LiveWest Homes Limited (202328440)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202328440
LiveWest Homes Limited
23 December 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 handling of a roof leak.
- This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She moved into the property in December 2012 with her son who has additional needs. The property is a 2-bedroom mid-terraced house.
- On 18 November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that a leak from her roof had affected the ceiling in her son’s bedroom. She stated that the paint on the ceiling had peeled and it was wet to the touch. The landlord attempted to check the roof on 24 January 2023 but was unable to access it due to a blocked shared access path. It sent a letter to the resident’s neighbour on 6 February 2023 to request they clear the access route. On 21 February 2023 a contractor visited and confirmed that the route was clear.
- The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 March 2023 to chase the repair as the ceiling stain was growing, though the ceiling was dry. A contractor attended on behalf of the landlord the same day, and stated:
- The roof was not in disrepair and was dry despite there being rain the previous day.
- There was no felt underlay so there was potential for wind driven rain to leak into the loft.
- It was not able to determine the cause of the ceiling stain in the bedroom.
- On 28 March 2023 the landlord recategorized the job as planned works and cancelled the job with its repairs team. The resident called it for an update on 28 April 2023 as the ceiling was wet and the stain was growing. Internal records on 4 May 2023 show that the landlord confirmed it did not plan to replace the roof as it was not in disrepair.
- The resident chased the repairs several times between May and August 2023, and reiterated to the landlord that her son did not feel able to sleep in the bedroom as he was worried that the ceiling would fall in. On 4 September 2023 she made a formal complaint which the landlord acknowledged the same day. She stated that several operatives had attended to assess the leak but no work had been completed and the leak was getting worse. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communication.
- A stage 1 response was issued on 11 September 2023. The landlord upheld all points of the resident’s complaint and stated:
- There had been confusion over which team should attend and this led to delays.
- It needed a party wall notice to gain access through the neighbour’s garden.
- It apologised for failing to return the resident’s calls.
- It would arrange scaffolding as soon as possible.
- It offered compensation of £200 comprising of:
- £100 for delays with roofing repairs
- £50 goodwill gesture for its communication failures
- £50 goodwill gesture for inconvenience.
- The same day, contractors attended and confirmed that the roof had been leaking but it was unable to determine a specific source given the lack of felt. It raised a job to erect scaffold to enable a more detailed assessment. Internal notes indicate that the landlord planned to issue a party wall notice to the neighbour as they had blocked the only access point to the yard.
- The resident chased the roofing works throughout October 2023 and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 31 October 2023. She stated that she was unhappy the landlord had not repaired the roof and felt forgotten about. She was also concerned at the impact the situation was having on her son who could no longer sleep in his bedroom. The landlord acknowledged the request formally on 7 November 2023 and said it aimed to respond by 16 November 2023.
- The landlord notified the resident that it planned to repair the roof at the same time as a window installation to use the same scaffolding. The resident expressed that she was anxious at the short notice and the disruption. The window installation was rescheduled, and the landlord erected scaffolding on 29 November 2023. On 2 December 2023 it completed the repairs to the roof. Notes from the repair state:
- The roof required replacement as the issue with rain getting through the slates was likely to continue.
- The operative noted that he could see daylight through the slates prior to the repair.
- It replaced 2 slates and applied sealant to other areas of the roof.
- Between 2 December 2023 and 6 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord 3 times to chase the complaint response. It issued a stage 2 response on 7 December 2023 and partly upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that it did not communicate effectively and said that delays gaining access through the neighbour’s path affected its overall response. It confirmed that it would schedule ceiling repairs once it completed an asbestos survey. It offered additional compensation of £150 consisting of £100 for complaint handling failures and £50 for lack of communication.
- The resident responded the same day to query the complaint response, as she said she was previously informed that a party wall notice was not required. She also queried the accuracy of some dates of correspondence which the landlord had referred to. It revised the complaint response on 8 December 2023 and amended the dates of correspondence. It also offered a further £50 goodwill gesture.
- The asbestos survey took place on 12 December 2023 which found no evidence of asbestos in the bedroom. Throughout January to November 2024 several appointments were made for the ceiling repairs, and these were rescheduled either at the request of the resident or the landlord. The landlord completed internal ceiling repairs, including repainting, on 18 November 2024.
- The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 November 2024 confirming completion of the works and offered an additional £250 for inconvenience caused by delays to complete the repairs. This brought the total compensation offered throughout the complaints process to £600 comprising of £100 for complaint handling and £500 for repairs related issues including delays, distress and inconvenience.
Assessment and findings
Roof and ceiling repairs
- The landlord’s repair policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, and for all other repairs it provides a repairs appointment within 28 days. It also states that for vulnerable residents it will determine on a case-by-case basis whether an enhanced or amended service is appropriate. It is not clear whether this was part of the policy at the time of the repair.
- It was reasonable for the landlord not to categorise the roof leak as an emergency repair. Based on the evidence provided, there was no health and safety risk of falling tiles and while the leak was causing damage to the paintwork of the ceiling it did not pose a wider risk to the property. The first appointment to check the roof was 41 days later, at which point the landlord discovered the access issue. This was not reasonable as its policy states that it will attend within 28 days for non-emergency repairs.
- The landlord’s records relating to the access issues are not consistent. There is evidence that it confirmed that the neighbour cleared the path for access in March 2023 but work on the roof did not commence until November 2023 citing access issues. It is not clear to this Service whether this was due to a miscommunication between departments or whether the neighbour blocked access on a separate occasion.
- Between the date of the first report of the leak until the date the landlord completed the repairs it was approximately 1 year. This was not reasonable. While there are records referring to contractors visiting and being unable to find the source of the leak, it was noted consistently that the design of the roof was such that water could enter without obstruction.
- Once it became apparent that the ceiling discolouration and peeling was having a strong negative effect on the resident’s son, the landlord should have reassessed the case and increased the priority of the repair. The landlord was informed of his needs in 2020 and at the time it provided the resident with links for support agencies in her area. It only added a flag to its household record in May 2023 following an unrelated home visit.
- The resident made it clear to the landlord throughout the repair period that her son felt that he could not sleep in his bedroom as he was scared the roof would fall in. The landlord should have reassured the resident that it took this seriously. There is no evidence that the landlord amended its service offer, and it did not make any reference to her son’s needs in any of its complaint responses. Since the date of this complaint, the landlord has introduced a new vulnerable residents’ policy which was under review at the date of this report. A recommendation will be made at the end of this report for the review to consider the issues found in this complaint.
- Communication between departments was poor and this led to delays in completing the repairs. Correct information regarding the need for a party wall notice (PWN) was not communicated to the repairs team quickly enough. This led to confusion for the resident as she received conflicting information about the PWN. There was also confusion between departments regarding whether the roof works fell within the responsibility of responsive repairs or planned works, or whether external contractors should attend.
- The landlord stated that the roof was not in disrepair however this Service has seen evidence of a similar roof leak at the property in 2019 which resulted in internal ceiling damage. Based on the landlord’s repair records, its operatives confirmed that on this occasion the roof was repairable however the nature of its construction means that there is a high chance of a reoccurrence. While it may not have been severe enough at the time to warrant immediate replacement, the landlord should have added the property to its planned works schedule to prevent further inconvenience for the resident. Alternatively, it should have made a record of this information on its system to ensure that it would be considered for full replacement if there were any future reports.
- It was 11 months between completion of the roof repairs and the remedial works to the ceiling including surface decoration. While this is not within the policy timescales, it is not clear to this Service how much responsibility the landlord has for these delays. The resident has informed us that she had to reschedule some appointments due to anxiety, and the landlord has told us that it also found it necessary to reschedule appointments. The landlord recognised its contribution to the delays in its final complaint review and offered compensation of £250. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a fair offer of redress for this issue.
- Overall, while the landlord did offer some compensation for the delays with the roof repairs, the offer was not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord’s compensation policy signposts its staff to the Ombudsman’s policy as a basis for calculating appropriate compensation. It did not address the effect that the issue was having on her son given his vulnerabilities, and it did not take action to prevent a recurrence in the future by adding the roof to the planned maintenance schedule or updating its records to ensure this was taken into consideration if future issues arose. It is positive that the landlord recognised its communication failures throughout the process. It has also informed this Service that it has developed its strategies on supporting vulnerable residents and ensured that its repairs policy contains guidance for staff on service adjustments which can be made for vulnerable households. No further orders will be made regarding this.
Complaint handling
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 20 working days at stage 1, and within a mutually agreed timescale (normally no more than 7 working days of the escalation acknowledgement) at stage 2. It directs residents to the Ombudsman if they are unhappy with the outcome of the complaint. If it needs longer to respond, the landlord promises to communicate this with the resident.
- While it responded within timescales at stage 1, there were 28 working days between stage 2 acknowledgement and the final response. It offered £100 compensation for complaint handling failures. It did not communicate periodically with the resident to provide updates, and it stated that the delay was caused by a lack of access. Positively, the landlord also offered compensation for the lack of communication at all stages of the complaint.
- In April 2024 the landlord informed this Service that it would reassess its compensation offer once the work to the ceiling was completed. It did so in November 2024 and offered an additional £250 compensation for delays. While we expect that all offers of redress fall within the complaint handling process, in this case it was reasonable for the landlord to review the case once the work was completed so it could consider continued delays. The appointments for internal works were rescheduled by both parties, rather than delays being attributed to either the landlord or the resident. It is appropriate that the landlord took responsibility for its part in the delay and compensated appropriately.
- The Ombudsman introduced the Complaint Handling Code in 2022 which sets out best practice for landlord’s complaint handling procedures. Under the Code, landlords must provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. At the time of the complaint, following the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code was not a statutory requirement for landlords. At the time of this report, it is a mandatory requirement that landlords follow the Code and the landlord has made this Service aware that its new policy adheres to this. We will therefore make no additional recommendations relating to complaint handling timescales in this report.
- While there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, it made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it managed the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of a roof leak.
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Orders
- Within 5 weeks of this report the landlord should apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be made in writing and by a senior manager with a copy provided to the Ombudsman as proof of compliance.
- Within 5 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation £1000 made up of:
- £1000 for distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her family due to delays with fixing the roof.
- If the £500 awarded to the resident for repair delays, distress and inconvenience during the complaint process and its post-works review has already been paid, it can be deducted from this amount.
- The landlord must provide proof of payment to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance.
Recommendations