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

LiveWest Homes Limited (202317611)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317611

LiveWest Homes Limited

30 April 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 changes to the heating system at the resident’s home.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom end terrace property. The property is of non-traditional construction, situated in a rural area with no gas supply. The resident had a fixed term tenancy with the landlord from 2013 to 2020 and then an assured tenancy agreement from then onwards.
  2. The resident has disclosed information about her daughter’s vulnerabilities within the complaint. This relates to autism and extreme sensitivity to noise, “hyperacusis and misophonia”.
  3. The resident had a wood burning stove at the property to provide heat and hot water that had been in situ for some years. Additionally, there was an immersion heater for hot water. The resident described the high efficiency of the heating system and the very low running costs as she could obtain free seasoned wood.
  4. The woodburning stove was subject to an annual service provided by the landlord. On 27 October 2022, the landlord conducted its annual service of the stove. The stove failed the landlord’s annual service and the landlord record referred to it “not being safe to use” and a sticker was placed on the front of the appliance to advise the resident not to use the stove. The landlord noted the boiler had “rusted inside” and the “L bracket had rusted and fell off”. The landlord left the resident with 2 electric fan heaters and then shortly after on 3 November 2022, it provided the resident with oil filled temporary heaters to heat her home. The property had the immersion heater to supply hot water.
  5. On the same day, the landlord appointed a surveyor to conduct a ‘retrofit’ assessment of the property to determine its plans to upgrade its energy efficiency. The resident and landlord have provided a copy of the report that refers to the landlord’s whole property approach and medium-term plan. It recommended cavity wall and solid wall insulation, loft insulation and solar photovoltaic (PV) panels. The report noted the resident’s daughter’s vulnerability.
  6. The report also noted the resident had previously been offered air source heating but this was not suitable to the resident’s circumstances as she said it would push her into fuel poverty. It also noted the resident’s daughter was “highly sensory avoidant” and the air source heat system unit would be too loud. There is no record that the landlord determined the most appropriate heat solution for the property at this point.
  7. Shortly afterwards on 3 November 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She was concerned that the landlord would not fit another woodburning stove and this would adversely affect her as it would push her into fuel poverty.
  8. The resident said she liaised with the landlord’s housing officer about the current heating system. The resident said the landlord officer told her to arrange a repair to the broken part on the woodburning stove. The resident did this and has provided this Service with a copy of an independent chimney sweep certificate dated 4 November 2022. The resident said she also provided the landlord with a copy of this certificate, but it was dismissed as the landlord had already condemned the stove. The landlord told this Service that this certificate was not provided to it until a much later date on 10 August 2023 and stated it was unaware until that point that the resident had continued to use the stove.
  9. The resident continued to use the stove against the landlord’s advice, and it provided her with heat and hot water.
  10. The landlord registered a complaint from the resident at stage 1 of its process. It said it would aim to respond to the resident by 10 November 2022.
  11. On 10 November 2022, the landlord sent the resident an interim response to her complaint as it was still yet to decide upon the most effective heat system for the property.
  12. The resident replied to the landlord on 14 November 2022 and asked the landlord to take into account her personal circumstances. The resident believed a modern woodburning stove would provide her with a carbon neutral, economic system that was environmentally friendly.
  13. The landlord continued to communicate with the resident throughout the complaint while it was evaluating the heat options. However, the landlord had indicated early that it would not consider replacing the heat system with an upgraded wood burning stove, as it said it was against its solid fuel policy. The landlord told the resident it would contact her in the week commencing 12 December 2022 with an update.
  14. The landlord’s internal records of 23 November 2022 show an air source heat system was evaluated and not considered the right solution for the property as the property did not meet the required energy performance criteria.
  15. On 1 December 2022, the landlord recorded it spoke to the resident. The resident told the landlord she had seen its assessment report that said the most suitable heat for her home was the woodburning stove given the building type and energy efficiency rating. This Service has not been provided with this evidence. The resident went onto refer to legislation from January 2022 that ensured new stoves were efficient and complied with current emission guidelines.
  16. The resident also asked the landlord if she could apply to fit a new woodburning stove at her own expense if the landlord refused to install one for her. The landlord told her she could request permission but her application would most probably be denied.
  17. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 12 December 2022. It explained it would not fit an upgraded woodburning stove at the resident’s home as it had a zero emissions policy it had to comply with. The landlord said it could not give the resident a clear indication on what type of heat system it would fit as it wanted to arrange an assessment of the property. The landlord stated one assessment had already taken place and then it had arranged a further required assessment, but there had been a mix up with the booking and the appointment was cancelled at the last minute. The landlord partly upheld the resident’s complaint as it recognised it had not been able to give the resident a plan of action.
  18. The resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint on 12 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 2 days later and told the resident it would aim to provide a response by 30 December 2022.
  19. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint, interim response, on 30 December 2022. It partly upheld the complaint as there had been miscommunication about a duplicate assessment of the property. It apologised to the resident and recognised it needed to improve its communication and record keeping. The landlord explained to the resident it was still awaiting the property assessment report and it had chased this up. It would not consider fitting another woodburning stove, but it assured the resident it would install the most efficient heat system while taking a whole property approach to ensure heat efficiency was maximised. The landlord offered the resident compensation as follows:
    1. Reimbursement for the use of temporary heaters at £20 per week for 10 weeks totalling £200.
    2. A goodwill gesture to compensate the resident for time and delay of £100.
  20. The resident continued to express her concerns to the landlord in January 2023 and the landlord attempted to arrange a heat survey during February 2023. The resident told the landlord she was unavailable and was unable to facilitate the survey as her complaint was still open and she wanted to know the outcome.
  21. On 22 February 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint and explained to the resident this was because of a mix up with a duplicate landlord assessment. It had also upheld her complaint about the appointment that had to be cancelled at the last minute and it apologised to the resident. The landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint about a replacement woodburning stove, as it was a key stakeholder in the local community and had a wider national interest to work in alignment with the government strategy to decarbonise and improve the efficiency of homes.
  22. The landlord gave the resident a summary of the government strategy aims of; improving energy efficiency, creating energy through renewable sources and electrification. The landlord confirmed to the resident it would install quantum high heat retention panel heaters at the property as it believed these to be the most efficient heat within the parameters set by the government. The landlord said it was required to conduct a survey of the property. It also explained its plans to improve the energy efficiency of the property through solar PV panels and insulation measures. The landlord offered to compensate the resident the following amount:
    1. Reimbursement for the use of heaters at £20 per week for 17 weeks (3 November 2022 to end of February 2023) totalling £340
    2. £100 compensation for the delay in providing its decision.
    3. £50 for the miscommunication around cancelled appointments.

Summary of events after landlord’s complaint process

  1. The resident has provided this Service with an independent third-party expert report dated 10 August 2023. The resident said this report was shared with the landlord. However, there is no evidence as to how the landlord responded to the report. The remit of the report was to assess the current and proposed solution for space heating at the property. It notes the current woodburning stove did not meet current standards for new builds, but it said there was no requirement for it to do so. The report refers to the quantum high heat retention panel heaters and states this type of system was not fit for purpose and contravenes current legislation.
  2. The landlord confirmed to this Service it had anticipated that the new heating system would be installed shortly after it had issued its stage 2 complaint response. However, the resident would not allow the landlord access to her home and the landlord had to implement its no access procedure. The woodburning stove was not removed from the property until 18 September 2023 and it installed the new heat and hot water system (high heat retention panels) on 3 November 2023.
  3. The landlord referred the resident to its tenancy sustainment team for advice on the efficient use of the new heating system and guidance on the most suitable energy tariff as well as advice on how the resident could maximise her income.
  4. The landlord has confirmed it registered a separate complaint from the resident in December 2023 about her daughter’s vulnerabilities and the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments to be considered under the Equality Act 2010 in relation to noise from the current high heat retention panel system.
  5. The resident is concerned because her home has developed a damp and mould issue following the installation of the new heat system. The landlord is dealing with this issue through a separate ongoing complaint along with the landlord’s refusal to allow the resident to install a woodburning stove at her own expense.
  6. The landlord has recently provided this Service with additional information on its decision making on the installation of a quantum high heat retention panel system at the property. The property does not have a gas supply and therefore the landlord stated its only option was an air source heat system or high heat retention storage heaters, both of which boosted the energy efficiency rating of the property. The landlord said that due to the noise from the air source heat unit and the resident’s concerns about its lower flow temperature, the resident agreed the high heat retention storage heaters was the best option from the landlord’s limited choice.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of changes to the heating system

  1. The landlord arranged the annual service of the woodburning stove at the end of October 2022 and deemed the stove “unsafe for use”. The landlord provided the resident with heaters to warm the property in the interim until it decided on the type of heat system it could install. There was an immersion heater fitted at the property and therefore the property had a hot water supply. In doing so, the landlord fulfilled its maintenance obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to provide heating and hot water at the property. It also took appropriate action to close down an unsafe appliance.
  2. The landlord had a separate energy efficiency program. It conducted a retrofit assessment to determine its plans to upgrade the energy efficiency of the property. Its recommendations were to fit solar (PV) panels and insulation. The assessment recorded observations of the resident’s concerns about a different type of heating system.
  3. The landlord had talked to the resident about fitting an air source heating system at the property. However, the resident expressed her concerns that the system would be unsuitable due to her daughter’s sensitivity to noise as an air source heat unit would be too loud. The landlord listened to the resident’s concerns and did not go ahead .This is evidence of the landlord considering the resident’s representations regarding the specific needs relating to her daughter’s condition, as part of its considerations in reaching a conclusion on the most appropriate choice of heat system, within the options available to it.
  4. The resident arranged her own repair of the appliance after she said the landlord’s housing officer told her to do so. She obtained safety certification from an independent chimney sweep in early November 2022. The resident reassured herself the appliance was safe to use, and she continued to use the appliance for heat and hot water against what the landlord had stated was its position on its continued use, and knowledge that the resident was doing so.
  5. The resident said she provided the landlord with a copy of this certificate, however, the landlord’s evidence shows this was at a much later date than the resident suggests, as the landlord stated this occurred in August 2023. The landlord stated its position remained unchanged regarding the non-use of the stove as it had already made the decision to condemn the existing appliance and it was working to find an alternative heating system.
  6. The landlord’s account regarding the resident’s continued use of the stove following its maintenance and independent certification, differs from that of the resident. This Service has not been provided with conclusive evidence by either party upon which we are able to form a view as to whether or not the landlord endorsed the continued use of the stove, or not, following the independent inspection. However, it is noted that the landlord did provide alternative temporary heating at the point the fireplace was condemned and was consistent throughout its complaint correspondence that a woodburning stove was not part of its long-term plans for space or water heating in the property.
  7. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord at the beginning of November 2022 as she felt strongly that a woodburning stove was the best fit for her home and her personal circumstances. The landlord sent its interim stage 1 response to the resident mid November 2022. It explained it was still awaiting the outcome of its evaluation of the heat system options that would be best suited to the property.
  8. During communication between the resident and landlord in November 2022, the landlord confirmed it would not install another woodburning stove as it was against the landlord’s solid fuel policy. This policy refers to the landlord’s aim of preventing fires in its properties while protecting residents. The landlord said it will remove a solid fuel appliance where possible and it will ensure the property is provided with an appropriate heat system. The policy states that where a solid fuel fire has been condemned it will ensure it removes the appliance in a timely manner.
  9. Given the landlord had previously condemned the stove and there is no requirement upon the landlord to consider a third-party opinion on the matter, it was appropriate for the landlord to commit to removing the stove in accordance with its solid fuel process, install an alternative heat source and to advise the resident of its position in relation to removal of the appliance.
  10. In early December 2022, the landlord recorded it had spoken to the resident by telephone and the resident asked the landlord if she could fit a woodburning stove at her own expense if the landlord’s decision was to reject that type of appliance. The landlord responded that she could apply for permission from the landlord, however, it would most probably reject the application. It was reasonable for the landlord to convey this information to manage the expectations of the resident.
  11. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response mid December 2022. It confirmed it would not fit an upgraded woodburning stove at the resident’s home as it was against its solid fuel policy. At this point, it could not give the resident a clear indication of the type of heat system it would fit as a permanent replacement at the property. There was confusion which was the fault of the landlord about the requirement for an assessment that had resulted in a second appointment at the property being cancelled at the last minute. The landlord appropriately acknowledged it had delayed in providing the resident with its action plan and it partly upheld the complaint.
  12. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint mid December 2022. The landlord sent the resident its interim response at the end of December 2022. The complaint was partly upheld as there had been a miscommunication about a duplicate assessment. The landlord appropriately recognised it needed to improve its communication and record keeping. While the landlord was still awaiting the property assessment, it was clear on its stance that it would not fit a woodburning stove at the property. It assured the resident it would fit the most efficient heat system. It offered the resident compensation of £300 that took into account the use of temporary heaters for the duration of its delay and also for its delayed provision of an action plan. 
  13. The landlord attempted to arrange a heat survey assessment during February 2023, but this was unsuccessful as the resident wanted her complaint to be answered first. Towards the end of February 2023, the landlord sent the resident its full stage 2 complaint response. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint about a replacement woodburning stove; however, it did uphold the complaint in recognition of its miscommunication on the appointment and duplicate assessment.
  14. The landlord made the decision to fit a quantum high heat retention panel system at the property as it believed this to be the most efficient option within its limited choice, given there was no gas supply to the property. It also explained its plans to improve the energy efficiency of the property. The landlord’s final compensation offer was £490. This took into account part of the period from the appliance being condemned and the provision of temporary heaters through to the landlord reaching a decision and being ready to install the new heating system. This was around February 2023.
  15. However, the resident would not allow access to her home, and the landlord thereafter had to implement its no access procedure which delayed the installation process. Therefore, the new heat system was not installed and functioning until November 2023. The landlord’s payment to the resident for the use of temporary heaters stopped in February 2023 to coincide with the plan to install the new system. The landlord was reasonable in its decisions and actions for both the initial offer to provide additional payments to offset the costs associated with temporary heating, and in its decision to withdraw the additional payment from the point it was ready to install the permanent space heating solution. 
  16. In summary, the landlord had condemned the existing woodburning stove at the property and did not repair or replace the appliance on account of its solid fuel policy. The resident had a hot water supply from the immersion heater, and the landlord provided alternative temporary heaters with payments to subsidise their use until it was ready to install a permanent heat system which was aligned to its zero emissions policy and the government strategy aims of improving energy efficiency.
  17. While there is no doubt the landlord was committed to provide a suitable heat system at the property within the choices available, it did, however, delay unreasonably in making this decision for 4 months, and the new heat system was not installed until a further 8 months later. It is however, acknowledged that part of this delay was due to no access to the resident’s home. Given the landlord had made the decision to condemn the use of the woodburning stove, it was inappropriate it then delayed for so long to make its decision and install the new heat system. The landlord did, however, recognise it had taken too long and acknowledged it had delayed in making its decision. The landlord appropriately awarded the resident compensation of £340 for the use of the temporary heaters, £100 to reflect its delay in providing the resident with a decision on the type of heating it would install at the property and £50 for its miscommunication about the cancelled appointment. Therefore, the landlord’s total compensation of £490 put things right for the resident. The landlord’s actions and amount of compensation is aligned to the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles where there has been failure that has caused significant impact on the resident. 

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord at the beginning of November 2022. The landlord registered the complaint at stage 1 of its process and said it would respond to the resident by mid November 2022. However, the landlord was not able to provide a full response to the resident by this date as it was still awaiting the evaluation report for heat system options. The landlord therefore acted appropriately as it updated the resident with an interim response. The landlord sent the resident its full stage 1 complaint response in mid-December 2022.
  2. Shortly after the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord said it would respond at stage 2 of its complaints process by the end of December 2022. Again, the landlord was not able to provide the resident with its full complaint response, however, it kept her informed and sent an interim response to the resident at the end of December 2022. The landlord sent its full stage 2 complaint response to the resident towards the end of February 2023.
  3. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling, however, the landlord appropriately kept the resident informed throughout the process by providing her with its interim response and outlined when it expected to be able to give a full response to the resident due to delays in gathering the information relevant to answering the complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states landlords must respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. However, exceptionally, it may provide an explanation to the resident together with a clear timeframe for when it will respond, and this should not exceed 10 days without good reason.
  4. Although the landlord had a reason for not responding within the policy timeframes, it navigated the delay without causing an additional service failure. However, the overall length of time taken to provide the resident with its formal responses were caused as a result of the substantive delay to form its decision on an appropriate heat system as is detailed above. Given this delay impacted the resident and caused distress and inconvenience to her, the landlord should offer the resident compensation of £100 to reflect the failure in its complaints process to expedite decision making and facilitate resolution within the expected timelines as set in its policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the heating system at the resident’s home.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure  with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord had service failures throughout the complaint timeline, however, it acknowledged its mistakes and awarded compensation and payments to put things right for the resident totalling £490.
  2. The landlord took too long to reach decisions and provide its full responses to the resident as part of its complaint process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should pay compensation of £590  as follows:
    1. £490 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the heating system at the resident’s home. The landlord should subtract any amount already paid as part of the compensation and payments it offered in the complaint timeline and detailed in this report.
    2. £100 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should consider the findings from the independent heat report and provide the resident and this Service with its response, which should include any changes it may or may not adopt as part of its strategy to provide space heating and hot water supply to the resident’s home.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.