LiveWest Homes Limited (202307061)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307061

LiveWest Homes Limited

23 August 2024

 

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 the landlord’s handling of persistent leaks into the resident’s flat from the roof and upper balcony area.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a 2 bedroom flat under a shared ownership scheme. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The property was built in 2009/10 and was under an NHBC warranty, which covers structural defects and design concerns, until 10 September 2021.
  2. The resident first reported a leak into her property in 2018. Between 2018 and 2020, the landlord’s contractors carried out a number of investigations and completed various works to the roof and balcony areas in an attempt to rectify the issues. In December 2020, as the issues had not been resolved, the landlord’s contractor submitted a claim to the NHBC. On 18 December 2020 the original developer agreed to investigate and fix the defects. It should be noted that although the developer agreed to take ownership of the defects, the resident’s legal relationship, as a leaseholder, was with the landlord as the freeholder of the property. It was the landlord that was responsible for the repairs under the lease. The resident had no direct legal relationship with the developer.
  3. The developer carried out investigations and repairs to the roof and balcony areas throughout 2021. The resident continued to experience leaks into her bedrooms and living room until around December 2021, when further works were carried out by the developer. These works appeared to rectify the issues as there were no reported leaks in 2022.
  4. The resident reported a further leak to the landlord on 9 January 2023. The leak was from the same place as the previous leaks. The leak got progressively worse and new leaks appeared on 19 January and 24 January 2023.  The resident still had water dripping into her property on 12 April 2023.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 3 May 2023, as the leak had still not been resolved. She said her flat was cold due to a temporary hole made in her ceiling in January 2023. She told the landlord that she had been prescribed steroids for her asthma as her breathing had got worse and she did not feel safe in her flat due to the outstanding repairs.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 29 September 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and made commitments to continue to monitor and investigate the leaks and to carry out all required repairs including the internal damage. It offered the resident overall compensation of £450.
  7. Following the resident’s escalation of her complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 13 December 2023. It again upheld her complaint and made commitments to visit and take damp meter readings and to arrange for the hole in the ceiling to be repaired. The landlord said it would continue to update the resident on its progress following the roof inspection in the new year. The landlord increased its overall offer of compensation to £575.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 10 July 2024. It said it had undertaken further investigations into the cause and source of the leak from the flat roof area and it was considering the best remedial actions to take. However, the resident has confirmed that the matter remains unresolved as of 6 August 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of persistent leaks into the resident’s flat from the roof and upper balcony area

  1. It is clear from the evidence/ provided, following substantial works to the roof and balconies in 2021, that both the landlord and the resident believed the issues causing the leaks into the resident’s property had been resolved. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events that occurred from 9 January 2023, when the resident reported a further leak.
  2. On 9 January 2023 the resident reported a leak to the landlord’s out of hours service. She informed the landlord that the leak was from the same place as the previous leaks in her living room, and the water had run into an electrical socket and tripped the electrics. The landlord initially informed the resident that it was not responsible as the problem was internal. Although it is unclear from the evidence provided as to how it reached that conclusion as the source of the problem was clearly the leak from the roof. However, after the resident became very upset, the evidence suggests that it did send an electrician out to ensure there was no risk of a fire.
  3. The developer attended the resident’s property on 10 January 2023to divert the water away from the electrics as the resident was going away for a week the following day. The developer made a temporary hole in the resident’s ceiling so that the water ran into a bucket within the living room rather than into the electrics. This was a reasonable course of action to take as an interim measure in the circumstances as there was limited time to investigate and repair the leak. The main concern at this point was to ensure that the electrics were made safe whilst the resident was away.
  4. Once the resident returned home, she reported further leaks through her living room ceiling on 19 January 2023 and again on 24 January 2023. She told the landlord that her ceiling had started to crack and there were more stains behind the curtain pole. The developer responded on 24 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in attending and said it would provide an update with its plan to investigate and rectify the issue.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 January 2023, she said the temporary hole in her ceiling had made her flat very cold. The developer responded on the same day and said it had arranged to attend and investigate the cause of the leak on 1 February 2023. There is evidence of a discussion between the parties around the possibility of providing a temporary solution to assist the resident, however, she confirmed that she was happy to wait until the appointment date. Although, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether the developer did attend the resident’s property on 1 February 2023 as agreed and, if it did, what actions it took to remedy the leak.
  6. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing and renewing the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building, the roof, foundations, joists, and all parts of the building which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder.
  7. The landlord categorises a repair as an emergency where the health and safety of a customer is at risk, or if extensive damage to the home is likely. The landlord’s service offer says that emergency repairs are attended to by its out of hours contractor within 24 hours. Where the repair is not completed on the day, the landlord will return to complete any follow-on works at an agreed time.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord’s out of hours service did respond to the electrical issue caused by the leak as an emergency within the 24 hour timeframe, and the developer attended the following day. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord agreed a time to complete follow up works/investigations into the roof leak with the resident. Therefore, the landlord did not act in line with its service offer for repairs, as it did not make a follow up appointment with the resident. It left her with an active leak and a hole in her ceiling, which was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  9. The resident had to chase the landlord and the developer on more than one occasion to arrange the follow up repairs. This was unfair, particularly as the landlord was aware that the leak was a reoccurrence of the previous issues, and the responsibility for arranging and completing the repairs lay with the landlord. The landlord’s inaction was unreasonable and unfair to the resident.
  10. On 17 March 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she still had water dripping through her ceiling. She told the landlord that her ceiling was icy cold, and she was concerned that it was saturated with water. Although ceilings are the resident’s responsibility under the terms of the lease, the issues with the ceiling were directly related to the ongoing issues with the roof, which the landlord/developer had failed to rectify. Therefore, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to assume responsibility and arrange an internal inspection of the resident’s ceiling to check whether it was safe. It was unfair of the landlord to leave the resident in the position that it did.
  11. The developer told the resident on 10 April 2023, that it believed it had identified the cause of the leaks. It attended on 13 April 2023 to begin completing the required repairs. On 16 April 2023, the resident woke up to a severe leak in her bedroom. She found that her living room was also flooded. She told the landlord that her ceiling was crumbling when touched and she was worried it may collapse. She also told the landlord that the structure above her living room ceiling was coated in mould, which suggests that the hole in her ceiling was still present at this point.
  12. The evidence shows that the flood into the resident’s property on 16 April 2023 was caused by the developer’s operatives not covering the unfinished work to the roof over the weekend. This allowed rain to directly enter the resident’s flat. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord offered the resident any assistance following the flood. It would have been reasonable for it to at least offer to provide the resident with dehumidifiers to help dry out her flat in the circumstances, and to liaise with the developers, or its own insurers, in relation to the damage caused and assist with an insurance claim. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord offered the resident any support following this incident, which was unfair and unreasonable.
  13. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 3 May 2023 during a verbal conversation. She told the landlord that she had experienced numerous leaks over the years from the same location. She was frustrated that the landlord had instructed the same contractors to undertake the repairs who had been unable to fix the leak. She said that the leaks and disruption had been very stressful and had caused internal damage to her property.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 May 2023 to add further context to her complaint. She said her flat was extremely cold due to the hole in her ceiling letting in cold air and allowing heat to escape. Her electricity bills had increased as a consequence. She had only just started to sort her flat out after the previous repairs, only for it to look a state again. She said she had been prescribed steroids for her asthma as her breathing had deteriorated. She also said she did not feel safe in her flat and the stress of the constant correspondence/contact with the landlord was deflating.
  15. The landlord confirmed on 11 May 2023, that the developers had completed the repairs to the roof, and that it was monitoring the repairs in case of any further leaks. The landlord arranged to visit the resident on 15 May 2023 to discuss her concerns in more detail and to inspect the damage caused to her home by the leaks. During the visit on 15 May 2023, the landlord noted that the resident’s living room and both bedrooms had been affected by the water ingress. The resident confirmed that there had been no further leaks since the repairs had been completed.
  16. The resident reported a further leak on 21 June 2023. She told the landlord that the leak was significantly worse following heavy rainfall. She asked for an update as she had not heard from the landlord for 5 weeks. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord provided the resident with an update or whether it responded to the report of a further leak.
  17. There is evidence to suggest that the landlord was liaising with the developer in the background about the repairs to internal decoration. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it was updating the resident. This was unfair and unreasonable and demonstrates that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. The lack of communication and regular updates also caused the resident additional frustration and distress.
  18. The landlord sent the resident a letter on 4 August 2023. It said the developers had completed all roof repairs and confirmed that there had been no further leaks reported. The landlord said it would visit the resident once the internal remedial works were complete. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether this letter refers to the original completion of the roof repairs in May 2023, or whether this was a further update letter following the roof leak in June 2023.
  19. The developers attended the resident’s property on 16 August 2023 to make good the internal damage. During the visit it was noted that there was still a damp area in the corner of the lounge. The landlord said it would monitor the damp over the next couple of weeks to see if it improved, as it thought it could be moisture trapped in the structure of the roof which was taking longer to fully dry out. The landlord said it would update the resident the following week. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord provided the resident with the update it promised. This was unfair and unreasonable and again demonstrates the landlord’s poor communication with the resident.
  20. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 29 September 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and confirmed that the developer had undertaken numerous repairs to the roof area above her flat in an attempt to rectify the leaks. It said it was proving very difficult to resolve on such a complex roof as the water could be entering the waterproof membrane in a completely different area, relative to where it was entering her home. It confirmed that whilst making good the internal damage it had found that an area of the ceiling was still damp. Therefore, further monitoring and investigation would be required.
  21. The landlord also confirmed that the main area of internal damage was caused when the developers operatives did not cover over an area of the roof they were working on, which resulted in water ingress during a heavy rainstorm. It said it was fully committed to completing repairs and making good any internal damage that had been caused at no cost to the resident. The landlord said it would continue to monitor and investigate the roof leak and carry out all necessary repairs to resolve the leak. It said it had appointed a building consultant to assist with resolving the leaks at the scheme. It apologised for the length of time it was taking to resolve the issue, and it offered compensation of £350.
  22. The landlord sent an update to the resident on 18 October 2023. It said it was finding the developers more challenging to engage with. So, it had appointed a construction consultant to take the issue forward. It said it had arranged to meet the consultants on 1 November 2023, to agree the next phase of the investigation works. It confirmed it did not need access to the resident’s home and said it would provide an update following the meeting. The landlord asked the resident to forward photographs of the leaks on a fortnightly basis to show whether it was getting worse or remaining the same.
  23. The resident sent photographs of the leaks to the landlord on 19 October 2023 as requested. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether she received a response from the landlord. It is also unclear as to whether the landlord updated the resident following the meeting with its consultants on 1 November 2023 as promised.
  24. On 21 November 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the leaks were continuing. She also escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she had no confidence that the issue would be resolved, which she was finding a huge inconvenience and very stressful.
  25. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 13 December 2023. It upheld her complaint and explained that under the build contract it had to allow the original developer the opportunity to rectify the defects to ensure that any warranties remained valid. However, as the developer was no longer cooperating it had commissioned an independent building consultant firm, who were fully engaged and working on a resolution. It provided reassurance that it was committed to continue to work on the roof and said it would keep the resident informed of any progress. It reviewed the commitments made at stage 1 and made further commitments at stage 2. It said:
    1. It had not had any further updates or photos from the resident to show that the leak had got worse. So, to ensure the areas were being monitored it would visit the resident in the next couple of weeks to inspect and take damp meter readings. It would also look to see if it could carry out any works to improve the resident’s home.
    2. It would erect scaffolding to the outside of the building early in the new year so it could inspect the roof area above the flat in more detail. It remained its position that all damage to the inside of the resident’s home would be repaired at no cost.
    3. It was sorry to hear the resident did not feel safe within her home and that she had been prescribed additional medication. It was sorry for the stress that had been caused. It recommended, during colder weather, that the resident turn her heating on more frequently to combat damp to manage the efficiency of her home and mild health conditions. The landlord sign-posted the resident to its website for tips on how to manage damp, mould and condensation and for help and advice on cost of living.
    4. It increased its offer of compensation by £75 to £425.
  26. Although the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and it provided reassurance that it would continue to make attempts to resolve the issues, the stage 2 response lacked accuracy and sensitivity. The landlord should have been aware of the full history of the leaks before drafting the response. It would then have been aware that the developer’s error of not correctly covering over an area of the roof which they were working on was an additional issue, and not the main cause of the damage.
  27. The tone of the stage 2 response also implied that there was an element of blame put on the resident for not providing updates or photographs. The landlord was fully aware of the ongoing issues and its responsibilities for rectifying the defects. It should have been in regular contact with the resident and not solely relied on the resident’s updates.
  28. The landlord’s recommendations in its stage 2 response to the resident during the cold weather were insensitive and unhelpful considering the resident had had a hole in her ceiling since 10 January 2023. It was unlikely that turning her heating on more often would combat the damp caused by almost 12 months of water ingress from the roof. The landlord also appeared not to recognise that the resident’s asthma was not a “mild health condition”.
  29. Although the landlord did increase the offer of compensation to £425, this failed to reflect the extent of the service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident. Particularly as the matter was still ongoing with no real firm prospect of a resolution in place.

Events following the stage 2 response

  1. The landlord did visit the resident on the 14 December 2023 to take damp meter readings. The meter readings to all areas were recorded as satisfactory and within acceptable levels, apart from the area around the ventilation grill in the lounge ceiling which showed levels within the medium to high range.
  2. The resident reported a further damp patch to her ceiling on 23 January 2024. The landlord exposed the waterproof membrane above on 25 January 2024 but found no areas of concern. It did pick up other minor issues which were not helping the rainwater to disperse. The landlord said it was considering undertaking electronic testing of the exposed roof membrane. Although it is unclear from the evidence provided as to whether this took place.
  3. The landlord informed the resident on 10 July 2024 that its consultant would be finalising his report shortly which would advise on the best remedial actions to take. However, this Service is not aware of the content of the report.
  4. In summary, although the landlord has committed to carrying out the repairs to the roof and the internal repairs to the resident’s property at no cost to the resident, its communication with the resident was poor throughout the case as it failed to provide consistent updates. It failed to comply with its service offer for repairs when the resident reported the leak in January 2023, and it delayed unreasonably in resolving the leak. Its stage 2 response lacked accuracy and sensitivity and the compensation offered was insufficient to provide reasonable redress.
  5. As a result of these failings and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

  1. It should be noted that the landlord has reviewed its complaints policy since it dealt with this complaint. At the time of this complaint the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy said it would formally respond to customers within 5 working days. The response provided may be a full complaint response confirming the actions taken to resolve the issue or a complaint response confirming the actions it would take to investigate to resolve the issue. The full complaint response would be issued no more than 20 working days from receipt of the complaint. Stage 2 responses would be issued no more than 7 working days from the date of escalation.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 3 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and confirmed the response was due by 11 May 2023. The landlord sent the resident an interim complaint response on 11 May 2023. It confirmed that it would visit the resident on 15 May 2023 to discuss her concerns in more detail before providing a full response.
  3. On 6 June 2023 the landlord’s complaint log shows that it extended it stage 1 response time by 4 weeks. This was so the developer could complete the “making good” works. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (April 2022) says landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
  4. The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest that the reason for the extension was exceptional. There is also no evidence to suggest the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the extension, or that she agreed to the extension. The landlord’s own complaint policy only allowed extensions at stage 1 up to 20 working days.
  5. The landlord sent the resident further interim complaint responses on 4 August 2023 and 19 September 2023. It provided the full stage 1 response on 29 September 2023. This was almost 5 months from the date of the complaint, and significantly outside of the timeframe of 10 working days as set out within the Code, and 20 working days set out within the landlord’s policy. The landlord did, however, offer the resident £100 compensation for complaint handling failures.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 21 November 2023. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 13 December 2023. This was 16 working days from the date of escalation and outside of the timeframe of 7 working days set within the landlord’s own policy. However, this was within the 20 working day timeframe set within the Code. The landlord also increased the compensation offered to the resident by £50 to £150.
  7. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s offer of £150 compensation and its acknowledgement of the delays represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
  8. In summary, although there was a significant delay in the stage 1 response, the landlord attempted to put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the remedies guidance provided by the Ombudsman for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord is therefore to pay the overall compensation of £150 if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the compensation being paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of persistent leaks into the resident’s flat from the roof and upper balcony area.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £900 (the landlord can deduct from the total any amount it has already paid) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of persistent leaks into the resident’s flat from the roof and upper balcony area. This amount recognises that the resident was left with a hole in her living room ceiling for at least 9 months. The landlord must pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    3. Provide the resident and this Service with a copy of the building consultant’s report mentioned in the update to the resident on 10 July 2024.
    4. Provide the resident with a single point of contact (SPOC) and agree a plan with dates for contact/updates. The landlord must provide this Service with details of the SPOC and a copy of the plan.
    5. Contact the resident to discuss the submission of an insurance claim for damage caused following the ingress of rainwater on 16 April 2023 due to the developer’s operatives not adequately covering the roof.
  2. Within eight weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must provide the resident and this Service with a full schedule of works based on the outcome of the building consultant’s report. This must include the internal remedial works to the resident’s property and provide expected dates for completion of the work.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £150 compensation for complaint handling failures it offered in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendation.