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

Livv Housing Group (202410272)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202410272

Livv Housing Group

30 April 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 the resident’s report of damp in his property.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy began in January 2003 and ended in October 2023. The property is a 2 bedroom house. The resident is registered blind.
  2. On 2 August 2023 the resident rang the landlord. He reported that his carer had told him there was damp in some of the internal walls of the property.
  3. The landlord carried out an initial inspection of the property on 8 August 2023. It found there was evidence of damp in the walls. It told the resident that it would arrange for a damp surveyor to carry out a more detailed inspection.
  4. Later that same day, 8 August 2023, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. He expressed dissatisfaction that there was damp in his property given it had in recent years carried out 2 damp treatments. He also complained that it had not always adhered to the reasonable adjustments in place when communication with him or attending his property.
  5. The following day, 9 August 2023, a senior quantity surveyor spoke to the resident on the phone about his complaint and arranged a home visit.
  6. On 14 August 2023 a damp surveyor attended the property and carried out a full damp inspection. The surveyor found that damp was present in the downstairs walls. He concluded this was coming from ground level, rather than from the roof or internal leaks. He told the landlord that to resolve this, it should inject a damp proof membrane into the walls. He also reported that replastering and redecoration was required, along with repairs to skirting boards, a gutter and an external flue cover. The landlord raised works orders for all these jobs on 16 August 2023.
  7. Meanwhile, on 15 August 2023 the senior quantity surveyor carried out a home visit. During this visit the resident said that he hoped to soon be moving out of the property and ending his tenancy. He asked that the landlord wait until he had moved out before it carried out the work.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 22 August 2023. It said:
    1. it previously installed a damp proof course in the property in 2010 and again in 2018. It accepted that these works were not successful. It was sorry for the inconvenience this had caused the resident.
    2. it had raised works orders based on the findings of the recent damp inspection. Although the resident had asked it to carry out the work after he had moved out, it would prefer to carry the work out “as soon as reasonably practicable”. It would liaise with the resident to agree a convenient date.
    3. it had addressed the resident’s concerns about it not adhering to reasonable adjustments for appointments in response to a separate complaint which completed the internal complaints process in May 2023.
  9. The resident responded the same day and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He asked it how, if a resident was registered blind, they would know if a property had “serious defects”. He said that he should not have to rely on his carers to inform him of such issues.
  10. On 25 August 2023 the landlord cancelled the works orders. Its records reflected that it agreed this with the resident as he did not want the work to go ahead until after he moved out. The records stated that the landlord would instead complete the works when the property was empty.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 September 2023. It reiterated the findings set out in its stage 1 response. It also said:
    1. it recognised the resident was reliant on other people to inform him if there were any issues with the condition of his property.
    2. it visited his property annually to carry out a gas safety check. If the operatives carrying out the visits noticed any repair issues or cause for concern, they could raise an inspection or follow on works.
    3. it was due to carry out a condition survey of the property later that year.
  12. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint and referred it to the Ombudsman. Although he was preparing to move out of the property, he told us he was concerned that other visually impaired residents of the landlord may experience the same issues as he had. He said that the landlord “should do more for blind tenants” and that it should not have relied on his carers to notice the damp within his property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In his complaint email of 8 August 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with how the landlord had corresponded with him, as a blind tenant, over the past 20 years. He also complained that operatives had attended his property “in the past” without complying with the reasonable adjustments in place, such as ringing him when they were on their way to his property.
  2. The resident made 2 other complaints during 2023 in which he detailed specific incidents where operatives did not comply with the reasonable adjustments. The landlord issued stage 2 responses to these complaints in May 2023 and November 2023. The latter complaint was the subject of a separate Ombudsman investigation (case reference 202322800). In his complaint of 8 August 2023, he made general comments but did not provide details of any specific incidents. He confirmed that the operative that had attended that day to inspect the damp rang in advance to confirm his arrival.
  3. The Ombudsman does not require landlords to investigate incidents that took place more than 12 months before a resident raised the complaint. We therefore would not have expected the landlord to review the broad, non-specific, complaint about its communications with the resident over the 20 year period prior to 8 August 2023. As it did not do so, we have excluded this aspect of the complaint from the scope of our investigation. Our focus is on the landlord’s response to the resident’s report in August 2023 about damp.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp in his property

  1. The Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of damp in his property.
  2. The landlord’s ‘Damp Treatment Framework’ required it to inspect damp within 7 days of a report being made by the resident. It complied with this by carrying out an initial inspection of the damp 6 days after the resident first reported it. It then arranged for a damp surveyor to carry out a full damp inspection the following week. It raised orders for the required works 2 days after the damp inspection. This was an appropriate and prompt response to the resident’s report of damp.
  3. The works orders raised by the landlord were for ‘routine’ repairs as defined in its repairs policy. The policy required it to complete routine repairs within 28 days. It did not complete the repairs within this timeframe and instead cancelled them. Its records reflect that this was because it agreed to accommodate the resident’s request to carry out the works when he had moved out. A senior quantity surveyor discussed this request with him, along with options such as moving into temporary accommodation, during a home visit the day after the damp inspection. The resident however confirmed to the surveyor he did not want the works completed until after he moved out. The landlord had already determined the required work was routine rather than urgent. It therefore made the reasonable and proportionate decision to postpone the works in the interests of minimising disruption to the resident.
  4. Part of the resident’s complaint was that 2 damp treatments previously carried out by the landlord were not effective. The landlord appropriately reviewed the previous works during its stage 1 complaint investigation. In its stage 1 response it acknowledged that the damp proof courses it installed in 2010 and 2018 had been “unsuccessful”. It explained that it did not know the reason for this. It said, “quite often it can be multiple sources and a process of elimination, hence the need for further works to be carried out”. It appropriately apologised to the resident for the inconvenience and said it would resolve the issue as soon as possible.
  5. In his escalation request the resident suggested that he should not have had to rely on his carers to inform him of repair issues in his property. He said that the landlord should have carried out more regular inspections.
  6. At the time of the resident’s report of damp in August 2023, the landlord had reasonable adjustments in place in relation to communications and attendance at appointments. It had no special arrangements in place in relation to property inspections. Instead it followed the inspection arrangements set out in its policies for all residents. This included:
    1. its ‘Damp Treatment Framework’ required all its staff and contractors to report any signs of damp they noticed when attending residents homes. It had delivered awareness raising training on identifying signs of damp to all its customer facing staff in November 2022. This was good practice in line with our Spotlight report on damp and mould.
    2. it had a commitment in place to carry out stock condition surveys of all its properties every 5 years. It said in the stage 2 complaint response that the resident’s property was due to have its survey later in 2023.
  7. The landlord told us that prior to receiving the escalation request, it did not know the resident had concerns about being unable to identify issues in his home. It said he had reported numerous repairs in the past with assistance from his carers and it was not aware he was concerned this arrangement was not working. It carried out an annual gas inspection in June 2023. It said if its engineer had noticed any damp in the resident’s property, it believed the engineer would have reported this.
  8. We are satisfied with the explanation provided by the landlord. In supporting vulnerable residents, landlords must respect their autonomy. The landlord had previously discussed reasonable adjustments with the resident, evidenced by the fact adjustments relating to communications and contact were in place. There is no evidence that prior to his escalation request, he had asked it to carry out more regular visits to his property. It was therefore not a failing that it did not have special arrangements in place in relation to property inspections.
  9. If the resident was going to remain living in the property, we would have expected the landlord to consider whether it should provide additional support going forward. However, by the time of the stage 2 response in September 2023, the landlord was aware he would shortly be moving out.
  10. We note that in September 2024 the landlord introduced a policy called ‘Treating Customers with Fairness and Respect’. It developed this further to our Spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights. The policy sets out how the landlord will support residents to “manage and overcome issues which may impact on their ability to maintain their tenancy and live safely in their home”. It includes a section on reasonable adjustments. This is a positive development and signals the landlord’s ongoing commitment to supporting vulnerable residents. To support this, we recently recommended in a separate investigation report (case reference 202322800) that it considers delivering training to staff on managing reasonable adjustments.
  11. Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately, and in line with its policy, to the resident’s report of damp in his property. There was no maladministration in its response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of damp in his property.