Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

LiveWest Homes Limited (202106206)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106206

LiveWest Homes Limited

27 October 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 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 repairs needed at the property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer to a suitable property.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is on the fourth floor in a block of flats.
  2. On 8 October 2020, the resident reported a leak in the roof of the property. On 16 October 2020, the resident advised that he had caused damage to the property, which included the toilet being pulled off the wall, paint thrown on the floors and holes being made in the living room floor and bath panel. The landlord treated the toilet as an emergency repair and repaired it on the day. It advised the resident that the other repairs were rechargeable and would be repaired once the he had agreed to the costs. On 2 November 2020, a contractor attended the property with the landlord to discuss the remedial work needed to the roof of the property. Following this, the landlord continued to chase the contractor for updates.
  3. On 8 January 2021, the resident requested to move properties due to his mobility and health issues which meant that the property was not suitable for him. The landlord advised that they would not consider this as he had not lived in the property for 12 months (although the resident could use other options to try and find a move in the meantime). On 27 January 2021, the contractor advised that licensing would be needed for the scaffolding required for the roof repairs due to it being on the street in front of the property. Throughout February 2021, there were further delays in the works due to a contractor not having the correct insurance for the height of the property. The landlord completed remedial works to the roof on 15 February 2021 and the resident confirmed the issue appeared to be resolved.
  4. Remedial works were completed on the living room floor on 17 June 2021. On 21 June 2021, the landlord advised the resident that as he had almost lived in the property for 12 months, he had been added to the exceptional transfer list for a management move. On 30 September 2021, the resident declined an alternative property, but the landlord allowed him to stay on the transfer list nevertheless. On 4 October 2021, the resident reported a second leak in the roof of the property. An engineer attended on the day and following this, an appointment was then missed on 7 October 2021 as the resident did not provide access to the contractors. On 19 November 2021, the landlord ordered the parts needed for the roof, and offered the resident another alternative property which the resident declined. The landlord allowed him to remain on the transfer list. The resident did not allow access for remedial works until 25 May 2022, where an inspection took place which identified further roofing repairs needed, as well as damp and mould in the property and further flooring repairs.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 14 June 2021 and requested a complaint to be raised with the landlord. The stage one complaint was raised on 20 June 2021. It included the resident’s concerns about black mould in the kitchen, damp flooring in the bathroom, broken floorboards in the property, and cracks in the ceiling.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the stage one complaint on 12 October 2021 and responded on 19 November 2022. It stated that it had carried out remedial work for the black mould, and the resident was happy with the outcome. It also stated that the roofing repairs were delayed due to Covid-19 and issues with scaffolding, and apologised for this. It advised it would contact the resident with appointments for the outstanding remedial work. It informed the resident it had been doing all it could to find an alternative property that the resident found suitable, noting that he had previously declined properties. It offered to redecorate the resident’s property as a gesture of goodwill, and offered £450 in compensation which was made up of £100 for complaint handling, £250 for delays in repairs and £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint on 7 February 2022, raising further concerns regarding storage heaters not being fixed and not assisting him in moving properties.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 31 March 2022and informed the resident that he could raise the issues with the storage heaters as a separate stage one complaint as this matter had not been raised previously. In its stage two response on 20 April 2022, it stated that as the resident had not provided access to the property, it had not been able to carry out any remedial works, or to assess whether any compensation was due. It informed the resident he was on the exceptional transfer list for a management move and would continue to keep trying to find a suitable property for the resident. It acknowledged further complaint handling failures, and offered a further £200 in compensation for this.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to this Service on 9 May 2022 due to the outstanding repairs and his need to move due to health conditions. The resident was seeking to be moved into a more suitable property.
  10. Following the final response being sent, the landlord has advised this Service that the resident was being moved to a new property on 24 July 2022. The landlord advised it would be covering the cost of the move and transporting the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how his housing situation impacted his health. While the Ombudsman was sorry to hear this, this Service cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. It is more appropriate for this to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. The courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. Throughout this complaint, evidence has been provided to this Service which relates to the resident’s other ongoing complaints with the landlord. This includes repairs to the residents heating whilst he was at the property, and the length of time taken for the resident to be moved by the landlord. As these are separate issues to the original complaint raised, this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond via its full complaint process first, providing a final response. Therefore, this investigation looks at the repairs which were included in this complaint which consisted of the leak in the roof of the property, black mould within the property, damp under the flooring in the bathroom and the broken flooring, cracks in the ceiling and issues with the floorboards in the living room. Also included in this complaint is the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer. This Service will assess the landlord’s handling of these repairs, how it handled the resident’s initial request to be moved, and whether its actions were appropriate and in line with its policies and the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs ‘service offer’ policy states that for mould, it will provide the first treatment for residents, but residents are responsible for any further treatments.
  2. The landlord’s Emergency Repairs document states that emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours.
  3. The landlord’s ‘Exceptional Transfer Procedure’ states that prior to completing an application for an exceptional transfer, the landlord should consider whether the tenancy is within the first 12 months, if the rent account is in arrears and/or the property is in poor condition due to the customer. It states transfers are normally not accepted if the criteria above apply, but it will consider exceptional circumstances. It also states it will only make one offer of alternative accommodation, and if this is refused, the resident would be removed from the exceptional transfer list.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response will be sent within five working days, and a stage two response will be sent within seven days, or if this is not possible, an explanation must be provided to the resident.
  5. The tenancy agreement states that if access is not provided to the landlord’s staff for appointments, it may charge a missed appointment fee. It also states residents must repair any damage they have caused, or pay any costs the landlord incurs by carrying out remedial work to damages which a resident has made.

The landlord’s handling of repairs needed at the property

  1. The landlord’s service offer policy does not include timescales for standard repairs, but the industry ‘norm’ is that routine repairs are completed within 28 days. The remedial work to the resident’s roof took 90 working days. Whilst this Service understands that some repairs may require additional planning and permissions, and that the landlord had chased the contractor regularly, it was ultimately responsible for ensuring that the works were booked and completed within an appropriate timeframe. Following this, the resident confirmed that the leak had not returned and therefore it was reasonable that the landlord believed that the issue was resolved, the landlord then raised works on 11 June 2021 to make good the damage from the leak.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a same day appointment on 4 October 2021, after the resident had reported a second leak in the roof of the property. When the appointment was missed on 7 October, this delayed the repair taking place, but was outside of the landlord’s control. The resident then informed the contractor that he would not provide access for any remedial works to the roof, as he did not wish to be in the property, and this continued until 25 May 2022. Whilst the landlord was ultimately responsible for the contractor’s lack of action, the resident also had a responsibility to provide access for the works, as stated in the tenancy agreement, which he declined to do on a number of occasions.
  3. Similarly, the resident had mentioned the cracks in the ceiling throughout the repairs process. The landlord determined that this was likely due to ongoing issues with the roof and that these would be dealt with at the time of the roof repairs. This was reasonable due to the low impact that the cracks would have had on the resident, and the landlord advising it needed to carry out remedial works to the roof of the property first.
  4. On 16 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that he had damaged the property. The landlord treated the broken toilet as an emergency repair and this was completed on the same day. When the toilet then began to leak again on 27 August 2021, the landlord also treated it as an emergency repair, and completed works to make it good on the same day. Therefore, for both toilet repairs, the landlord acted in line with its service offer policy which states that emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours.
  5. The landlord advised the resident that the other damage which had been caused on 16 October 2020 would be rechargeable, as stated in the resident’s tenancy agreement. The resident was dissatisfied with the repairs being recharged, and therefore, the landlord put the works on hold until the resident had agreed. Whilst this did lead to a considerable delay in the repairs, the landlord had made safe any immediate risks and appropriately set the residents expectations regarding the repairs being recharged. It continued to work with the resident to discuss the charges, and at times completed repairs as a goodwill gesture, such as on the 17 June 2021, when the landlord agreed to complete remedial works to the living room floor as a gesture of goodwill. Due to the damaged toilet, the flooring in the bathroom had become damp. This was partially repaired in September 2021, where the vinyl was lifted to allow the wood to dry. Following further reports of the wood becoming “spongey”, the landlord repaired the flooring in December 2021. This is evidence of the landlord going above its obligations, and trying to remedy the ongoing situation with the resident as the landlord carried out remedial work to the flooring, despite the tenancy agreement stating the resident would be responsible for any damages he had caused.
  6. The resident reported mould at the property in July 2020, and the landlord attended and resolved this issue at the time. In June 2021, the resident raised issues regarding mould again, and the landlord raised this on 11 June 2021 as part of the make good works from the roof leak. The landlord’s repairs ‘service offer’ policy states that for mould, it will provide the first treatment for residents, but residents are responsible for any further treatments. Therefore, whilst it was not obligated to provide further treatments for the mould, it did agree to, which set the residents expectations that the issue would be resolved. The resident did not provide access for the appointment on 21 June 2021, and therefore the delay in mould treatment was outside of the landlord’s control.
  7. It is evident that there were several, prolonged delays throughout all of the above-mentioned remedial works, which caused the resident frustration and distress. This was partially caused by the landlord’s contractors not communicating effectively with the landlord. This Service acknowledges that the landlord chased the contractor regularly, and expressed its dissatisfaction with the it at times, such as on 23 November 2021, when the contractor advised it was too cold to work and the landlord insisted the work had to take place. But ultimately, the landlord is responsible for its contractors, and ensuring that works are completed within appropriate timeframes. The landlord did act appropriately by communicating with the resident regularly throughout the remedial work, and offering further support such as a tenancy sustainment officer who provided £125 for furnishings in the property.
  8. This Service acknowledges that the resident’s health issues were impacted by the ongoing repairs and he had concerns about noise and disturbance caused by works, and sympathises with his circumstances. However, the above-mentioned works were also delayed due to the resident declining to provide access for remedial works to take place, and several appointments which were missed due to no access being provided. The resident ultimately agreed for the landlord to continue with remedial works.
  9. There is evidence to show that on 25 May 2022, the resident had confirmed that the repairs needed to the bathroom, kitchen and living room had been completed. It was confirmed that the only outstanding repair was for the roof and ceiling, and it was agreed that this would be completed following the resident being decanted before moving to an alternative property in July 2022.
  10. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged the unreasonable delays during the remedial works. Throughout the process, it had made attempts to offer redress for the delays, such as, offering a full redecoration of the property on 26 November 2021, completing repairs which should have been recharged as a gesture of goodwill, and by offering the resident compensation for the delays, and the distress and inconvenience caused. It continued to try and engage with the resident to ensure the repairs were completed and maintained an appropriate level of communication throughout.
  11. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has taken action to recognise failings and ‘put things right’ for the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer to a suitable property.

  1. The resident requested to move in January 2021 as he felt the property was not suitable for him due to his mobility issues and health conditions. The landlord initially advised that as the resident had not lived at the property for 12 months, it was unable to consider him for a move. This was in line with its Exceptional Transfer Procedure.
  2. Following this, in June 2021, the landlord reviewed the resident’s case and advised as he had now been in the property for 12 months, it would add him to the exceptional transfer list. The landlord acted appropriately by regularly communicating with the resident, and updating his location preferences.
  3. The resident declined properties on at least two occasions, but the landlord made an exception and allowed him to stay on the exceptional transfer list. This is evidence that the landlord went beyond its obligations when handling the residents transfer request. The landlord also offered additional support to make the property “homelier” for the resident throughout his request, such as on 19 November 2021 where it provided the resident with £125 for curtains in the property.
  4. Throughout the process, the landlord also assisted the resident in applying to councils in other areas, so that he was also able to bid on properties himself. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. The resident had provided the landlord with specific requirements for a property, and was open to few locations. The landlord advised the resident that would minimise the amount of properties available. It acted appropriately by regularly reviewing the resident’s requirements.
  5. Overall, the landlord acted in line with its relevant policies throughout the request, and continued to work towards finding a suitable property for the resident. It has provided evidence that shows that it took his concerns seriously, and despite limited stock, attempted to find properties which matched the resident’s requirements and wishes rather than removing him from the list following properties being refused.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The resident requested that this Service raise an initial stage one complaint for him, which was raised with the landlord on 26 June 2021. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 12 October 2021 as it had misplaced this Service’s complaint referral, but advised it would now be actioned. This is evidence of poor complaint handling from the landlord. Following this, the stage one response was sent on 19 November 2021 which was a total of 28 working days following its complaint acknowledgment. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response would be sent within five working days, and therefore the landlord did not act in line with its policy.
  2. Similarly, the resident escalated his complaint on 7 February 2022, but received no response. This Service then escalated the complaint for the resident on 31 March 2022. The landlord advised that it had not received the resident’s previous escalation as it did not go into the complaints inbox. The landlord should have ensured that all communication from residents was being monitored efficiently, and therefore this is further evidence of poor record-keeping. The landlord provided the resident with a holding response on 7 April 2022, as the resident had been refusing access for remedial works, and the landlord wanted to have the chance to assess the property to determine the current situation, and whether any compensation was due. While generally the Ombudsman does not consider dealing complaint responses while repairs are ongoing to be appropriate, in the circumstances of this case it was reasonable to have done so for a short period to help provide a fuller response. The landlord was acting in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles here, being fair, and considering putting things right if it needed to.
  3. The resident did not respond to the landlord’s holding response, so the landlord provided its stage two response on 20 April 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to not delay the complaint response any further. The stage two response was sent within 13 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage two response would be sent within seven days, or if this is not possible, an explanation should be provided to the resident, along with a proposed date for the response. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of the stage two response was appropriate and in line with its policies.
  4. The landlord acknowledged that its complaint handling had been poor at both stages, and offered a total of £300 for its complaint handling failures. Whilst it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide an example of how it would learn from its complaint handling failures, it clearly acknowledged that its service had not been appropriate, or to the standards that was expected of it. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.
  5. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs needed at the property satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer to a suitable property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is strongly recommended that the landlord pay the £650 compensation as previously offered, if it has not yet been paid, as the findings of reasonable redress have been made on this basis.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling policies, and consider providing further staff training in relation to these, to avoid similar issues in the future.