LiveWest Homes Limited (202203429)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203429

LiveWest Homes Limited

11 November 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her property and belongings following a ceiling collapse.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a house with a loft.
3. On 19 January 2022, following the landlord’s roof repairs at the property in 2018 and December 2021,members of the resident’s household returned home after several weeks away to find significant damage in the property. This was from the ceilings in a bedroom, above the stairs and the kitchen collapsing and being soaking wet, with swollen doors and black mould. The household members were temporarily decanted to a hotel until an alternative property was found. The resident returned at a later date and, following this, the whole household was moved to another house as a temporary decant with appliances and furnishings from 25 February 2022, and their salvageable belongings were stored, with her declining offers of other decants.
4. The landlord raised works to assess the damage at the property for its subsequent repairs from 19 January 2022 onwards, and it advised the resident that it was responsible for the structure of the property. However, it confirmed with its insurers that she would need to cover any personal belongings that had been damaged through her contents insurance.
5. Throughout this period, the property was assessed by the landlord’s and its insurers’ contractors and surveyors, and the latter’s loss adjuster, who were unable to determine a specific cause for the damage, with no apparent leaks or burst pipes. Although they noted that there was poor ventilation, a considerable amount of belongings and condensation in the loft that it helped to clear, and a sink full of warm water which may have been the cause of the ceiling collapse. Following these inspections and quotes from a range of different contractors, the landlord’s remedial works to the property began from 12 April 2022 onwards.
6. In the resident’s subsequent stage one and final stage complaints to the landlord on 3 February and 11 April 2022 about its handling of the damage at the property, she expressed dissatisfaction in that it would not cover her damaged personal belongings. She advised it that the damage had detrimentally impacted her and her family due to the financial loss that they had experienced, and that she was concerned for their safety, as it could have been worse if they were in the property at the time of the ceiling collapse.
7. The resident stated that she believed that the condition of the membrane under the property’s roof prior to the ceiling collapse was the likely cause of this, as the landlord had recently repaired the roof. She therefore requested its inspection reports for this, being dissatisfied that no cause had been found yet, and disputing its suggestion of the sink of warm water as the cause.
8. The resident instead reported that the water in the property’s sink was cold when the property was first attended, and she explained that the property had water stains in other rooms, having not been inspected by the landlord for weeks following the damage, which she did not believe that the sink could have caused. She was also dissatisfied that it had stated that there were rent arrears on her account, and she sought further compensation from it for her damages, financial losses, disturbance and inconvenience.
9. In the landlord’s subsequent stage one and final stage complaint responses on 10 March and 8 and 29 April 2022, it explained that the previous works to the property’s roof had been completed appropriately, there were visible signs of mould and water damage, and the overflowing sink may have caused the ceiling collapse. This was suggested as occurring as a result of the overflow not being reported in time, due to there being no one at the property. The landlord additionally informed the resident that no other cause had been found for the damage, while the breathable membrane that it had used under the roof was sufficient for its previous repairs to this.
10. The landlord also stated that the property’s loft had been overloaded with the resident’s belongings, which was against its safety policy, advice and guidance to its customers that roof spaces should be left clear. It informed her that the remedial works were ongoing at the property and offered to pay her £750 compensation directly to her as a goodwill gesture for the damage and her distress and inconvenience, which it increased from its initial offer for this of £250 towards the rent arrears that it had previously stated were on her account.
11. The resident then complained to this Service that the landlord had been responsible for the damage to her property and belongings by delaying its roofing repairs there, and she was dissatisfied that the cause of the damage had not been identified yet. She was also unhappy with the delays in the remedial works to the property, and sought further compensation from it to fully account for her distress and inconvenience.
12. The remedial works were subsequently completed by 9 June 2022, and the landlord also cleared and tied the property’s garden. Following snagging concerns raised by the resident’s family and the completion of gas and electrical safety checks, she returned to the property on 13 August 2022. Although she reported being dissatisfied with the standard of some of the works, that her cooker had been damaged during the works, and that she had incurred decant expenses.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

13. The resident has stated that she is dissatisfied with some of the remedial works that were completed in the property, damage to her cooker during the works, and her further costs incurred while being decanted. As there is no evidence that a complaint about these issues has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure yet, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme this is not something that this Service can determine at this stage. This is because the landlord first needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these matters under the procedure to try and resolve them.

Policies and Procedures

14. The landlord’s website states that residents should reconsider using their loft as storage for health and safety reasons, including because these are not designed to hold or store items as they cannot take heavy weight that may cause ceilings to become damaged and collapse. It is responsible for attending to make safe emergency repairs that could result in serious injury or severe property damage within 24 hours, but it is permitted to first assess these and to arrange additional appointments and further works to complete them as quickly as possible.
15. The landlord’s compensation guidance states that any claims for loss attributed to it by its customers must be referred to its risk and insurance team for assessment, for which it maintains liability insurance to cover. It has discretion under the guidance to offer residents up to £500 compensation plus a partial refund of their rent for reasons including a high level impact from multiple repairs not being resolved and the loss of rooms exceeding several days.
16. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one complaint response will be sent within five working days, and a final stage complaint response will be sent within seven working days. It says that, in both cases, if an extension is needed, this should be agreed with the resident, and an explanation provided.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her property and belongings following a ceiling collapse

17. Following the ceiling collapse and the resident’s household’s initial reports of damage on 19 January 2022, the landlord acted appropriately and inspected the property within 24 hours, which was in line with its website’s emergency repairs timescale for it to do so. During the subsequent inspections, its contractors found no apparent leaks or burst pipes, but a considerable level of damage in the property from the fallen ceilings, swollen doors and black mould.
18. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately by initially decanting members of the resident’s household to a hotel, as she had not yet returned to the property and an alternative property had not been found, until the whole household was moved to another house as a temporary decant on 25 February 2022 following her return. It ultimately completed remedial works at the property on 9 June 2022, and provided her with £750 compensation as goodwill gesture for the damage and her distress and inconvenience.
19. The landlord also acted appropriately, and in accordance with its compensation guidance, following the resident’s household’s initial reports by raising the damage with its insurers. Its insurers assessed the property and identified that the collapsed ceilings had been accompanied by poor ventilation and condensation, but were unable to determine the specific cause of the damage, and advised that there was an overflowing sink of warm water when no one had been in the property. The landlord’s insurers stated that they would not be able to provide cover for the property due to this. It therefore advised the resident that, for any personal belongings, the damage would need to be claimed through her contents insurance, in line with the industry standard and its tenancy agreements making its residents responsible for insuring their own contents and belongings.
20. While the resident was dissatisfied with this and the reports that a sink in the property was full of warm water, as the property had not been inspected for weeks following the damage, these findings were not unreasonable. This is because the landlord’s contractor’s report from 19 January 2022, the date that the damage was reported, showed warm water in the sink, and it was entitled to rely on the findings of its contractors and accept this report, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
21. Throughout this process, from January to April 2022, the landlord and its insurers hired a range of professional contractors and surveyors to assess and survey the property, which was appropriate. The resident had concerns regarding its previous repairs to the property’s roof in 2018 and December 2021, and she believed that this may have been the cause of the damage. The landlord showed, however, that its inspections had taken these concerns seriously, and these ultimately found no water leaking through the roof. Therefore, it concluded that this was not the cause of the damage, and it was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff, which was in line with the loss adjuster from its insurers who also assessed the property.
22. In relation to the ceiling collapse and resulting damage, the contractors who had assessed the property additionally expressed concerns regarding the amount of personal possessions stored in the loft space, an increased amount of condensation, and limited ventilation in the property. As stated on the landlord’s website, it recommends not using the loft spaces in properties for storage due to health and safety reasons, including because these are not designed to hold or store items as they cannot take heavy weight that may cause ceilings to become damaged and collapse.
23. The landlord went beyond its obligations and assisted the resident with clearing the items stored in the loft. Upon clearing the loft, it advised her that the roofing membrane was fully intact, and therefore it found that the roofing in the property could not have been the cause of the ceiling collapse and resulting damage there. While the resident’s frustration that the cause of the damage remained inconclusive is acknowledged, the landlord thoroughly investigated the issue and needed to proceed with the remedial works required at the property.
24. Likewise, it was reasonable for the landlord to request a quote for the works from a range of different contractors. Ultimately, it accepted a quote from a contractor on 12 April 2022. Therefore, in total, the remedial works needed at the property took almost two months to be completed by 9 June 2022 from the acceptance of the quote, and almost five months from the damage being initially reported on 19 January 2022. While the industry standard is that routine repairs will be completed within 28 days, such planned works may take longer. As such, given the circumstances of this case and the extent of the remedial work needed, the works were completed within a reasonable timeframe.
25. In addition, the landlord had decanted the resident’s household and provided storage for any salvageable belongings during this period. It had also provided her with appliances and furnishings throughout the decant, which was further evidence of it going beyond its obligations. The landlord additionally offered the resident other properties as decants, however she declined these and accepted a house that it had offered her as a temporary decant property.
26. The landlord acted appropriately in relation to this given both its limited housing stock and the resident’s need for a suitable decant, as well as by assisting her with her belongings, and it ensured that the garden at the property was also cleared and tidied by the end of the process. Following any snagging issues raised by her being resolved, her household returned to the property on 13 August 2022.
27. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately throughout the property’s remedial works by acknowledging the inconvenience throughout the process to the resident, and by going beyond its obligations to minimise the impact of the decant and remedial works on her. Despite its attempts to do so, it also offered her £750 compensation for the delays and inconvenience throughout this process. This was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation guidance’s recommendation that it offer the resident up to £500 compensation plus a partial refund of her rent for a high level impact from multiple repairs not being resolved and the loss of rooms exceeding several days, as well as this Service’s remedies guidance, which was therefore suitable.
28. Ultimately, while the resident’s distressing circumstances are recognised, the landlord made redress to her which resolved the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by it to remedy the delays and inconvenience throughout the process were proportionate to the impact that these had on her. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to pay the resident the £750 that it previously awarded her, if this has not yet been paid to her.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

29. The resident raised her stage one complaint on 3 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 March 2022, and provided an interim response on 10 March 2022. This was 25 working days following the complaint being raised. Therefore, this exceeded the appropriate timeframe of five working days in the landlord’s complaints policy.
30. Within the interim response, the landlord advised the resident that it would move her stage one complaint to a “commitment” stage, which meant that this would be held open until further investigations had taken place. It advised that it would review this by 25 March 2022. However, the landlord then extended this deadline until 8 April 2022, when it sent its last full stage one response. It acted appropriately by informing the resident of the extension to ensure that her expectations were appropriately set. Moreover, keeping the complaint open while it proceeded with further investigations was evidence that it sought to provide her with a more comprehensive response.
31. Following this, the resident escalated her complaint on 11 April 2022. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 19 April 2022 and sent its final stage response on 29 April 2022, which was 12 working days after the complaint escalation. Its complaints policy states that a final stage response will be sent within seven working days. Therefore, the landlord exceeded the appropriate timeframe given in its policy by five working days.
32. Within the stage one complaint response, the landlord advised that the £250 compensation initially offered as a goodwill gesture due to the inconvenience caused would be paid to the resident’s rent account, which it stated was in arrears and she disputed. As part of her escalation request, she advised that she was dissatisfied with it stating that the account was in arrears, while it failed to address this directly in the final stage complaint response.
33. It would instead have been more appropriate for the landlord to have provided the resident with further clarity regarding the rent account and any arrears explicitly, and its omission in not clearly addressing this was a failure. Although the landlord resolved the resident’s dissatisfaction by offering to pay the £750 offered in the final response directly to her, which was also proportionate to recognise its failure in line with its compensation guidance and this Service’s remedies guidance.
34. Similarly, as part of the resident’s complaints, she requested any reports relating to inspections of the property following the damage that occurred, as she was dissatisfied with no cause being found for this. During the complaint escalation, she stated that she had not yet received any such reports. The landlord should therefore have addressed this request, and provided the resident with any such reports, where appropriate. It is not clear, however, whether she ever received the reports that she had asked for, and the requests for these were not addressed in its complaint responses to her. It has therefore been recommended below that the landlord consider this request and provide the resident with any appropriate and relevant information.
35. This Service’s remedies guidance recommends compensation of £50 to £100 in cases where the impact on the resident was minimal, and the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge its failings. Therefore, the total amount of the £750 compensation that it offered her also provided adequate redress for its failures to address her concerns regarding the inspection reports that she requested from it, rent arrears, and the delays in its complaint handling. The landlord has nevertheless been recommended below to review its complaint handling staff’s training needs to prevent these failings from happening again in the future.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily regarding:
    1. Its handling of her reports of damage to her property and belongings following a ceiling collapse.
    2. Its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

37. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Consider the resident’s request for any relevant reports in relation to inspections at the property and provide these to her, where appropriate and relevant, if it has not sent them already.
    2. Pay the resident the £750 compensation that it previously offered her, if this has not yet been paid to her.
    3. Review its complaint handling staff’s training needs, in order to avoid similar delays in complaint handling to those experienced by the resident, and to ensure that all of the concerns raised in a complaint are fully addressed directly, in the future.