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

LiveWest Homes Limited (202427894)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202427894

LiveWest Homes Limited

26 July 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:
    1. Damp and mould, water ingress and subsequent repairs to the bedroom ceiling.
    2. The resident’s concerns about asbestos.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2-bedroom first floor flat. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident as mobility, sight, and hearing. The resident’s representative made the complaint on behalf of the resident. Both the resident and her representative will be referred to as the resident for ease of reading.  
  2. In January 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in her bedroom. On 17 May 2023, the resident reported a water mark and damage to the ceiling in the bedroom. The landlord attended in July 2023 and raised repairs to the soffit. In March 2024, the resident reported a reoccurrence of the stain on the bedroom ceiling. The landlord completed a mould wash on 4 April 2024 and raised repairs to the guttering.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 April 2024 about the outstanding repairs to the damp and mould, and the ceiling. She said the landlord had only completed a cosmetic repair of the stain on the ceiling in July 2023 and had not responded to her attempts to follow up on this. The resident said in response to her recent reports, the landlord had attempted to paint over the mould on the ceiling but this was wet. She said the ongoing issues were affecting her health.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 23 April 2024. It confirmed it would raise further repairs following a survey the previous day. It said it would arrange the outstanding repairs to the soffit and the ceiling. The landlord acknowledged the resident was dissatisfied with its offer of £250 compensation. It said it was reconsidering this. The resident replied the following day and said the landlord had not addressed all the issues raised.
  5. The landlord provided a further stage 1 response on 5 June 2024. This addressed further concerns about communication, asbestos and garden work. The landlord confirmed the ceiling did not contain asbestos. It said it would carry out repairs once the resident (who had paused the work due to health) confirmed the work could commence. This included making good internal decoration. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £1500 for the damp and mould issues, stress and inconvenience, and poor communication.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 20 August 2024. She said the outstanding issues remained, and the recent asbestos survey had confirmed asbestos was present in the textured ceiling.
  7. The landlord issued its final response on 4 October 2024. It acknowledged delays and poor communication. The mould washes, gutter repair, loft insulation, extractor fans, soffit repair and decoration had been completed. It said the final work to the ceiling and bathroom extractor were scheduled for 3 and 4 October 2024. It apologised for providing incorrect information about asbestos due to an error on the register. It confirmed asbestos was present, it was a low risk and it had arranged for a reassurance test. The landlord offered compensation of £2,200. This was broken down as £1,500 as previously offered, £100 for the additional repair delays, £200 for the incorrect information about asbestos, £200 for further poor communication and £200 for its late complaint response.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the amount of compensation offered.
  9. Following the end of the complaints process, there was a further leak and damage to the bedroom in October 2024. The landlord completed further investigations into this leak and raised work to replace the roof. The resident raised a further complaint about this, to which the landlord provided a final response in January 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the situation impacting her health. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. As this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts it will not be considered in this report.
  2. Some of the issues raised to us by the resident happened following the end of the complaints process. This includes a complaint made in October 2024 about further leaks and damage, and later reports about loft insulation and pests. The scope of this investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint on 23 April 2024. The resident has referred her further complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation. This is currently awaiting to be assessed by the Service and has not been considered in this investigation. Any issues or requests after that time should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before they can potentially be investigated by the Ombudsman.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord’s repairs service standard says it is responsible for the external structure of the home, including the guttering and walls, and ceilings. The landlord aims to provide appointments within 28 days for responsive repairs. For managed repairs, it will agree completion targets typically within 90 days.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will triage a case at the early stage. Depending on the severity and history, it will take a case management approach and will investigate the root cause of the problem. It says it will always take action to remedy damp and mould in a timely way.
  3. The landlord’s compensation guidance says it can make payments for service failures of between £200 and £600 for a moderate impact, between £600-£1,000 for high level impact, and £1,000 plus for repeat failings to resolve an issue over an extended period of time.
  4. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says at stage 1 it will respond to a complaint within 10 working days. The landlord will formally acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days. It will normally respond no more than 7 working days from this acknowledgement. If it takes longer than 20 working days, it will agree this in advance with the resident. The policy states a complaint involving personal injury should be referred directly to its insurers.
  5. The landlord has a responsibility in the Decent Homes Standard to ensure its properties are free from hazards and risks. Similarly, it is required to ensure that properties remain fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy and throughout – taking into account prescribed hazards. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard.
  6. The landlord’s complaint response identified that it delayed in attending surveys, incorrectly closed work as complete, asbestos checks were delayed and it failed to raise work causing the excessive delays. This demonstrated a poor oversight of both the repairs to the damp and mould and the water ingress and ceiling.
  7. The landlord failed to act when the resident reported damp and mould in the property on 23 January 2023. The evidence shows the resident followed up on this in May, June and July 2023. While the landlord raised works to the soffit and loft insulation in July 2023, this was in relation to the water ingress into the bedroom ceiling. There is no evidence that the landlord completed a full inspection of the damp and mould until 23 April 2024. This was 15 months after the resident reported the issue. Although the landlord’s damp and mould policy does not include timeframes for the investigation and completion of damp and mould repairs, this was unreasonable. It also did not meet the timeframes in its repairs service standard. There was also no evidence of the landlord considering the resident’s vulnerabilities in the timeliness of its response.
  8. Following the inspection, the landlord appropriately raised works to resolve the damp and mould. This included a mould wash and also the installation of extractor fans. This was in line with its damp and mould policy. The mould treatment was completed on 1 May 2024, and repairs to the loft insulation and kitchen extractor fan took place in August 2024. Part of the delay was because the repairs were on hold between May 2024 and 1 July 2024 at the request of the resident, due to her recovering from an operation.
  9. As promised in its final response, the landlord completed the work to the bathroom extractor fan on 4 October 2024. However, this was over 20 months after the resident’s first report of damp and mould.
  10. The resident first reported the damage to the ceiling on 17 May 2023. Again, the landlord failed to act until the resident followed this up. The landlord failed to complete the soffit repair it raised in July 2023, meaning the leak and stain returned in March 2024. This repair was completed on 28 August 2024. This was 15 months after the resident’s initial report. The landlord failed to meet the timescales of its repair service standards.
  11. Basic customer service is for a landlord to keep in communication with tenants and update them on the progress of repairs. The evidence shows the resident had to follow up with the landlord multiple times. The landlord also failed to provide a timescale for all the work. Although the landlord did provide the resident with updates after her complaint, it failed to agree completion targets for all of the outstanding repairs in line with its repair standards. As a result, she did not know when to expect the work to be completed.
  12. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated that the landlord later renewed the roof following a further leak into the bedroom ceiling after the end of the complaints process. The way in which a landlord meets its overall repair and maintenance obligations is for it to decide. The evidence from the time of the complaint shows the landlord following the recommendations of its surveyor, and the outcome of its visits to the property, which was reasonable.
  13. In its final response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £1,800 for the long-standing issues and delays, communication, and the impact on the resident. This amount was in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings of this scale and nature, and in which a resident has experienced considerable inconvenience.
  14. It also set out a plan of action to complete the necessary outstanding work to put things right for the resident. The evidence shows the outstanding work was completed in October 2024 as promised. The landlord’s final response also stated that on reflection of the complaint, it had taken steps including training and new turnaround times for damp and mould surveys.
  15. The landlord’s offer of compensation appropriately recognised the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. However, it was also reasonable for the landlord to have signposted information about its own insurer, for the resident to pursue if she felt the landlord was at fault for or injury to health. This was in line with its complaints policy.
  16. Overall, the landlord recognised its excessive delays to the repairs, its poor communication, and the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced over an extended period. It also said how it would try to prevent future failings. The Service considers that the £1,800 offered by the landlord was reasonable redress.

The resident’s concerns about asbestos

  1. The landlord’s asbestos management plan states if any previously undertaken surveys are deemed inadequate, it will complete a new survey of the appropriate type.
  2. The landlord told the resident incorrect information about asbestos in the ceiling during the complaints process. The feedback from the damp and mould inspection on 24 April 2024 noted concerns about the hole in the ceiling and asbestos. It noted that it advised the resident not to touch the area until further notice. However, in its amended stage 1 response on 5 June 2024, the landlord then confirmed the textured coating on the ceiling did not contain asbestos. This was incorrect.
  3. An asbestos management survey on 8 August 2024 confirmed the presence of asbestos on the ceiling. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged the incorrect information it provided at stage 1. It explained that this was due to an error in the asbestos register. The evidence shows the landlord instructing further testing once it was aware the information may have been incorrect. This was in line with its asbestos management plan. It informed the resident of the result and explained the risk level on 16 August 2024.
  4. Despite the risk level confirmed as very low by the survey, the landlord appropriately arranged for a reassurance test of the property on 23 September 2024 which was satisfactory. This was a positive action to reassure the resident, given the incorrect information it provided previously.
  5. Overall, the landlord acknowledged it had provided incorrect information at stage 1. It confirmed the status of the asbestos and risk level, undertook further testing for reassurance, and offered £200 of compensation to recognise the distress and invoice caused by its error. The compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and there was reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

  1. The Complaint Handling Code states where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are relevant and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
  2. On 24 April 2024, the resident told the landlord it had not addressed issues she had discussed with it recently in its stage 1 response. This included the risk of asbestos in the ceiling and floor, communication with a housing officer, and concerns about the garden. It was not clear when these issues were discussed, however they did not form part of the stage 1 acknowledgement letter sent to the resident on 10 April 2024, outlining her complaint.
  3. When issuing the stage 1 response, the landlord was aware that the resident was dissatisfied with the compensation it was offering. It told the resident in the initial stage 1 response that it would reconsider this. It subsequently kept the stage 1 response complaint open, while it considered the compensation and further issues. It issued its amended stage 1 response on 5 June 2024. This was 38 working days after it acknowledged the complaint.
  4. The landlord’s decision to keep the stage 1 complaint open and issue an amendment, resulted in a protracted complaints process. This was not inline with its policy or the Code. It is noted the landlord did agree this with the resident and updated her on 16 May 2025.
  5. The landlord took 26 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. This did not meet the timescales in its complaint policy or the Code.
  6. The landlord offered £200 compensation at stage 2, for the late complaint response. However, it did not specify if this related to the delays at both stages. While the landlord has acknowledged its delay, it failed to identify its poor complaint handling at stage 1 or explain the reasons for the delays. As such, it failed to fully resolve the complaint or show it had taken learning from it.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Damp and mould, water ingress and subsequent repairs to the bedroom ceiling.
    2. The resident’s concerns about asbestos.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident further compensation of £50 for its poor complaint handling. This is in addition to the £200 already offered.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with this order within the deadline above.

Recommendation.

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £2,200 compensation offered during the complaints process. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is based on the understanding that this compensation is paid.