LiveWest Homes Limited (202216849)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216849

LiveWest Homes Limited

18 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to insulate the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The residents are a married couple, who have been joint assured tenants of the property since January 2020. The property is a 2 bedroom cornish unit type 1 house, which is owned and managed by the landlord, a housing association. The word “resident” will be used to refer to the joint residents of the property and their interactions with the landlord.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 14 October 2021, stating:
1. Since moving into the property, they had noticed it was very cold. They had requested for the landlord to check the wall cavity but nothing was done.
2. The landlord had attended in May 2021 and told the resident its contractor would need to complete an inspection, but they had heard nothing further about this.
3. After they chased this up, the landlord’s contractor had arranged 2 appointments. However, it did not attend either of these.
4. There was significant heat loss in the property, which was causing them to spend more money on energy. This was difficult with the rising energy costs.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 October 2021. In its acknowledgement, it confirmed it had arranged for the contractor to attend on 26 October 2021 between 1pm and 2pm. The landlord said it would send its stage 1 complaint response by 21 October 2021.
The landlord sent an “interim” stage 1 response on 21 October 2021, in which it said it would arrange any works after the inspection on 26 October 2021. It said it would contact the resident in 2 to 3 weeks when the caseworker returned to work.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 23 December 2021, in which it said:
1. Its contractor had said the property was not suitable for foam cavity wall insulation because the construction was non-traditional and it only had a cavity at ground level. The contractor said installing foam in the ground floor cavity would leave the top half of the property uninsulated, which could have an impact on damp and mould.
2. It could explore other internal insulation but this would be costly. It had asked its head of property intelligence and green funding manager for their thoughts on insulating the property and would update the resident in due course.
3. It had raised inspections for the resident’s windows and radiators, which would likely be completed in the new year.
The resident responded to this email on 10 January 2022 confirming they already had problems with damp and mould throughout the property. They said they used a dehumidifier which collected a lot of water, but large amounts of condensation still gathered on the windows.
The landlord completed the inspection of the windows and radiators on 19 January 2022. It noted that:
1. All the windows were in good condition and the seals were intact. It could not see any causes for draughts entering the property. However, the windows were old metal windows, which were possibly due to be upgraded.
2. The radiators were in good condition and heated up very well when the heating system was turned on.
A surveyor attended the property on 27 January 2022 and noted that:
1. The external walls looked to be in good condition, with no obvious signs of damp, staining or loss of structural integrity.
2. There were slight appearances of mould in the property, but this was not severe.
3. The walls felt dry and cool to the touch. The temperature in all rooms averaged 19 to 22 degrees celsius, and the relative humidity ranged between 50% and 70%.
4. The thermal imaging camera showed signs of some cold spots along the bottom of walls and in the corners, which is what the surveyor expected. There was a cold spot on the ceiling in the rear bedroom, which might have indicated limited or compromised loft insulation.
5. Externally, there were no obvious signs of defects to the roof or walls.
The landlord sent its final stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2022, which said:
1. Foam cavity wall insulation was not required in the property, as there were already cavity batts installed which did the same thing.
2. It was not easy to install foam into a void of the type within the property. There would be little control over where the insulation would go if it was pumped in. Foam insulation downstairs could also cause more problems with damp and mould from warmer air rising upstairs, where there was no such insulation.
3. The landlord had completed surveys which had confirmed there was nothing further it could do to improve the thermal properties of the building without involving major works which would be very disruptive and costly.
4. There had been failings by its contractors which had not attended when promised, and the resident had experienced frequent delays. The landlord offered an apology for this and partially upheld the complaint.
5. The resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 if dissatisfied with the response.
The resident submitted a stage 2 escalation request on 29 March 2022, stating:
1. The landlord had cherry picked from the different inspection reports to reach its conclusion.
2. When the landlord had measured the temperatures, the readings were between 19 and 22 degrees celsius; whereas the contractors’ readings were only recording temperatures up to 15.9 degrees celsius.
3. The landlord had not mentioned in its findings the thermal imaging it had taken of the outside of the property, which had indicated massive heat loss through the front door as well as all of the first floor.
4. Despite how costly they were, they would still like the landlord to consider the insulation options.
The landlord sent an “interim” stage 2 response on 14 April 2022, which said:
1. It was not yet in a position to send a full response.
2. It was arranging for a senior surveyor to attend and reassess the previous findings.
3. Its statement about costs being a factor in its stage 1 response was incorrect. The cost of any remedial works would not be a factor in defining whether it would complete these or not.
4. It would provide an update to him by 25 April 2022, including their query about a replacement front door.
The landlord sent its final stage 2 response to the resident on 30 September 2022, in which it said:
1. It had installed damp meters in May 2022. When replacing these in June 2022 there was some minor damage done to the wall plaster. It provided a payment of £50 to recognise this.
2. It had commissioned a new energy performance certificate assessment, which was completed on 19 July 2022 and returned a rating of “C”.
3. The data it had collected over the summer did not indicate an issue with the thermal efficiency of the property. After combining this data with the data collected earlier in the year, it had decided it would not be completing upgrade works at the property. However, it would continue to monitor the property through the winter months.
4. It would replace the front door in October 2022.
5. It awarded £100 in recognition that the resident may have had extra heating costs and £300 for miscommunication and delays.
6. The resident could bring the complaint to this Service if they remained dissatisfied.
The resident duly made their complaint to this Service on 1 August 2023.

Post-complaint events

On 31 August 2023, the landlord reviewed the matter. It said:
1. It would install a positive input ventilation (PIV) system to improve the ventilation in the property.
2. It would complete an intrusive survey on the first floor to confirm the construction and insulation.
3. There were some complaint handling failures at stages 1 and 2 of the complaint procedure that it should have recognised. To address these, it would provide a payment of £300.
The intrusive survey was completed on 20 September 2023. This found:
1. The mansard roof had insulation missing.
2. There was no insulation at the roof hips.
3. The insulation between the timber studs was not properly fixed and had gaps.
4. There was a lack of insulation between the back of the plasterboard and the back of the roof battens.
The landlord visited the resident on 24 November 2023 regarding proposed works. The resident was against internal insulation because it would take up space inside the property. They had also recently decorated, and their decorating work would be affected by this. The resident’s preferred option was for the landlord to complete roof insulation. The landlord visited the property again on 23 January 2024 and agreed that internal insulation would not be an option because the resident had just had a wet room fitted, and their bedroom furniture would not accommodate internal wall insulation.
The landlord wrote to the resident and this Service on 11 March 2024, stating:
1. Its plan for works included removing the roof tiles, installing insulation, checking for any other remedial works that might be needed, then reinstating the roof covering. This would take no longer than 6 weeks once started, unless other remedial works were identified.
2. The works were in its procurement process. On appointment of a contractor, it would provide the resident with a start date.
3. It was providing the resident with £2,500, comprising:
  1. £500 for their inconvenience and distress.
  2. £1,000 towards items that had been damaged by mould.
  3. £500 towards historical heating costs.
  4. £500 as a heating support package leading up to the works.
4. The payment of £2,500 was in addition to the previous payments of £450 in September 2022 and £300 in August 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision not to insulate the property

“Excess cold” is considered a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS includes preventative measures to combat this, such as installing appropriate levels of thermal insulation and appropriate background ventilation.
The Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord completed several reasonable actions in its investigation of this case. We welcome the landlord’s commitment on 11 March 2024 to complete roof insulation work and to provide the resident with £2,500. This was in addition to the payments of £450 and £300 previously provided.
However, the Ombudsman notes the landlord did not complete these actions as a result of its internal complaints procedure. Instead, it reviewed the case after the resident had duly made their complaint to this Service.
When the resident told the landlord on 10 January 2022 that they had problems with damp and mould, the landlord could have considered providing a PIV system then. However, it only considered this in its further review in August 2023.
The surveyor who attended on 27 January 2022 completed thermal imaging and observed that there may be limited or compromised loft insulation. The landlord should have carried out investigations to determine if this was the case.
The Ombudsman considers the actions confirmed by the landlord in its correspondence dated 11 March 2024 are fair and reasonable to address the problem of heat loss in the property; and the distress, inconvenience and financial impact this has had on the resident. The Ombudsman will order the landlord to complete these actions as promised.
Had the landlord completed these actions as part of its internal complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would have determined there was reasonable redress. However, because the landlord only took these actions after the resident duly made their complaint to this Service, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s decision not to insulate the property.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, section 5 of the landlord’s complaints procedure said it would aim to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days.
The landlord sent its “interim” stage 1 response within 5 working days, while it took 12 working days to send the “interim” stage 2 response following the escalation request.
“Interim” complaint responses, as issued by the landlord, do not comply with section 5.5 of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This says that “a complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed”. The landlord could have issued the complaint responses on time and set out in the responses that investigations and site visits would take place to determine what, if any, heat loss is occurring and what it would do about it.
In its interim stage 1 response, the landlord said it would update the resident within 2 to 3 weeks. However, we have seen no evidence it did this. The resident had to chase updates from the landlord on 9 December 2021 and 17 December 2021 before receiving a response.
In its stage 2 interim response, the landlord said it would update the resident by 25 April 2022. We have seen no evidence it did this.
Section 6.2 of the Code says any remedy offered by a landlord “must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result”. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged its contractors had failed to attend when promised and that the resident had experienced delays. It provided an apology for this, but it would have been appropriate to consider compensation. However, the landlord did later recognise this in its post-complaint review in August 2023, and it compensated the resident appropriately.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord concluded that there was no issue with thermal efficiency at the property, and confirmed it was not proposing any works. However, in the same response it provided £100 in recognition that the resident may have had additional heating costs. This was contradictory.
The Ombudsman considers the compensation provided by the landlord in its correspondence dated 11 March 2024 was fair and reasonable to address the complaint handling failures identified. Had the landlord awarded this compensation as part of its internal complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would have determined there was reasonable redress. However, because the landlord only offered this after the resident duly made their complaint to this Service, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s:
1. Decision not to insulate the resident’s property.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

It is ordered that, within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord completes the works outlined in the works plan in its correspondence to the resident dated 11 March 2024.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with compensation of £2,500 as offered in its correspondence dated 11 March 2024. If the landlord has already made this payment by the time this investigation is completed, it will have satisfied this order.