LiveWest Homes Limited (202504047)

Decision
Case ID	202504047
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	LiveWest Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a flat within a grade 2 listed building. He reported a leak through his kitchen ceiling which was causing mould. He said the leak had been ongoing since 2019. The landlord identified that the cause of the leak was due to the timber door and window frame rotting in the upstairs flat. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to the leak. He told us that he has asthma and the leak impacted his ability to use the kitchen in the property. The resident also said he had been unable to purchase the property due to the issues he had complained about.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to a leak.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found the landlord responsible for:
1. Maladministration in its response to a leak.
2. No maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to a leak.

The landlord failed to assess if the property was habitable or consider temporarily rehousing the resident, despite risks from the ongoing leak, damp and mould. It also delayed works by not identifying its responsibility for the window and door replacements at an earlier stage.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord acted in accordance with its complaint handling policy.

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 the £2,000 already offered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak repairs. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 10 February 2026
2	Risk assessment order The landlord must conduct a risk assessment to determine whether the property is habitable due to the ongoing leak and damp and mould. It should take into consideration that the resident has asthma. It should consider offering the resident a move to temporary accommodation until the repairs have been completed. If it decides a temporary move is not suitable, it should write to both the resident and the Ombudsman and explain the reasons why. The landlord must provide the outcome of the risk assessment to both the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 10 February 2026
3	Repairs action plan order The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with an action plan for the outstanding works, including confirmation of the works that it is responsible for and expected timeframes. It should also include its plans for ensuring that any works for which it is not responsible for are completed within a reasonable timeframe.	No later than 10 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 April 2025	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of a leak through the kitchen ceiling. The resident said: The upstairs flat’s door and window were rotten, causing rainwater to leak into his kitchen, over the electric hob. He had sent numerous emails about the issue since 2019, but it was still not resolved. The contractor had taken scaffolding down after a year, before the landlord completed the door and window repairs. His conveyancing solicitor would not allow him to buy the property until the leak was resolved.
13 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, in which it said: It apologised that the resident had to endure the leak for an extended period of time and that a previous complaint in January 2024 had not led to a permanent resolution. The delay was unacceptable and below its required standards. The source of the leak was rotten door and window frames in the flat above, needing urgent replacement. The flat above sold to a private owner before the landlord could do the work, and the owner said they would replace the door and windows themselves, but electrical issues delayed works. Its surveyor would inspect internal damage and visit the upstairs neighbour on the same day, then give a clearer timeline for the replacements, and schedule the internal works. It failed to take ownership of the matter, assuming the flat owner would act immediately. Scaffolding was not needed for the window and door replacements but it apologised that it did not inform him in advance that it would be dismantled. It offered £550 compensation, made up as £500 for delays, impact and lack of communication and £50 for not informing him about scaffolding removal.
30 May 2025	The resident escalated his complaint and said he wanted the landlord to resolve the repairs issues and increase the compensation amount.
7 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it said: It conducted a mould wash on 27 June 2025 but the resident requested the ceiling should not be treated until the remedial works were completed upstairs. Its surveyor and contractor would do a joint inspection of the upstairs flat on 7 July 2025, and the surveyor would continue to update the resident. The compensation it offered at stage 1 did not fully reflect the severity and extended nature of the disruption the resident had experienced. It increased the total amount offered to £1,000 in recognition of: – Extended service failure and distress – Impact on the resident’s health, home and ability to progress with purchasing the flat – Its failure to communicate effectively and take proactive ownership
11 September 2025	The resident confirmed that he wanted the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He told us that: He previously suffered with mental health issues and was also asthmatic and had an allergic reaction to the mould in the kitchen. He had to use buckets to catch the water leaking into the kitchen when it rained. He cleaned the mould with bleach, but it returns soon after. The landlord had inspected but had not advised him of any repairs.
11 November 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident with a position statement following its stage 2 response. It said: On 4 June 2025, its homeownership team confirmed that the window and door frames were the landlord’s responsibility to repair or replace, and its asset delivery team confirmed replacements across the block would form part of a planned programme. On 19 September 2025, the resident reported the leak returned following rainfall and its contractor conducted further remedial works on 9 October 2025. On 11 November 2025, the local authority rejected the landlord’s planning application for replacement windows and doors due to conservation area restraints. It had now engaged a heritage consultant to provide support for its resubmission, which would take approximately 4 weeks. It offered a further £1,000 compensation for the ongoing impact and disruption.
16 December 2025	The resident told us that: The landlord had recently conducted further repairs, but the ceiling was still leaking. There was mould on the kitchen ceiling, and he could not use the electric hob when it was raining heavily, due to water ingress. He had incurred conveyancing fees, and would have to pay further fees to buy the property once the works were completed. He wanted the landlord to increase the amount of compensation to cover the additional costs.

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	The landlord’s response to a leak, causing damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported that the leak had been ongoing since 2019. The resident made a previous complaint in December 2023 and the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 2 January 2024. The resident did not escalate the complaint to stage 2. Our investigation will consider events that occurred after that complaint response.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the outside doors, windowsills and window frames. The landlord’s repairs service standard states it aims to attend responsive repairs within 28 days.
In January 2024, the landlord carried out works to the roof. During these works, the contractor identified that additional repairs were required. The evidence indicates these repairs were delayed due to bad weather. While this was beyond the landlord’s control, it did not demonstrate that it regularly communicated with the resident to provide updates on the works during this time, which it should have done. It is unclear when the contractor carried out the remaining repairs.
On 15 March 2024, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing. The landlord’s surveyor carried out a joint inspection with its contractor on 22 April 2024 to inspect the source of the water ingress. This was appropriate given that previous works had been unsuccessful in resolving the issue. However, there was a delay outside of the 28-day timeframe in the landlord conducting this inspection. The inspection report identified further repairs, but it did not suggest works specifically to the window and doorframe. Scaffolding was installed and the landlord scheduled roof works for 13 May 2024, which were delayed until 30 May 2024 due to delays obtaining materials. The landlord also conducted guttering works in June 2024.
In July 2024, the resident reported that there was still water ingress through the ceiling. The landlord conducted a further joint inspection with its contractor on 19 July 2024 and identified additional roof works. The landlord said that the quote for these works was missed until 19 August 2024 and it therefore did not complete the repairs until 12 September 2024. This was a failing by the landlord. Given the impact on the resident of the ongoing leak, the landlord should have ensured it conducted repairs quickly. It did not state how the works order was missed or what it would do to prevent this occurring again, which it should have done.
On 1 October 2024, the contractor noted that it had contacted the resident for an update and he advised that the ceiling was again leaking after rain. A joint visit on 8 October 2024 confirmed the leak was caused by the window frame in the above flat, which required repair or replacement. This was the first confirmation that the door and window frames from the upstairs flat were the source of the leak.
In November 2024, the landlord’s contractor recommended replacing the door and window frames in the upstairs flat, noting repairs may not resolve the issue. It said repairs would be difficult due to the rotten timber. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it intended to replace the window and door frames, but the new owner of the upstairs flat wanted to manage the replacement themselves. However, the homeowner did not replace the windows and door in the months following this.
In April 2025, the landlord noted it had not completed any further repairs as the owner had advised they would replace the window and door frames. This indicates a failure by the landlord to take proactive steps to ensure that the issue was fully resolved. This meant that the leak, damp and mould was ongoing throughout the winter months.
The landlord conducted a further inspection on 14 May 2025 which confirmed water ingress during heavy rain, and it recommended repairs and a mould wash. On 4 June 2025, the landlord confirmed that, upon checking the lease, the window and door frames were its responsibility. It is not clear whether the landlord was referring to the head lease of the building or the lease for the upstairs flat. However, its position that it is responsible for the windows and doors is not in dispute. Its assets team said that it would replace the windows in the whole block in 2026 as part of a planned programme of works.
The landlord therefore confirmed its responsibility for the windows and door frames in the upstairs flat approximately 7 months after its contractor recommended replacements. The landlord should have established whether it was responsible for the frames much sooner and explored whether it should have replaced them prior to the planned works programme in order to resolve the leak. This delay prolonged the leak, damp, and mould, and affected the resident’s ability to purchase his home. This was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord conducted a mould wash on 27 June 2025 and the operative noted mould in the kitchen and hallway, and that the plasterboard on the ceiling was sagging due to being wet. The landlord has conducted further temporary repairs to the upstairs windows and door since the stage 2 response however, the resident continues to report water ingress.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will take a risk-based approach and triage reports at an early stage. Internal emails in June 2025 show that a staff member raised concerns about whether the resident’s flat was habitable. However, the landlord did not demonstrate that it assessed the extent of the mould, the impact on cooking facilities and risks from water dripping onto the electric hob. It therefore did not act in accordance with its policy.
The resident told us he has asthma and the mould worsened his condition. The landlord should take such medical conditions into account when assessing risk however, we have not seen evidence he notified the landlord of his health concerns.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy also states that in cases where it is unable to remove damp or mould hazards quickly, it will consider a move to either temporary or permanent accommodation. The landlord offered permanent moves, which the resident declined as he wished to buy his current property. However, it did not evidence that it considered rehousing the resident on a temporary basis. In line with its policy, it should have considered offering him temporary accommodation to mitigate any ongoing risk until the repairs could be completed. This was a failing by the landlord.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not clarify that it was responsible for the window and door frames or outline next steps. It did not advise the resident of its responsibility until approximately 4 months later in November 2025, when it said it had submitted a planning application for the windows and doors which the local authority had rejected. In its 9 December 2025 letter, the landlord said it would confirm its approach regarding the repair/replacement of the windows by the end of 2025. In December 2025, the resident told us that he was still unclear as to whether the landlord or the upstairs neighbour would carry out the works.
Overall, there were failings by the landlord to establish responsibility for replacing the window and door frames, conduct a risk assessment and to consider moving the resident temporarily. Although the landlord acted reasonably by carrying out multiple inspections and temporary repairs, the leak remained ongoing and it did not do enough to mitigate the risk to the resident.
Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has offered suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered £1,000 within its complaints process, and a further £1,000 4 months after its stage 2 response. The overall amount offered was reasonable to remedy the failings by the landlord. The resident said the conveyancer had not yet charged him, but he anticipates that the overall fee will be over £2,000. We recognise the resident’s concerns about these charges and that he will have to engage the conveyancer again once the leak has been repaired if he wishes to purchase the property. However, we would not normally order a landlord to pay compensation to reimburse such charges related to a property purchase. We can make orders for the landlord to pay compensation to remedy distress and inconvenience that has been experienced because of identified failures by the landlord resulting in loss of enjoyment of the home.
The resident has experienced distress and inconvenience due to the repeated reoccurrence of the leak, causing damp and mould and disruption to cooking facilities. The amount offered by the landlord is sufficient to reflect the partial loss of enjoyment of his home for the period January 2024 to December 2025. The amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests amounts of over £1,000 for when there has been serious failings and a severe long-term impact on a resident. We have therefore not ordered additional compensation.
Although the landlord offered a reasonable amount of compensation, the circumstances in the property remain the same and the resident continues to be impacted by the leak. The landlord therefore did not make sufficient efforts to put things right within a reasonable timeframe. We have therefore ordered the landlord to conduct a risk assessment and consider temporarily rehousing the resident until the leak is fixed. We have also ordered the landlord to provide an action plan clarifying the actions it will take to resolve the issue, with expected timeframes for repairs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The policy says that it will acknowledge complaint escalations within 5 working days and issue stage 2 responses in 20 working days.
The landlord responded within 10 working days at stage 1. The landlord confirmed it had escalated the complaint 7 working days after the resident’s request, which was a minor delay. It issued the stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. The landlord offered further compensation in November 2025, which was 4 months after its stage 2 response. Landlords should make efforts to fully resolve complaints within the complaint handling process.
However, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to make efforts to put things right outside of the complaints process given the ongoing delay in resolving the issue. As such, we have not found a failing regarding the landlord’s complaint handling. However, the landlord should have explained that it was responsible for repairing and replacing the door and window frames within its stage 2 response. This was a shortcoming by the landlord.

Learning

The landlord should ensure that it undertakes risk assessments to assess habitability in such circumstances as this case and considers temporarily rehousing residents when repairs to leaks damp and mould cannot be completed quickly.

Record keeping

The landlord failed to review the relevant lease when initially dealing with this issue in order to identify its repairs responsibilities for the upstairs flat. The landlord should have established its responsibilities much sooner.

Communication

The landlord should ensure it provides clear information to residents about responsibilities for repairs and maintains regular communication about outstanding works.