LiveWest Homes Limited (202531212)

Background

1. The resident purchased the property as a shared owner in 2020, and the property is still in its warranty period, provided by an organisation called NHBC on newly built homes . The resident is unhappy the landlord has relied on a survey carried out by NHBC and does not accept its proposed resolution to an ongoing damp and mould problem.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the proposed repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the proposed repairs
   2. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The delays in resolving the damp and mould issue were largely out of the landlord’s control. While the communication from the landlord was poor at times, it recognised this in its stage 2 response and offered appropriate redress.

Complaint handling

6. Except for a one-day delay at stage 2, which did not impact the resolution for the resident, the landlord responded to the complaint in line with its 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.

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 landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 5 February 2024, following the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It found mould growth around door reveals and in the corners of a bedroom and found the ground level was breaching the damp proof course, with air vents blocked. It drilled into the cavity wall and found the insulation dry but sporadically filled. In this report, it recommended removing the existing insulation and replacing this with bonded bead insulation, as well as a sterilised mould wash and redecoration internally.
8. The landlord’s Defect policy says that claims should be raised directly by shared owners, although it does say that the warranty provider may require the landlord to liaise with the resident. In this case, NHBC did say it would only liaise with the landlord, not the resident, about the claim.
9. The landlord contacted NHBC to start a claim under the building warranty and NHBC responded on 28 February 2024 to confirm it had started this process. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 4 March 2024. It responded the same day to say it had not yet received a copy of the report following the inspection. It said it would update him in a week.
10. The resident chased the landlord on 15 May 2024 as he had not had an update, which was not in line with that it had promised. The landlord responded on 17 May 2025 and apologised for the delay. It confirmed it had raised a claim with the NHBC. On 29 May 2024 the resident asked for a copy of the claim, however the landlord said it could not provide this as the claim involved other properties and had other people’s information included. It was reasonable for the landlord not to share this with the resident.
11. The landlord continued to liaise with NHBC during July and August 2024. On 16 August 2024 it sent the resident a redacted email showing the claim it had made for his property. We have seen no evidence of any further update until 17 December 2024, when it contacted him to say an appointment was booked for 19 December 2024. It is not clear from the records what this appointment was for or if it went ahead.
12. The landlord contacted the resident on 18 February 2025 and said NHBC would need access to his property on 20 March 2025 to inspect the insulation and ventilation. The resident confirmed the appointment was suitable.
13. NHBC produced a report, dated 2 July 2025, saying there was evidence of damp and mould in multiple areas. It found that the ventilation systems were not suitable for the property and said new extractor fans needed to be installed and ducting in roof space insulated and connected. It is not clear why there was a long delay between the visit and production of the report, but we have seen no evidence of any delay caused by the landlord. We do not have the jurisdiction to consider the actions of NHBC so cannot comment on its handling of the claim.
14. On 11 July 2025 the resident raised a complaint as he was unhappy with the proposed solution. He felt the insulation should be replaced and that work should be done to the air bricks that were too low. He also wanted the landlord to make good external render damage and internal damage from mould. He told it the mould was affecting his health.
15. In its stage 1 response of 28 July 2025, the landlord said it was engaging with a contractor to undertake the work recommended by NHBC. In the meantime, it offered to carry out a mould wash. It said the air bricks had been signed off by building control and confirmed remedial work to the external render had been completed. It said there was no evidence the property did not meet the EPC standard. It said it had faced challenges with finding a contractor to commit to the work. However, it did not acknowledge the lack of updates it had provided the resident, which was not appropriate.
16. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 22 August 2025. He said the communication had been poor and it had not responded to all his concerns, including his health issues and his inability to decorate his property.
17. On 11 September 2025 the landlord contacted the developer who had built the home, asking it to confirm it would be completing repairs. It chased this on 18 September 2025 and served notice regarding the defect on 23 September 2025. The developer responded the same day to say it would inspect the property and then make recommendations for follow up work.
18. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 29 September 2025, in which it explained that NHBC had declined the claim due to the cost of the work being below the excess amount. It apologised for the delay in arranging the work. It acknowledged his concerns about the cavity wall insulation but said it would be carrying out the work recommended by NHBC first and would continue to monitor for damp and mould.
19. We appreciate that the resident was disappointed with this proposal and would like the landlord to replace the insulation. However, it was reasonable for it to rely on NHBC’s recommendation, especially as it committed to continue to monitor for the return of damp and mould.
20. In its response, the landlord acknowledged that the air bricks were too low and said that positioning these above ground level can be challenging when level access to the property is needed. It offered the resident 2 solutions to fix the problem and said it would carry out whichever one the resident preferred. This work has not yet gone ahead as the resident has not accepted either solution.
21. The landlord confirmed further remedial work had been done to the external render and apologised for the delay. It acknowledged the resident had needed to contact it a lot to chase matters up. From the evidence provided, much of the delay was a result of it having to wait for NHBC to respond and take action, which was out of its control. However, it could have been more proactive in keeping the resident updated. Its offer of compensation to recognise this and the contribution towards redecoration was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.
22. In its response the landlord also provided the resident with details of its insurer for him to make a personal injury claim in relation to his health concerns. This was a reasonable step for it to take. We cannot say if the landlord’s action or inaction has directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can look at independent evidence.
23. The resident has confirmed that the landlord has recently carried out the required work to the ventilation system. However, he has said some remedial work is required as the fans are not operating as expected. If he is unhappy with the new fans, he would need to raise this with the landlord as a new complaint to allow it the opportunity to investigate this.

24. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 working days after the resident raised it (11 July to 16 July 2025) – in line with its complaints policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 8 working days after its acknowledgement (16 July to 28 July 2025) – in line with its policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request 6 working days after he made the request (22 August to 1 September 2025) – slightly outside its policy timescale of 5 working days
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 20 working days after acknowledging the escalation request (1 September to 29 September 2025) – in line with policy timescale of 20 working days

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The landlord kept clear records of its communications both with the resident and NHBC, allowing it to respond to the complaint effectively.

Communication

26. The landlord’s records do not show that its overall communication was good. It did not keep the resident regularly updated while it was waiting for progress from NHBC, relying instead on the resident to chase for updates. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while investigations and repairs are ongoing.