The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

LiveWest Homes Limited (202209620)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209620

LiveWest Homes Limited

27 July 2023

 

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:
  2. The landlord’s delay to completing repairs to the outside wall of the resident’s property.
  3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused by contractors to the property.
  4. The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  1. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which is made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  2. The resident has stated that the landlord’s contractor damaged her property, and she would like to receive compensation for this. The landlord has confirmed that this element of complaint has not gone through its internal complaints process, and a stage two complaint response has not yet been issued to the resident.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused by the contractors is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the complaint regarding the damage caused by the contractors has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may be able to refer the complaint about the damaged caused by the contractors to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 1 September 2021, the resident called the landlord to chase for an update following an emergency inspection raised on 19 August 2021, in relation to large sections of render on the external wall crumbling.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 5 October 2021. She stated that she was very unhappy with the amount of time it had taken for the repair of the outside walls to be completed. The resident explained that the landlord told her one of its supervisors would contact her on 29 September 2021, but she had not received any contact.
  4. On 12 October 2021, the landlord provided an interim response. It explained that it would need to check if the works would need to be completed by the developers due to the property being a new build. The landlord stated it would contact the resident once it had received an update.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response to the resident on 4 January 2022. The landlord explained that as the resident’s property was built in 2017, it had to check with its aftercare team to confirm if the developers would be responsible for the repair. The landlord also stated it requested one of its surveyors to inspect the resident’s property to identify whether it could submit a claim to the National House Building Council (NHBC). The landlord also explained that it confirmed during a telephone call with the resident that it would reimburse any extra heating costs the resident may have incurred due to the situation. It offered £100 compensation for its delay in raising the initial works and its communication failures with the contractors, the surveying team and service improvement team.

 

  1. On 4 January 2022, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident stated that she had been waiting six months for the works to be completed. She explained that she would like a manager to contact her with an exact timeframe of when the works will be completed.
  2. On 24 January 2022, the landlord provided an interim response. The landlord stated that it was not currently able to provide a full response to the resident. It explained that it was going to arrange a specialist contractor to attend the property and conduct a full survey. The landlord also stated that it was looking to submit a claim to NHBC.
  3. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 11 July 2022. It explained that the works to the render had been completed in full. The landlord apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the issues. It stated that the communication, especially around updates relating to work, had been poor. The landlord offered the resident a further £100 compensation for the delay in resolving the render issue and for the impact of the delay. This compensation was in addition to the £100 compensation which was offered in the landlord’s stage one complaint response.
  4. On 12 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that the rendering work had been completed. However, the resident explained that the contractor had damaged her property and car with paint primer.
  5. On 1 September 2022, the landlord issued a letter to the resident in relation to the alleged damage caused by the contractors. The landlord explained that it had contacted the contractor, and the contractor confirmed that it was working to get things resolved. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the delay in obtaining information from its liability insurer. The landlord also offered a further £600 compensation for the frustration, inconvenience and impact caused in relation to the damage to her property and car. The landlord did not issue a stage two complaint response in relation to this issue. The landlord requested this part of the complaint to be excluded from the Ombudsman’s investigation. The landlord stated it would like this complaint element to go through its internal complaints process first.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was to receive increased compensation for distress and inconvenience and compensation for the damage to her property.

 

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s delay to complete repairs to the outside wall of the resident’s property

  1. The resident’s property is a new build house, and it was built in 2017. New-build properties have a ‘defect period’ where the original builder is responsible for repairing certain issues which would have been present when the property was built. This period usually lasts for 12-24 months after the date the property was handed over to the landlord. The landlord would be responsible for raising repair issues with the original developer of the property during this period.
  2. Defects reported after the ‘defect period’ will usually be dealt with under the building’s warranty. In this case, the resident’s new-build property benefits from an NHBC warranty and any reports of a defect should be raised with NHBC as a claim. If it accepted the claim, NHBC would be responsible for arranging any repairs needed to correct the defect. NHBC may reclaim costs from the original developer of the property if the repair issue was found to be due to poor workmanship in the original construction of the building.
  3. The landlord initially visited the resident’s property on 19 August 2021 following a report it received from the resident that large sections of render on the external wall were crumbling. The Ombudsman recognises that there were some delays in completing the works to repair the external wall of the property. However, it was evident that some of the delays were outside of the landlord’s control. As the resident’s property was a new build, it was reasonable for the landlord to check with the relevant team if the developers of the property would be responsible for the repair. The landlord also had to arrange for a contractor to inspect the wall and provide a quote for the works. The landlord received a quote for the rendering works on 13 October 2021. It is evident that there was an unreasonable delay between October 2021 and January 2022, as the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions for an update and at this point it was unclear what was causing the delay.
  4. On 4 January 2022, the landlord issued an interim response and explained that it requested one of its surveyors to inspect the resident’s property to identify whether it could submit a claim to NHBC. Shortly after, the surveyor inspected the property on 7 January 2022. The landlord then submitted a claim to the NHBC for the rendering works on 18 January 2022 and informed the resident on the same day, that it had submitted a claim. As the property was a new build, it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to submit a claim to NHBC for the works. This is because the landlord was within its warranty period to submit a claim to the NHBC. Also the landlord’s surveyor recommended that a claim was submitted to the NHBC.
  5. There were delays from the NHBC in processing and completing the claim. The NHBC arranged its contractor to visit the resident’s property on 25 February 2022. However, this was then cancelled by the NHBC. The NHBC then provided a settlement offer to the landlord on 28 March 2022. However, the settlement amount was not sufficient to cover the cost of the works. The NHBC provided the landlord with an adequate settlement on 27 June 2022 and shortly after, the landlord arranged for its contractor to complete the rendering works. The rendering works were completed on 11 July 2022. The delays in the NHBC processing the claim for the works were outside of the landlord’s control. The Ombudsman recognises that the claim had to be processed before the rendering works could be completed as the landlord needed to receive the claim settlement money, so it could pay the contactors to complete the rendering works. If the resident has concerns about NHBC’s handling of the claim, she may be able to raise a complaint with NHBC about this.
  6. The Ombudsman acknowledges some of the delays could have been avoidable, such as the delay between October 2021 and January 2022. It is also recognised that the landlord should have provided the resident with additional updates about the delays with the work. However, the landlord did acknowledge in its stage one and two complaint responses that there were delays and poor communication.
  7. To recognise the delay and poor communication, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation. The compensation offered to the resident was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it awards compensation of up to £200 for cases where the resident has suffered a moderate level of inconvenience. The compensation offered was also compliant with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. Although the resident experienced distress and inconvenience because of the time taken to complete the rendering works, there was no permanent impact as the rendering works were eventually completed in July 2022. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation proportionately reflected the delay in resolving the issue and poor communication, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage one response should be provided within ten working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage two response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide a stage one complaint response within five working days. It also explains that it will provide a stage two complaint response to the resident within seven working days.
  2. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 5 October 2021 about the delay in the completion of the render works. It then took around three months for the landlord to provide its stage one complaint response, which was issued on 4 January 2022. The response time was late and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s complaints policy or The Code.
  3. It also took around six months for the landlord to provide its stage two complaint response. On 4 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and requested her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response to the resident on 11 July 2022. The delay would have caused inconvenience for the resident as she had to chase the landlord for a response, and she was delayed in progressing the complaint to the Ombudsman because she needed to wait for the landlord’s final response before contacting our service. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord issued two interim responses. However, these were not full responses and not sufficient for the resident to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
  4. Given the delay in the landlord providing its stage one and two complaint responses. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of the compensation is appropriate to recognise the delay the resident experienced. It is also compliant with the remedies guidance as set out above.

Determination (decision)

  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, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s delay to complete repairs to the outside wall of the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint relating to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused by contractors to the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

 

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for errors in its complaint handling.
  2. This payment should be made to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its original offer in its stage one and two complaint response of £200 compensation for its delay to complete repairs to the outside wall of the resident’s property, within four weeks, if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.