp and mould internally. He also mentioned that the water was damaging the gas meter. In response, the landlord raised an order to repair the broken guttering and to inspect the property for damp and mould. The landlord’s records show that it cleaned the gutters on 20 April 2024. As an initial response, it was reasonable that the landlord had attended within the 20-working day timescale for routine jobs and had cleaned the guttering.
12. The landlord’s records show that it tried to carry out a virtual inspection on 17 April 2024 but decided that it needed to arrange a physical inspection of the property. The landlord’s surveyor carried out the inspection on 22 April 2024. The landlord had therefore carried out the inspection within a reasonable timescale of 10 working days after the resident had reported damp and mould and the problem with the guttering.
13. As a result of the inspection, the landlord raised orders on the same day to:
    1. Carry out a mould wash in the kitchen and at the top of the stairs.
    2. Install a positive input ventilation system and upgrade the kitchen/bathroom extractor fans.
    3. Inspect the roof and chimney.
14. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise orders on the day of the inspection to carry out works to address the damp and mould and to carry out a more thorough inspection of the roof and chimney.
15. The landlord’s records show that the resident phoned the landlord on 8 May 2024 to cancel the planned mould wash. The landlord then attended on 20 May 2024 and 13 June 2024 to carry out the mould wash. However, there was no access and therefore the landlord left ‘no access’ cards. The landlord booked a new appointment for 27 June 2024, however, the job notes state that the resident had asked for the job to be cancelled as he said the kitchen units needed to be removed in order to properly treat the kitchen walls. The landlord had advised the resident on 17 May 2024 that it could remove the backs of the kitchen units to allow mould cleaning.
16. While it is understandable that the resident wanted the landlord to remove the kitchen units to thoroughly treat the walls, the evidence shows that the landlord had made reasonable attempts during May and June 2024 to carry out the mould wash, which had been ordered by the surveyor. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its surveyor that it should remove the back of the kitchen units and carry out the mould wash as an interim measure.
17. The landlord’s job notes state that a scaffolding contractor attended on 24 June 2024 to erect scaffolding but the resident would not allow it to proceed as the scaffolding was affecting his satellite television. The scaffolders therefore agreed to dismantle the scaffolding until the matter had been resolved. As the landlord’s surveyor had requested an inspection of the roof and had ordered repairs to the guttering, it was reasonable for the landlord to have attempted to erect scaffolding in order to access the roof.
18. As part of his stage 1 complaint, the resident said the landlord should have treated the kitchen walls prior to fitting the new kitchen 2 years ago. He also said the kitchen flooring was rotting due to dampness underneath and the guttering was constantly leaking onto his gas meter. In response, the landlord’s surveyor arranged to visit the property on 8 July 2024, which was reasonable as the resident had continued to express his dissatisfaction with the condition of the property.
19. In its stage 1 response dated 10 July 2024, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and said it would carry out various works, including removing the kitchen units to treat the walls, installing a positive input ventilation system, altering the guttering at the front of the property and fitting new extractor fans. It also agreed to remove the kitchen flooring, drying the floor and assessing whether the sub-floor needed to be levelled. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not initially identified the extent of the works required during its earlier inspection on 22 April 2024. It meant that the resident had experienced further inconvenience, delays, time and trouble in terms of the landlord identifying the remedial works.
20. The landlord’s records show that it ordered the parts for the positive input ventilation system on 14 July 2024 and completed the work on 4 September 2024. As the work involved specialist works and was not a normal routine job, the time taken by the landlord to install the system was reasonable. However, the landlord had raised an order on 22 April 2024 to upgrade the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans and the landlord’s records show that it did not complete this work until 8 November 2024. We have not seen any evidence to explain why it took over 6 months to complete this work. We have therefore concluded that the delay was inappropriate. The landlord’s surveyor had identified this work as part of a package to address the reported damp and mould. Therefore, we would expect the landlord to have given this work greater urgency, particularly as the resident had advised the landlord as part of his stage 1 complaint in June 2024 that he had respiratory issues and his 4-year-old daughter was showing signs of asthma.
21. The landlord’s contractor attended on 28 August 2024 to carry out roof repairs. The landlord’s notes show that in preparation for the works it had to erect the scaffolding, reposition the resident’s satellite television dish and arrange for its asbestos team to attend as the slates were thought to contain asbestos. Therefore, in our view, the time taken for the roofing contractor to attend was reasonable after it had tried to erect the scaffolding in June 2024.
22. However, the job notes state that when the roofers attended, they were unable to remove any of the slates for replacement because the roof was considered to be in such poor condition. The roofing contractor recommended the complete renewal of the roof and the re-rendering of the chimney. As the roofing contractor had inspected the roof, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the recommendation of the contractor that it should renew the roof. It was also reasonable for the landlord to package up all of the external work and carry this out as part of its planned programme. The landlord’s records show that on 2 September 2024 it asked its asset management team to arrange for the roof to be renewed and for the other external works to be carried out. Packaging the external works and passing it to the asset management team was in line with its repairs and improvement handbook and was appropriate.
23. We have, however, noted that it took 4 months in total for the landlord to decide that a new roof was required after it raised an order on 23 April 2024 to inspect the roof. While we understand that the landlord was initially attempting to repair the roof, we consider the time taken was inappropriate, particularly as the resident had reported that he and his young child had respiratory issues. It was therefore right for the landlord to apologise in its stage 2 response for the time it took to reach the decision to replace the roof.
24. The landlord attempted to rebook the mould wash in September 2024, however, the resident phoned the landlord on 25 September 2024 to cancel the work as he considered it necessary to remove the kitchen units first. The landlord agreed that more extensive works were required in the kitchen and arranged to inspect the kitchen on 2 October 2024 so it could raise the necessary repair orders to remove the kitchen units and the flooring.
25. Although it was reasonable that the landlord wanted to carry out an interim mould wash to remove some of the mould, the delay in arranging the removal of the kitchen units and the flooring was unreasonable. It had advised the resident in its stage 1 reply on 10 July 2024 that it would remove the kitchen units and the flooring to carry out mould treatment and yet by 25 September 2024, which was 11 weeks later, it had not arranged to inspect the kitchen so it could raise the works order to carry out this work. The delay caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident, which he described in his stage 2 complaint. It was also inconvenient because at this stage the landlord had not provided the resident with a schedule of works with timescales. He had explained in his stage 2 complaint that he had to arrange his work commitments and make arrangements to look after his small child.
26. During the resident’s phone call on 25 September 2024, he advised the landlord that scaffolders had arrived on site to erect scaffolding, even though he had not received any prior notice of their attendance. It was inappropriate that the contractor had attended to carry out works without giving notice and without first booking an appointment with the resident. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that it will offer an appointment for routine jobs.
27. The landlord had agreed as part of its stage 1 response that it would arrange for a contractor to do a survey on the level of insulation in the property and provide a report. However, we have seen no evidence that by the time of its stage 2 response it had arranged the survey. This was unreasonable as the survey had been agreed as part of an inspection carried out on 8 July 2024 to check whether the quality or lack of insulation was contributing to the reported damp and mould.
28. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord provided the resident with any meaningful communication regarding the outstanding repairs between its stage 1 reply on 10 July 2024 and its stage 2 reply on 3 October 2024. This was unreasonable as the landlord was aware that significant works were needed to the kitchen and to the exterior of the property. Therefore, we would expect the landlord to have provided the resident with updates to reassure him that the works were being coordinated and progressed.
29. Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp, mould and the associated repairs:
    1. The landlord took over 6 months to install the upgraded extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom after it had raised the order.
    2. The landlord delayed making a decision and then arranging for the kitchen units and flooring to be removed to allow drying and mould treatment.
    3. There was a delay in the landlord reaching its decision to replace the roof.
    4. The landlord did not provide the resident with a schedule of works with timescales so he could plan his work arrangements and the care of his young child during the works.
    5. The contractor attended in September 2024 to erect scaffolding without having first made an appointment or given the resident notice of the attendance.
    6. At the time of its stage 2 response on 3 October 2024 the landlord had not followed up its commitment to arrange a survey of the insulation.
    7. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding the outstanding repairs, particularly during the period between its stage 1 and 2 complaint replies.
30. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
31. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 1 and 2 responses to acknowledge and apologise for “the service failure” in relation to the services it had provided to the resident. For example, in its stage 2 response it upheld and apologised for sending ad hoc communications without a firm schedule for agreed works and for the delay in deciding to replace the roof. Given the failings we have identified, it was reasonable that the landlord had apologised for the service provided to the resident.
32. The landlord sought to put things right by agreeing to update the resident about the roof and other works by 9 October 2024 and by offering compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. It also said in its stage 2 response that it had taken learning from the complaint and agreed to schedule and book in dates to prevent further ad hoc communications, to monitor actions and communicate effectively. As the resident had complained about the lack of follow-up, monitoring and effective communications, these were reasonable learning points for the landlord to take from the complaint.
33. In terms of the level of compensation offered, the landlord offered £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings (it offered £200 at stage 1 and £400 at stage 2). The landlord’s compensation guidance says that it will offer sums of between £600 and £1,000 for failures where there has been “high level impact” on the resident, such as multiple repairs not resolved. In this case, we consider the impact on the resident to have been high, given that the kitchen was affected, there were external defects causing damp and mould inside the property and the resident had advised the landlord about the family’s respiratory issues. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to make an award that was within the range of awards for high level impact failures.
34. Our outcomes guidance says that we may make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ where there is evidence of some level of maladministration but the landlord has identified and acknowledged this prior to our investigation and has, on its own initiative, taken steps and/or made an offer of compensation, that puts things right.
35. Although the landlord’s offer was in line with its policy, we have not made a finding of reasonable redress in this case. This is because at the time of its stage 2 reply on 3 October 2024 the landlord had not yet resolved the outstanding issues with damp and mould in the kitchen or the external works. Furthermore, it had not yet communicated a firm timetable for carrying out the remedial works. It had therefore not satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint at the point of issuing its stage 2 reply. As the landlord had not satisfactorily resolved the complaint at the time of its stage 2 response nor set out a clear timetable for doing so, we have made a finding of service failure. Our finding recognises that the landlord had partially put things right by offering compensation in line with its policy, however, it had not satisfactorily resolved the complaint.
36. The landlord’s failure to provide a schedule of works with timescales for addressing the outstanding works led to the resident contacting us on 15 October 2024 to report his dissatisfaction that he had not yet received the schedule. This added to his distress and inconvenience regarding the outstanding works and we have therefore ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £100 to reflect this. This sum is within the range of awards suggested in our remedies guidance for findings of service failure. The £100 we have ordered means that the landlord should offer a total of £700, inclusive of the £600 it offered during the complaints process.
37. As we have not investigated matters that occurred after the landlord’s final response, we have ordered the landlord to consider paying additional compensation to the resident from October 2024 until the time it had completed all of the remedial works.

38. The landlord’s customer compliments, complaints and feedback policy states that it has 2 stages to its complaints policy. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. However, if the landlord requires a longer period in which to respond due to the complexity of the complaint, it will inform the resident of the timescale in which it will respond. This will usually be no longer than 20 working days. If an extension of more than 20 working days is needed, this will be agreed with the resident.
39. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days from the date of the acknowledgement. If the landlord needs longer than 20 working days, it will agree the extension with the resident in advance and provide a full explanation.
40. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 June 2024 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the next day. This was appropriate and in line with our complaint handling code which says that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days.
41. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 10 July 2024, which was 9 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord therefore responded within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy.
42. The resident wrote to the land on 29 August 2024 and said he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and wanted the landlord to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 5 September 2024, which was 5 working days after receiving the stage 2 complaint. The time taken by the landlord to acknowledge the complaint was appropriate and in line with its policy.
43. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 October 2024, which was 20 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. The time taken by the landlord to respond to the stage 2 complaint was appropriate and in line with its policy.
44. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within appropriate timescales and we have therefore found there was no maladministration in relation to its complaint handling.