Livin Housing Limited (202501790)

Decision
Case ID	202501790
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Livin Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	10 April 2026

Background

1. The resident reported two leaks in January 2025 which the landlord attended. A significant flood then occurred on 7 February 2025, after which the resident raised a complaint about the earlier repairs and the impact of the incident on her home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents:
   1. Reports of a leak and subsequent flooding.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure in its response to reports of a leak and subsequent flooding.
   2. Reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of a leak and subsequent flooding

4. The landlord attended both January 2025 leak reports within its required timescales and found they had different causes. The landlord found no evidence that it could reasonably have identified the stop tap defect before the flood on 7 February 2025. Its emergency response on that day was prompt and appropriate. However, there was a delay by the landlord in progressing the post-flood repairs. The landlord later acknowledged this and offered proportionate compensation.

Complaint

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. However, the stage 2 response contained factual inaccuracies, which undermined clarity and accuracy in the complaint process. This constituted a service failure in its complaint handling. The landlord later acknowledged these inaccuracies and offered compensation which sufficiently recognised the limited impact of the failing.

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 authority.

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 provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £110 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures progressing remedial works for the period February 2025-April 2025.	No later than 08 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £50 for the impact of its complaint handling failures it has already offered. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this sum is paid to the resident.
The landlord should consider whether further compensation is appropriate for the resident for the period April to August 2025, which falls outside the scope of this investigation.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 February 2025	The resident raised a formal complaint following a flood in the kitchen. She complained about earlier leak repairs and the impact the flood had on her property.
13 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged and defined the complaint. It confirmed that the complaint related to quality of repairs following the leak and confirmed the expected response date.
26 February 2025	The landlord issues its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord did not uphold the complained however: It offered £150 as a goodwill contribution towards the flooding. It confirmed support has been provided, including providing a washing machine and fridge freezer without charge.
3 March 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint as she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response. The resident disputed the landlord’s position on who was responsible for the damage to her belongings.
7 March 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request.
4 April 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident informing her that an extension is required due to the complexity of the complaint. The landlord extended the response deadline to 7 May 2025.
11 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response in which: It confirmed it had reviewed the stage 1 response and supporting evidence. It maintained that damage to the resident’s belongings and flooring was not the landlord’s responsibility. It confirmed the £150 goodwill contribution and support provided at stage 1.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us as she remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation the landlord had offered.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of a leak and subsequent flooding.
Finding	Service failure

6. We have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and subsequent flooding from January 2025 to 11 April 2025, when the landlord issues its stage 2 response. Available evidence after this date, including completion of works in August 2025, has been considered where it provides context to how the landlord progressed the repairs. Events after the end of the complaint process fall outside the scope of this investigation. This is because we have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.
7. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to maintain the structure and installation of the property, including the plumbing and kitchen fixtures. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend emergency repairs within four hours to make safe, and complete works within 24 hours. It also says urgent repairs require completion within five working days where there is a risk of further damage. This is relevant to the follow-on works identified after the flood.
8. The resident reported a leak on 11 January 2025. The repair log shows that the landlord raised a job on the same day with a target date of 20 January 2025. The operative attended on 17 January 2025, recording that they tightened the trap under the sink. This repair was completed within the landlord’s routine repair timescales.
9. The resident reported a second leak on 25 January 2025, describing ongoing water ingress and damage to kitchen units. The landlord categorised this as urgent and attended on 30 January 2025 which was again within the landlord’s repair timescales. The work record state the washing machine hose was resealed and tested. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise at the time, the landlord was entitled to rely on its contractors’ assessment that the issues had been addressed by these repairs. While the resident later disagreed with this, landlord’s actions were consistent with its obligations at that stage.
10. A flood occurred on 7 February 2025. The landlord attended as an emergency within 4 hours, repaired the stop tap, removed water, and provided drying equipment. Electrical works were carried out the same day, with attendance on 10 February 2025 to restore sockets. At this stage, the landlord acted in line with its policy timescales and relied on contractor findings which identified different causes. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord’s decision was unreasonable. That is that the fault with the stop tap was identifiable at the time of the repairs in January 2025.
11. Following the flood, the landlord assessed the condition of the property. On 13 February, the landlord recorded that the property was safe and habitable and decided that a temporary move was not required. It also arranged support, including replacement appliances and £150 contribution towards flooring, which the resident accepted. In the absence of evidence that the property was uninhabitable, it was reasonable for the landlord to reach that decision.
12. However, the landlord identified that further works were required following the flood. These works were identified in February 2025 but were not raised at that time. The landlord later confirmed that this was due to internal process issues, including staff absence and the inability of contractors to raise task orders.
13. While these factors explain why the delay occurred, the landlord remained responsible for ensuring that these repairs were progressed. In April 2025 the landlord clarified the scope of works and raised the appropriate work orders.
14. The landlord did not take effective action to progress these works for a period of approximately eight weeks between February and April 2025. This delay arose from a failure to manage the progression of repairs. This was a service failure.
15. The landlord later offered £110 compensation to recognise the delay. In line with our compensation guidance, we consider offers of compensation made following conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure to be ‘late’ offers. We will only make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ when a landlord’s offer is made as part of its complaint procedure, and prior to a complaint being referred to us.
16. We have considered the nature of the outstanding repairs, their non‑urgent status, the fact that the property remained habitable, and the period of delay between February and April 2025. We consider that £110 proportionately reflects the inconvenience likely to have been experienced during that period. However, we have recommended that the landlord consider whether further compensation is appropriate for the period from April to August 2025, which falls outside the scope of this investigation.

Complaint	Response to the complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

17. This investigation considers the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, including the accuracy of its responses.
18. The resident’s concerns about the conduct or tone of the stage 2 investigator were addressed by the landlord as a separate complaint and are outside the scope of this investigation.
19. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It also states that it will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and a stage 2 response within 20 working of acknowledgement. The policy allows a further 20 working days extension at stage 2 where the complaint is complex. The policy also requires the landlord to investigate complaints fairly and provide clear and accurate responses.
20. The resident raised her complaint on 7 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 February 2025. This was within 5 working days and in line with its policy.
21. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 February 2025. This was within 10 working days of acknowledgement and in line with its policy.
22. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 March 2025. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 7 March 2025. This was within 5 working days. The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response within the initial 20 working days timescale. On 4 April 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident, explained that the complaint was more complex that first thought, and extended the response deadline to 7 May 2025. The policy allowed a further 20 working days extension in complex cases. The landlord issues its stage 2 response on 11 April 2025, within the extended timescale. We do not there find a failure in relation to complaint response timescales.
23. In a subsequent stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that parts of the stage 2 response were inaccurate. It accepted that it had given incorrect information about the removal of the carpet and the restoration of one of the sockets associated with the washing machine. Accurate complaint responses are important in ensuring residents can understand the outcome of their complaint and have confidence in the process. Providing incorrect information represents a failing in this respect.
24. We find that the landlord responded to the complaint within its published timescales. However, its stage 2 response contained factual inaccuracies. This amounts to a service failure.
25. The landlord later offered £50 compensation, which appropriately reflects the impact of the failing identified. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

26. The landlord should review its processes to ensure that when follow‑on repairs are identified, they are promptly raised as task orders and progressed without avoidable delay. It should also ensure there is clear accountability for progressing repair works, particularly where responsibility is shared across teams or contractors.
27. The landlord should also ensure that information provided within complaint responses is accurate and based on verified records.

Communication

28. The landlord should ensure it provides clear and timely updated where repairs are delayed, including the reasons for the delay and the steps being taken to resolve it.
29. In this case, there was no evidence of clear communication to the resident explaining the delay in progressing the follow‑on works between February and April 2025. More proactive communication would have helped manage expectations and reduce inconvenience.