We are committed to learning from complaints from our customers to improve the ways we do things.
The Housing Ombudsman can investigate complaints made by customers, which ends with a ‘determination’. This is their report about the complaint and includes what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
As part of our commitment to learning from complaints, we have published two recent determinations from the Housing Ombudsman.
Case one
The complaint is about our handling of reports of ongoing damp and mould and outstanding repair work.
The customer was hoping for the works to be completed, and to receive compensation for the cost of belongings damaged by damp and mould and for high heating bills. The customer was also concerned about the impact of the situation on their health.
Findings:
The Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) found that there was maladministration within our handling of reports about damp and mould. There was service failure within our handling of the complaint. The Housing Ombudsman defines maladministration as a formal decision that a landlord has failed to do something, done something it shouldn’t have or, in the Ombudsman’s opinion has delayed unreasonably.
The HOS was satisfied that we had initially visited the property quickly and arranged a further inspection of the loft insulation and roof, but there were then delays in arranging for a surveyor to attend to check whether the fan was extracting at the correct level. Although the repair to the fans was completed within our agreed timescale, the kitchen fan was found to be not working as well as it should when it was tested several months later.
The HOS also identified that a mould treatment was not completed until six months after the complaint had been raised, although this was due to the appointment being cancelled by the customer. The overall repairs process was delayed by the customer requesting that visits be managed through an agreed appointment schedule which are spaced out. While the delays were not caused by LiveWest, the overall impact was that the customer was subjected to damp and mould for longer. Some works remain outstanding.
The HOS confirmed that an appropriate process for considering the impact of the situation on the customer’s health would be through our insurer, but also noted that we could have done more to recognise and accommodate the vulnerabilities of the customers. The HOS also confirmed that while the customer was unhappy with a decision not to insulate the porch, our decision was reasonable as it was based on recommendation from a surveyor.
Overall, our complaint handling took too long and did not follow the timescales in our complaints policy. We recognised delays at both stages one and two, and offered compensation in recognition of this. However, the HOS found that had not gone far enough in fully acknowledging an excessive delay. The HOS found that the compensation offered overall for the repairs situation was not appropriate for the failings identified.
We were ordered to apologise in writing for the failings identified and pay an increased amount of compensation. We were also ordered to make arrangements to complete any repairs outstanding from previous survey reports. It was recommended that we contact the customer to provide an update on our review of the heating bills and discuss any vulnerabilities for the household. It was also recommended that we review staff training needs for communicating with customers throughout the repair process.
Case two
The complaint is about our handling of repairs to a previous property. These include reports about rats, the condition of the current property at the start of the tenancy, and our handling of repairs at the current property.
Findings:
The Housing Ombudsman found that there had been no maladministration within our handling of repairs to the customers previous property, or within the condition of the customer’s current property at the start of their tenancy. However, there was service failure within our handling of repairs to the customer’s current property.
The HOS was satisfied that we had taken action when any reports about rats had been made, and also that the overall action taken was effective given that no new reports were reported before our customer moved home. The HOS was also satisfied that appropriate action had been taken following a report about a flood, with the customer being moved out straight away and repairs being completed.
For the new property, the HOS was satisfied that repairs were reasonably dealt with after being raised, but found that there had been an initial delay of almost a month before repairs were raised on our internal systems. The delay was not considered to have had a large impact, but did mean that repairs took longer than necessary and caused frustration to our customer.
The HOS then found that we acted appropriately in dealing with the repairs raised in line with our Repairs Policy, and that where repairs took longer because of their complexity they had been followed up. We had responded to the customer’s health and safety concerns by making the flooring safe as a priority, as well as reviewing our records to check any outstanding repairs. We had also addressed and recognised communication issues and response delays within our handling of the complaint, and had worked to consider and address our customer’s concerns.
We were ordered to pay compensation for the issues identified within repairs handling, which is in addition to compensation already offered. It was recommended that we ensure that all rubbish is cleared before a the start of a new tenancy and that we attend to an outstanding repairs issue, which we had already resolved before the HOS decision.