Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

LiveWest Homes Limited (202306630)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306630

LiveWest Homes Limited

9 July 2025


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 response to the resident’s query about the buildings insurance policy.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a 4-storey block. The block was built around 1986. The landlord became the freeholder in 2014. The resident bought his flat in August 2020.
  2. The block is located next to a river. In January 2020 a section of the river wall collapsed. The landlord told the resident that it was responsible for repairing the wall. As such, it would recover these costs from leaseholders.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 15 April 2023. He questioned why he had to pay towards the repair and said it should be covered by the buildings insurance. The landlord responded at stage 1 and explained that damage from erosion was excluded from the policy.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint as he was unhappy with the response. He felt the original insurance policy had been changed without consulting leaseholders. The landlord responded at stage 2 and said the content of the policy had not changed. It reiterated that the damage was not covered by the policy.
  5. The resident referred his case to us on 7 December 2023. He said that the landlord had not been able to provide the original insurance document. He believed this showed that the damage to the wall was covered by insurance. He requested that the landlord pay for the repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has disputed the content of the current buildings insurance and says it is different from the original policy. As such, he believes he is not liable to pay towards the repair of the wall. We are not able to consider the extent and limitations of cover provided by insurance policies. As such we can not determine what cover was in place or the resident’s legal obligation to pay towards repairs.
  2. Such matters would be better suited to be considered by a Court. The resident may wish to obtain independent legal advice in respect of this aspect of his complaint. Our investigation is limited to how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and if its response was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. 

Response to the resident’s query about the buildings insurance policy

  1. Within his complaint from 15 April 2023 the resident expressed his belief that the buildings insurance covered damage to the wall. He had asked the landlord for a copy of the original insurance policy from 1986. The landlord advised that it did not have a copy of the original policy. The resident further questioned whether the scope of the insurance policy had changed from the original document. He felt the landlord had been “negligent” if the building was not insured for erosion.
  2. The landlord contacted its insurer. It subsequently provided the resident with the insurance policies dating back to 2013. It explained that it had requested the earlier policies from the insurer.
  3. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 18 May 2023. It said as follows:
    1. It had given the resident the insurance documents it had available.
    2. Its insurer had advised that the landlord was not required to keep insurance policies for longer than 6 years. However, it had asked the insurer if it could provide earlier policy documents. It noted the insurer had not done so.
    3. It confirmed that the riverbank wall was included in the insurance cover, however, damage from erosion was excluded from the policy. Its insurance team had confirmed that the insurance cover was the same as when the resident purchased the property.
    4. The landlord confirmed that it was responsible for the repair and therefore leaseholders were obligated to contribute towards the cost of this.
  4. This response addressed the concerns raised by the resident. The landlord demonstrated that it had taken his concerns seriously and it had liaised with its insurer about accessing previous policy documents. The findings of the landlord were based on the advice of its insurer. It also appropriately considered the resident’s lease. This sets out that the landlord must maintain the building, including walls. It also says that the leaseholder must pay a service charge and that the costs of maintenance must be included in the service charge. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude that, as the repair was not covered by insurance, the repair would be carried in accordance with the lease.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 24 May 2023. He questioned why the landlord could say the issue was not covered under a previous insurance policy without providing the original policy. He asked for documentation that proved leaseholders would need to pay for the repair. The resident also raised concerns about the repairs done to the wall. This was dealt with by us as a separate complaint on 23 June 2025 (case reference 202334333).
  6. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 11 July 2023. It said as follows:
    1. It explained that it was responsible for any issues beneath the surface of the footpath. The Council was responsible for surface level repairs to the footpath.
    2. Its insurer had determined in 2020 that the likely cause of the damage to the wall was erosion. Its insurer had advised at the time that damage from erosion was specifically excluded from the cover.
    3. Its insurer had confirmed that there had been no changes to the risks insured and these were in accordance with the terms of the lease. River erosion had never been covered under the insurance policy.
    4. It advised that it had provided the building insurance documents to the resident’s solicitor when he purchased the property in 2020.
    5. It reiterated that it had provided the insurance documents to the resident from 2013 onwards. It did not have copies of earlier policies and it was not required to keep such documents for more than 6 years.
    6. It explained that if a repair was not covered under the buildings insurance policy, it was dealt with under the terms of the lease. As such, leaseholders were liable to pay towards such repairs via the service charge.
    7. It recommended that the resident could seek legal advice on the matter.
  7. The evidence shows the landlord again demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and had investigated further. It was appropriate for it to seek the expert advice of its insurer in respect of the matter and for it to subsequently rely on this. The landlord explained that in such a situation, where a loss was not covered by insurance, the repair responsibilities set out in the lease would come into effect. As such it concluded that leaseholders were required to contribute towards the repair. This was reasonable in the circumstances and in line with the lease.
  8. In summary, the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. It appropriately liaised with the insurer and advised the resident accordingly. Given the conclusion of the insurer, that the damage was not covered by insurance, the landlord appropriately referred to the lease to determine how the repair would be paid for. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about the buildings insurance policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about the buildings insurance policy.