LiveWest Homes Limited (202318249)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318249

LiveWest Homes Limited

7 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 response to the resident’s reports of noise disturbance by its contractors.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He occupies a 2-bedroom bungalow.
3. On 6 August 2023 (a Sunday) the landlord’s contractors carried out loud repair works to an empty property adjacent to the resident. The resident complained about this to the landlord.
4. On 23 November 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the works and said it would review the type of work carried out at weekends. It also said works to empty properties sometimes take place at the weekend but appreciated that undertaking work on a Sunday was not ideal. 
5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 25 November 2023. He felt he had not received a proper apology. He also said that the landlord did not inform him of likely noise before starting work on the Sunday. He disputed that the work needed to be done on a Sunday as nobody had moved in since.
6. On 13 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It said the local council had confirmed that, while the landlord was permitted to carry out construction works on Sundays, it should not be undertaking those that were disruptive or noisy. It recognised that the type of work that took place on Sunday 6 August 2023 was not permitted because of the associated noise and disruption and apologised to the resident. It added it would inform the contractor of the council’s guidance relating to Sunday working to prevent such instances reoccurring.
7. In the resident’s referral to the Service, he said the landlord’s wording and tone of its apology were inappropriate. He felt that the apology did not include his concerns about the scheme manager’s attitude.

Assessment and findings

8. The landlord’s repairs service standards state its service hours are Monday to Friday from 8.00am to 5.00pm. It also sets out that where work must be undertaken outside normal working hours, the contractor should inform residents and neighbours in advance.
9. On Sunday 6 August 2023, the landlord’s contractor carried out works to a void property adjacent to the resident. The resident complained to the landlord the same day that the works were excessively noisy and that, despite asking the contractors to stop, they did not.
10. In the landlord’s stage 2 final response, it set out the council’s relevant guidance, having confirmed it with the council. This states that while the landlord is allowed to carry out construction works on Sunday, they must not be disruptive or noisy.
11. The evidence supports the landlord’s acknowledgement that its intrusive works on the Sunday was not appropriate. It also shows the landlord failed to inform the resident in advance of the planned work, which was counter to its repairs standards. It was therefore appropriate for it to recognise its poor service and try to remedy it with the resident. It did so by acknowledging the work on 6 August 2023 should not have taken place, apologised, and acted on the resident’s feedback to prevent instances of reoccurrence.
12. Following the resident’s escalation request, he said he was dissatisfied with the scheme manager’s conduct when they met with him at his property on 6 September 2023 to discuss his complaint. The resident felt the manager’s tone was dismissive when they told him they considered the level of noise on 6 August 2023 to be “normal”. The resident disagreed with this. The Service appreciates the resident’s feeling on this but cannot comment further as we do not know what was said during this visit. However, it was fair for the landlord to visit the resident to attempt to address his concerns in person.
13. The resident felt the landlord’s apology in its final response was unacceptable. He said that what he experienced on 6 August 2023 was not an inconvenience but an “ambush” and an “assault”. The noise and disturbance clearly impacted the resident. However, the landlord acted fairly by investigating his concerns and acknowledging that it should not have authorised such works to take place on a Sunday, resulting in unacceptable disruption. The landlord’s apology was sincere in that it offered its “wholehearted” apologies for this oversight.
14. The landlord’s acknowledgement of its mistakes, commitment to learn from the complaint, and its apology were appropriate and proportionate steps, in line with the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Taken together they reasonably remedied the complaint.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to reports of noise disturbance by its contractors.