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

LiveWest Homes Limited (202412672)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412672

LiveWest Homes Limited

24 February 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:
    1. The resident’s request to be moved from the property.
    2. The resident’s reports of odour in the property, damp and mould, and the ceiling flaking.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in sheltered accommodation. The tenancy commenced in December 2020. The resident has vulnerabilities and is not fluent in English, which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 3 March 2022 the resident was in communication with the landlord about wanting to move from his current property. The landlord completed a housing application form to the local council on behalf of the resident on this date. He reported he was having damp and dust issues in the property. On 18 March 2022 a local council environmental health officer visited the property and told the landlord it found no issues.
  3. Subsequently, the resident visited the landlord’s office on multiple occasions asking it to increase his banding for local council properties. The landlord said it could not increase his banding, however it forwarded doctor letters to the local council.
  4. The landlord instructed its surveyor to inspect the resident’s property due to his reports of damp and dust, and dissatisfaction while remaining at the property. The surveyor’s report was dated 27 July 2023, and it found no issues.
  5. On 2 October 2023 the resident asked the landlord for assistance with a flat he had bid on under the local council’s choice based lettings system. The landlord set up a direct debit and the resident paid £1,000 off rent arrears on his account on this date.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord following a call with the translator on 23 February 2024. He wanted to move properties due to impact on health. He said there was a smell in his home and the ceiling was flaking. He said the property lacked ventilation. The landlord arranged for another surveyor’s inspection of the property. The report was produced on 27 March 2024 following a visit on 28 February 2024, which recommended an upgrade to ventilation fans in the property.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 March 2024. It did not uphold the complaint about an odour, and the ceiling flaking. It had previously inspected the property and found no issues in this regard. It said it was unable to offer a move but had offered support with a home exchange. It provided insurance details for him to contact regarding health and injuries, and said to seek independent advice. It acknowledged it would raise an order to upgrade ventilation fans in the property as per the surveyor’s report.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked for it to be escalated on 12 March 2024. On 3 May 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It reiterated its findings from stage 1 and said the inspections found no issues with damp and mould, the ceiling flaking, or an odour. It told the resident it had delayed raising repairs for the kitchen and bathroom fan to be upgraded. It said it would ensure its surveyor’s test the validity of its fans in the property going forward. It offered £50 for the delays in raising the fan repair.
  9. The resident first contacted this Service on 26 June 2024. He remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted us to investigate his concerns. He said he wanted to be rehoused and wanted our help with this.
  10. In November 2024 the landlord carried out another survey of the property. Although it did not identify any issues or further repairs, it told the resident it would add him to its exceptional transfer system.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The banding decision was made by the local council and not by the resident’s landlord. This Service does not hold jurisdiction over the local council in how it handles its housing register. This would potentially be more appropriately dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The resident may wish to raise these concerns to the LGSCO if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further. However, we have assessed if the landlord managed the resident’s housing request appropriately.
  2. Additionally, the resident asked this Service to tell the landlord to rehouse him. However, it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to order the landlord to offer rehousing to the resident. We cannot comment or order the landlord to prioritise him over other applicants or tenants that need rehousing due to their circumstances. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine whether the landlord acted in line with its obligations, policies, and procedures.
  3. It is noted the resident said that this experience and not being able to move from the property has affected his physical and mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, effects on health and wellbeing. This element of the complaint may perhaps be better suited for the courts.

Request to be moved from the property

  1. The resident initially asked to move from his property to a local council property in March 2022. The landlord demonstrated it provided support to the resident at that stage. The landlord completed the housing application form on behalf of the resident on 3 March 2022. It advised the resident that he needed to clear his rent arrears to be added to the housing register. Additionally, it forwarded a doctor’s letter regarding the resident’s mental health to the local council. It also gave him a printed copy of the housing application form sent to the local council on 18 March 2022.
  2. The above was appropriate action by the landlord, as its allocations and lettings policy states that it offers advice and support for residents wishing to move. This includes helping residents apply for properties with other landlords.
  3. Further, the landlord’s exceptional transfer procedure allows residents to move properties within its available stock. This is under its discretion when satisfying 1 of 2 criteria as follows:
    1. Where it has been identified that there is an immediate threat or danger to a resident.
    2. Strategic purposes such as where the landlord wants to:
      1. Dispose of the property.
      2. Address major damp or mould.
      3. Assess there are conditions which pose a reputational risk to the landlord if the resident is not considered for a transfer.
  4. The property was inspected by the local council’s environmental health on 17 March 2022, and they found no issues. Therefore, at the outset, the resident was not eligible for a move under the landlord’s exceptional transfer procedure. Further inspections of the property took place on 23 July 2023 and on 28 February 2024.The condition of the property did not satisfy the landlord’s criteria for a move. However, the landlord provided support to the resident and advised him that he could pursue a mutual exchange. This demonstrated the landlord was resolution focused and following its allocations and lettings policy.
  5. Throughout the process, the landlord assisted the resident in applying to the local council and another housing association. He was able to bid on properties and asked the landlord for further assistance on 2 October 2023. The landlord advised he would need to clear his arrears on the account and helped him setup a direct debit. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord was taking the resident’s concerns seriously despite not being eligible under its exceptional transfer procedure. Additionally, the evidence shows the resident declined a property via the council home choices in February 2024.
  6. The landlord gave its insurance details in its stage 1 complaint response after the resident expressed concerns about health and injuries. The landlord also advised the resident to seek independent legal advice. The landlord was reasonable and clear in its communication.
  7. The landlord carried out a further survey of the property in November 2024. Following this visit it told the resident that it would add him to its exceptional transfer list. It would take some time to potentially move him. This was despite it not finding any issues with the property. This is evidence that the landlord went beyond its obligations when handling the resident’s request to be moved from the property.
  8. Overall, the landlord acted in line with its relevant policies throughout the request. It communicated clearly with the resident. It has provided evidence that shows that it took his concerns seriously. Despite him not being eligible under its policy for an exceptional transfer, it had gone above its obligation and was flexible. As such, this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be moved from the property.

Odour, damp and mould, and the ceiling flaking

  1. Under the landlord’s repairs service offer, it is responsible for the structure of the property and the internal structure, including walls and ceilings.
  2. The earliest report of damp issues by the resident was in March 2022. This Service acknowledges that the local council’s environmental health team visited the property on 18 March 2022 and found no issues with the property. This was shared with the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it would triage all reports of damp and mould at an early stage and may use digital technology. This will include risk classification in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
  4. There is no evidence that the presence of damp and mould was found by the landlord. Its surveyor’s report of July 2023 and March 2024 showed there was no damp and mould. This is also the case for the odour the resident reported. There is no evidence that substantiates there was odour in the property. The inspections consisted of resistance readings, capacitance readings, humidity readings, and air temperature readings. Thermal imaging was also used. This was appropriate and in line with its damp and mould policy.
  5. There was also no evidence that the ceiling was flaking in the inspections, instead it noted small areas of decorative cracks. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on professional opinion, following its surveyor’s inspections.
  6. However, the March 2024 report noted there was higher humidity and lack of ventilation. The landlord was recommended to upgrade the bathroom and kitchen ventilation fans to help reduce the humidity in the flat. This was different to its report of July 2023.
  7. The landlord admitted failings to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response and apologised ventilation issues were not identified in its 2023 visit. The landlord identified learning and said it would ensure its surveyor’s were testing the fans within properties. This was to ensure the right ventilation is distributed across homes and reducing moisture levels.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to make goodwill gesture payments and recognise service failures. As it had not raised the fan repairs as of 3 May 2024, it offered £50 for the delays. The fans were not replaced until 13 June 2024.
  9. The landlord’s repairs service policy states that for responsive repairs it commits to contacting the customer within 28 days to arrange an appointment. Although the landlord had acknowledged delays in raising the repairs for the fans in the property, it was outside its 28-day commitment by 4 calendar days. This meant delays continued after its final response, which caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  10. Under this Service’s guidance on remedies, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble caused to a resident by service failures. As the detriment continued after the final response, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of £50 to be proportionate. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay a total of £100 to the resident for delays in repairing the fans in the property. This sum is in line with the suggested compensation figure in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has acknowledged some failings and tried to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by the Ombudsman’s investigation.
  11. This Service would have found reasonable redress had the landlord actioned an appointment to repair the fans quicker than it did. It was aware of previous delays in raising the repair and it should have acted sooner in line with its repair service policy. It also has not provided reasons why it was unable to arrange the appointment sooner than it did. Considering the above, we find service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of odour in the property, damp and mould, and the ceiling flaking. Orders have been made that take into consideration the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, including further compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move to another property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of odour in the property, damp and mould, and the ceiling flaking.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for further delays in arranging the fan repairs to help ventilate the property as per its surveyor’s report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairs. If any of the £50 offered in its stage 2 complaint response was paid, it can be deducted from this total.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.