LiveWest Homes Limited (202439621)

Background

1. The resident has purchased the property since her formal complaint to the landlord. The resident reported damp above her lounge window. The resident stated the issue was longstanding and the damp reoccurred in December 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and water ingress.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We find the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in its handling of:
   1. Damp and water ingress.
   2. The associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. There were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of damp and water ingress. The landlord did not respond in a reasonable time to the resident’s reports nor did it keep the resident updated. However in our view the landlord’s acknowledgment of its failings, outline of works it would undertake, and compensation offer was fair and recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
6. There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling however Its offer of compensation was fair and reasonable.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

7. The resident had reported damp around the lounge window to the landlord for several years and previously completed the landlord’s complaints process. We acknowledge this has caused the resident distress. Our investigation focuses on the repair the resident reported on 26 December 2022 because this report fell within 12 months of the formal complaint that was later referred to us.
8. The landlord’s repairs service standard states it aimed to provide appointments within 28 days for all responsive repairs. It also states it provides residents with a dedicated point of contact when reporting damp and mould.
9. The landlord’s repair service standard does not make clear whether it aims to complete responsive repairs within 28 days or only to offer an appointment within that time. We have recommended that the landlord consider this lack of clarity when it next reviews and updates the standard. Nevertheless under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord must complete repairs within a reasonable time.
10. On 26 December 2022 the resident reported that damp had reappeared around the lounge window. The landlord completed a render repair on 22 February 2023. The resident reported the same day that water was entering above the living room window.
11. The landlord raised a job for an inspection on 5 March 2023. The resident chased for updates in April and May 2023 and said the issue was worsening. We have not seen evidence that the landlord provided updates or attended until 29 June 2023, when it completed a damp and mould survey. This was an unreasonable delay. The survey recorded damp staining and deteriorating wall finishes around the lounge window. It recommended further investigation to identify the source of water ingress and resealing the exterior window frame.
12. It took 20 working days for the landlord to raise a job to reseal the exterior of the lounge window. The landlord was not proactive in arranging the repair. In September 2023 after the resident requested another update, the landlord identified that it had logged the job incorrectly and had not allocated an appointment. This error caused additional delay.
13. On 3 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that a contractor had attended that day and resealed the exterior window frame. She said damp was entering from above the lounge window. She told the landlord she was at a “total loss” and did not have anyone to contact. Had the landlord provided a dedicated point of contact in line with its service standard, it may have avoided the resident’s distress.
14. The resident later reported water dripping inside the lounge window during rainfall. The landlord visited on 9 November 2023. It agreed to seal a gap along the top of the window and apply masonry cream to the area between the lounge and first‑floor window. This work was completed on 29 November 2023, within reasonable time.
15. On 10 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that the water ingress continued. The landlord raised a job for an inspection the same day. Its stage 2 response stated that an inspection took place on 21 March 2024. However, we have only seen evidence of an inspection on 2 April 2024. During that visit, the landlord identified the need for further investigation.
16. We have not seen evidence that the landlord arranged these further investigations or provided updates to the resident. The resident contacted the landlord in July 2024 and said she had not received any communication for several months. It is unreasonable the landlord did not contact the resident within those 3 months..
17. On 9 September 2024 the resident told the landlord she was experiencing a lung infection. The landlord chased the contractor for an appointment the same day however we have not seen it considered the impact the damp was having on the resident any further. A survey took place on 12 September 2024, 5 months after the landlord identified the need for further investigation. It was not acceptable that the landlord did not progress this sooner.
18. The survey recommended resealing the bedroom window above the lounge window and checking the radiators for leaks. If these were ruled out, it recommended checking the roof to ensure it was watertight and inspecting the rendering.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would replace 1 bedroom window and the lounge window and It was awaiting a quote. We have not seen evidence of the landlord’s decision‑making for replacing the windows. The landlord fitted the new windows in February 2025 and it has told us there had been no further reports of damp or mould.
20. Overall there were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the repair. Although some works were completed, the landlord did not act with urgency when these failed or when further investigation was required. The landlord also did not provide regular updates, and the resident had to chase the landlord. These failures caused distress to the resident. We acknowledge that after the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, the landlord contacted the resident more frequently with updates.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged its failings, set out the works it would complete, and offered compensation to the resident. We consider the landlord’s offer of £1,250 to be fair and proportionate to the failings identified at the time of its complaint response. The compensation offered is within the region of “severe long-term impact” as per the landlord’s compensation guidance. Had the landlord not taken these steps, we would have made a finding of maladministration.
22. We have seen evidence the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the quality of the window installation. We have not assessed this because it happened after the landlord’s formal complaint process and the landlord has not had a fair opportunity to respond.
23. However, as the repair was outstanding at the time of the landlord’s final response, we have recommended that the landlord consider whether further compensation is due for the period from its final response to the completion of the repair.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time required stage 1 responses to be issued within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints would be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days of acknowledgment.
25. The resident was unhappy that the landlord logged a new formal complaint even though she had previously exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. She felt the landlord should have considered the historical issues, as she had been in contact with the landlord for several years about damp around the living room window. In our view, it was reasonable for the landlord to treat her dissatisfaction as a new complaint because the earlier complaint was made more than 12 months previously. A new investigation was therefore appropriate to consider the circumstances at that time.
26. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 14 working days after the resident made her complaint, which was outside its policy timescale. However, it met the timescale it gave the resident in its acknowledgment. We therefore consider this caused limited detriment as the resident’s expectations were set and it met the commitment.
27. In July 2024 the resident told the landlord that her complaint remained unresolved. The landlord advised that it could escalate the complaint to stage 2 and asked the resident to confirm this. We have not seen evidence that the resident gave this confirmation. However, as the issue was unresolved, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to escalate the complaint at that time.
28. On 4 November 2024 the resident contacted the landlord, saying she had requested escalation in July but had received no response. The landlord acknowledged this within 5 working days.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued 23 working days after its acknowledgment, which was a slight delay.
30. We identified some failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, we consider the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation to be fair and reasonable in response to the failures identified. We therefore find that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s incorrect logging of the repair caused a delay in the work being completed. Although this was an administrative error, the landlord may wish to consider whether any staff learning could help prevent similar errors in future.

Communication

32. As discussed, overall the landlord’s communication was poor. Had the landlord provided the resident with a designated contact, it may have improved the overall co-ordination of the repair and provided reassurance to the resident.