From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

LiveWest Homes Limited (202422710)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422710

LiveWest Homes Limited

5 September 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 handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a house that was built in 1911. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having a mental health condition. Throughout the complaint both the resident and a representative from Citizens Advice were in contact with the landlord. For clarity, this report refers to the resident and her representative as “the resident”.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in June 2023 to report an ongoing mould issue in her kitchen. She reported the kitchen window was covered in mould and draughty. The landlord inspected the property in July 2023. Its report recommended extensive works needed at the property including internal and external damp works to the walls, replacing 2 windows and replacing the kitchen once damp works were completed to the walls. The landlord instructed damp specialist company to inspect the property, it shared its findings with the landlord in August 2023. It recommended extensive works in line with those outlined above. It does not appear the recommended works progressed at that time.
  3. The landlord inspected the property again in January 2024. It identified similar issues related to damp and mould. It does not appear the works progressed at that time.
  4. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 21 May 2024. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould. She said it had recorded high levels of damp at its inspections, but not progressed with any works.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2024. It upheld the complaint and apologised for its handling of the repairs. It accepted it had not progressed with the works following its inspections. It said it had now had quotes for the proposed works approved and would be in touch to book works by 13 June 2024. It offered £800 in compensation for its handling of the repairs, and £25 for the delay in sending its complaint response. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 13 June 2024. She said she was unhappy with the offer of compensation as it would not cover the costs of replacing the items damaged by the damp and mould.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 23 August 2024. It upheld the complaint and apologised for the delay in attending to the repairs, and sending its complaint response. It explained it had completed a further inspection to identify all the works needed at the property. It listed the works it planned to complete and explained the works would begin on 16 September 2024. It explained the resident would be given alternative accommodation while the works were ongoing. It made an increased offer of compensation of £1,525 for its handling of the repairs (including £500 to cover costs of replacing damaged items and £200 for loss of use of the kitchen). The landlord offered £200 for the delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The resident moved into temporary accommodation on 16 September 2024 to allow the landlord to complete the works at the property. She moved back into the property around 11 October 2024.
  2. The resident contacted us and asked us to investigate her complaint on 11 March 2025. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould issue, and its offer of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our assessment

  1. The information we have seen for this investigation shows the landlord was on notice about damp and mould from 2019. Our Scheme sets out that we may not investigate matters that were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally 12 months of the matters arising. There is clear evidence the matter was outstanding for a significant period without the landlord taking appropriate action to progress with the works. Considering the approach set out in our Scheme, we have given greater weight to the landlord’s actions in the 12 months preceding the resident’s formal complaint of May 2024. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of matters from when the resident reported the issue in June 2023.
  2. The evidence also shows the resident continued to raise concerns about damp and mould after she moved back in following the completion of the works in late 2024. For fairness, we have increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is solely related to the repairs it committed to as part of its complaint responses. We have not considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports the damp and mould had returned in October/November 2024, as this matter has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The resident may wish to raise a complaint about the landlord’s handling of more recent repairs. We may then investigate if she remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints process.
  3. When she asked us to investigate, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had affected her health. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit.
  4. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers her health was affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, it is widely accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health. We have considered this general risk, rather than any specific impact on health. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord, and how it responded to her concerns about health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy, which it implemented in March 2023, says it will always take action to remedy damp and mould in a timely manner.
  4. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it aims to complete all responsive repairs within 28 days.
  5. As set out above we have assessed the landlord’s actions from when the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in June 2023. The evidence shows the landlord did not inspect until 4 July 2023. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay and was evidently distressed at the conditions in her property. The delay in completing the inspection may have increased the distress she experienced.
  6. We welcome the fact the landlord instructed a specialist damp and mould contractor to inspect the property, following its inspection in July 2023. The inspection took place in late July 2023. Considering the demand within the housing sector for such inspections, this was a reasonable timeframe in the circumstances. However, the evidence shows the landlord did not progress with the recommended repairs at the time. This was unreasonable and caused a further inconvenience for the resident.
  7. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to apologise for the delays in progressing the repairs. It showed transparency about the delays and offered compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It also set out when it would be in touch to book the repairs. This is evidence it sought to rebuild trust with the resident and reassure her it was taking the matter seriously.
  8. The landlord did not progress with the works following its stage 1 complaint response. This was evidently frustrating for the resident. The landlord failed to learn from its handling of the matter up to that point, and the further delay inconvenienced the resident.
  9. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to apologise and make an increased offer of compensation. This was appropriate considering the further delay in attending to the repairs. The stage 2 complaint response gave a detailed assessment of the repairs which showed transparency. It also gave a date of when the works would start. This is evidence it sought to reassure the resident it was progressing with the repair. We welcome the fact the landlord progressed with the repairs on the date it committed to in its stage 2 complaint response.
  10. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident temporary accommodation while it was completing the works. We have seen evidence the landlord handled the offer of temporary accommodation with sensitivity and considered the vulnerabilities and needs of the resident’s household. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence of good practice.
  11. We acknowledge the frustration to the resident felt at the need to stay in the temporary accommodation longer than the initial 2 weeks the landlord set out. However, given the complexity and nature of the works the landlord completed at the resident’s property, a delay of 2 weeks was not excessive. The evidence shows the landlord communicated with the resident about the delay, and sought to keep her in the same accommodation. Unfortunately, it was unable to due to it being booked up. While evidently inconvenient and disappointing for the resident, this was outside of the landlord’s control.

The landlord’s offer of redress for damp, mould, and repairs

  1. It is accepted there was an unreasonable delay in completing the repairs. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes. We have decided the landlord’s overall offer of compensation did not fully put things right for the resident, and there was maladministration in its handling of this matter. We have given an explanation of our reasoning for this decision below.
  2. Having broken down the landlord’s final offer of compensation, we have concluded it offered the resident £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance says an order of between £600 to £1,000 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. Particularly where failures had a significant impact on the resident. Such a situation applies in this case. We have therefore determined the landlord’s offer of £800 for distress and inconvenience was reasonable in the circumstances. It must pay it to the resident now if it has not already done so.
  3. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it offered the resident £500 in compensation as a “contribution towards any replacement costs of personal items”. In doing so, the landlord effectively accepted liability for damage caused to the resident’s possessions due to its handling of the repairs. It is unclear how the landlord reached this figure. We have seen no evidence it sought more information from the resident about damage to her possessions. This was inappropriate, as the landlord did not give this matter the appropriate consideration. The landlord must ask the resident for the relevant information about damage to her possessions/items she had to replace. The resident should provide receipts and/or photos as evidence of costs incurred. The landlord must then revisit its offer of compensation for damage to the resident’s possessions. It must fully consider the costs the resident incurred. The landlord may deduct its offer of £500 from its final total, if already paid to the resident.
  4. The landlord’s final complaint response offered the resident £200 for the “impact on use of the kitchen”. We welcome the fact the landlord recognised the loss of amenity the resident experienced. However, we have decided the offer of £200 did not fully reflect the loss of amenity the resident experienced. At a visit to the resident’s property, in September 2024, the landlord’s notes say the kitchen items were “all completely covered in mould”. It noted “there was nowhere to be able to store food in the kitchen due to the damp, as this was causing everything to go mouldy”. It said the resident was storing “all food” in the living room which caused it to be “very overcrowded”.
  5. The evidence shows the resident experienced some loss of amenity to both her kitchen and living room for the period covering the complaint. We have therefore decided the landlord must pay the resident a loss of amenity payment of £815.44. This is calculated as 10% of her rent amount (5% each for the kitchen and living room). This covers the period when the resident raised concerns in June 2023, up to the point she moved in to temporary accommodation in September 2024 (67 weeks). The landlord may deduct the £200 it offered for loss of amenity from this total. Our calculation is broken down as follows:
    1. 10% of the rent from 6 June 2023 to the end of March 2024 (43 weeks) amounts to £508.17.
    2. 10% of the rent from April 204 to 16 September 2024 (24 weeks) amounts to £307.27.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states landlord must send stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed. The landlord asked the resident for an extension, which was appropriate and in line with the Code. The landlord also apologised and offered compensation for the short delay in sending it stage 1 complaint response. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. There was a lengthier delay in the landlord sending the stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £200 in compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances. In line with our remedies guidance, we have determined the landlord’s offer of compensation was appropriate to put right errors in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress which, in our opinion, resolved errors in its complaint handling

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £2,115.44 in compensation. It should deduct its offer of £1,300 from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. The £800 it offered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the damp, mould, and repairs.
      2. The £500 it offered for damage to the resident’s possessions. (if it has not already done so). It must also revisit this offer and ask the resident for evidence of costs. If the resident provides proof she incurred costs over the £500 it already offered, the landlord must pay the difference.
      3. £815.44 in recognition of the loss of amenity the resident experienced. It should deduct its offer of £200 for loss of amenity if already paid.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £225 it offered for the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding this compensation will be paid.