LiveWest Homes Limited (202337381)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337381

LiveWest Homes Limited

28 June 2024

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. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. Its communication with the resident.
   3. Reports of unsatisfactory staff conduct.
   4. The resident’s request to erect a fence.

Background

2. The resident lives with his wife and dog in an upstairs flat. On 3 May 2023 he reported excessive noise by the landlord’s contractors in a neighbouring flat. He wanted the landlord to treat the noise as antisocial behaviour by the neighbour.
3. On 7 June 2023 the resident made a large number of reports to the landlord about ASB from various neighbours. This included issues such as a number of gardens in the area which were “unkempt” and “overgrown”, and banging by his neighbour and the workmen attending the neighbour’s property.
4. Throughout June and July 2023, the resident made a large number of further reports about issues such as banging, unkempt gardens, aggressive behaviour towards him by a neighbour, and loud or aggressive dogs living in the vicinity.
5. On 30 June 2023 the resident rang the landlord and asked for a named member of staff’s job description. He was unhappy with the performance of the staff member, who he felt was not acting impartially, and that the landlord had not replied to “over 20 emails” which were sent on or around 28 June 2023. On the same day, the landlord placed the resident on a contact plan, whereby he should use a “single point of contact” due to “excessive and unacceptable” communications. It advised him to allow time for it to respond to his concerns.
6. On 6 July 2023 the resident said that all correspondence should be sent to him by letter only. The resident and landlord continued to correspond throughout July 2023 about his reports of ASB. He made a further report of banging on 29 September 2023, attaching video evidence.
7. On 19 October 2023 the resident complained. He said that the landlord had ignored his complaints about banging.
8. On 6 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It set out what it had done in response to the resident’s reports of ASB, advising that it closed the ASB case on 18 September 2023 due to a lack of evidence. It advised the resident on how to collect evidence for future reports. It offered £25 compensation as it could not see evidence that it had created an “ASB Action Plan” at the time of the resident’s first report, in line with its policy.
9. On 6 December 2023 the resident wrote to escalate his complaint. He was unhappy with delays in receiving letters from the landlord, with the landlord’s “lack of explanation” as to why an ASB action plan had not been agreed, and the conduct of the staff member who had primarily been involved.
10. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 December 2023. It said that the resident had refused to provide evidence or to agree for the landlord to investigate, such as by conducting a “subjective sound test”. It explained that responding to the resident’s emails by letter only, as he had requested, had been challenging. It said it had reviewed its handling of the ASB case and found no failings. It added that after investigating its staff member’s conduct, it had found no wrongdoing.
11. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 23 January 2024. He asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, request to erect a fence, communications and staff conduct.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

12. The resident also complained to the landlord about its handling of his request to erect a fence. The resident complained about this at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process, however the issue appeared to have been resolved before the resident’s escalation request. The resident therefore did not raise the complaint at stage 2 and as such, this element of the resident’s complaint did not complete the landlord’s 2-step process. It is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (OSJ), because paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

Scope of the investigation

13. The Ombudsman understands that the resident brought a number of issues to the landlord’s attention in the time period considered by this investigation. The Ombudsman has considered each of these, alongside the actions taken by the landlord, to build a picture of the landlord’s overall handling of issues raised. However, only events most pertinent to the outcome of this investigation are highlighted in this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

14. The evidence shows that the resident’s numerous reports about the condition of some gardens in the area were considered. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 July 2023 concluding that it “recognised that some customers [are] have difficulty maintaining their gardens”. It said it was undertaking a project in the area to help tackle the issue. It managed the resident’s expectations by saying that it was “in the early stages of this project” and that a solution would not “happen overnight”. The landlord’s ‘Antisocial Behaviour and Hate Incident Procedure’ (ASB policy) does not set out what the landlord should do in cases of unkempt gardens, but does note that residents should keep their gardens tidy. The landlord therefore acted reasonably, basing its actions on what it found the underlying issues to be.
15. In response to the report of a specific overgrown garden which neighboured the resident’s property, the evidence shows that the landlord took the additional step of writing to the resident concerned on 9 June 2023, 2 days after the resident’s initial report. It later advised the resident that in the meantime permission was granted to cut back any plants which he felt were encroaching on his property. Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of unkempt gardens was reasonable, timely, and proportionate.
16. The resident made a number of reports about banging and aggressive behaviour at a neighbouring property. The resident said that the banging was done aggressively and intentionally, in order to cause distress to the resident and his dogs. The landlords ASB policy states that “when investigating ASB reports it is important to obtain evidence to support action that we take”. It outlines a number of ways evidence can be collected and submitted. The evidence shows that the landlord contacted the resident on a number of occasions advising of the process to collect and submit evidence. It did this first on the telephone, then again in writing on 19 June 2023, again in more detail on 3 July 2023, and again on a number of further occasions. The evidence shows that the resident did not submit any evidence until a video on 29 September 2023. The landlord advised on 3 October 2023 that the recording did not show any banging. The resident did not dispute this at the time.
17. Even in the absence of evidence, the landlord did speak to the neighbour, who denied causing any banging or being aggressive. It also made enquiries into the resident’s suggestion that a repair may be required to a door at the neighbouring property, which may have needed to be “slammed” in order to lock. On 11 November 2023 the resident noted some improvement in the sound issues since the repair had been carried out, but advised that noise continued. The landlord tried on several occasions after this date to secure evidence from the resident, including offering to attend and carry out a “subjective sound test”, however these offers were declined. It was reasonable in the absence of this evidence that the landlord took no further action, in line with its policy.
18. The evidence shows throughout the complaint that the landlord had made efforts to engage the resident and neighbour in mediation, though the resident declined. The landlord also took a number of other appropriate steps such as signposting the resident to external organisations, and involving various other services to support the resident and neighbour. The landlord’s ASB policy states that its customer’s responsibilities when dealing with ASB are to “work and cooperate with [the landlord] to resolve disputes and issues, [which] would include [providing information] and attending mediation, where recommended.” The resident had the right to decline offers of mediation, however this left few remaining options available to the landlord, in the absence of corroborating evidence of the resident’s report.
19. The landlord also carried out in-depth investigations into the resident’s reports of aggressive behaviour on its own. It viewed CCTV footage from the neighbour and inspected it, in an attempt to corroborate some of the resident’s reports, but this was inconclusive. The resident had suggested that landlord repairs staff had witnessed aggressive behaviour. As a result, it carried out interviews with at least 3 different staff members who had been on site at the time of the report. The evidence shows that in these interviews the resident’s claims could not be corroborated. The landlord also viewed CCTV footage sent by the resident in which it was claimed that landlord staff had discussed the aggressive behaviour witnessed, however the footage did not appear to corroborate the resident’s accounts. The evidence shows therefore that the landlord’s investigations and attempts to secure evidence to support the resident’s reports were robust.
20. The resident was unhappy that the landlord had not explained why it had not produced an action plan. The evidence shows however that the landlord had offered £25 to the resident because “no evidence of an action plan” could be found. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it must log action plans in writing. Therefore, this was a shortcoming by the landlord, which it acknowledged. The evidence shows however that “next steps” were discussed with the resident on the phone and again in writing on a number of occasions, following the resident’s first report. The resident had been advised on collecting evidence and making note of instances of ASB, which would have likely formed the next steps of any formal action plan.
21. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord clarified that it did feel a “verbal action plan” had been given in June 2023, though the resident later disputed that this call had taken place. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of a call which was arranged for 9 June 2023, but it is unclear if this went ahead. As above however, some next steps were discussed by email on 19 June 2023. In conclusion, while there was an acknowledged shortcoming in logging a written action plan, overall there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB). The landlord showed good practice by identifying a shortcoming in its record keeping and offering compensation accordingly.

Handling of communication with the resident

22. The resident first raised concerns about poor communication on 30 June 2023. The evidence shows that action was being taken in response to his reports and that investigations were ongoing at the time, particularly into a high volume of reports he had made on 28 June 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord asked the resident for more time to respond on 30 June 2023. It provided updates on the resident’s reports as they were available from 3 July 2023 onwards, which was reasonable.
23. The resident later complained that there was a delay in receiving letters sent by the landlord. The evidence corroborates the landlord’s account that it had “struggled to comply with” the resident’s request to only send letters, while the resident continued to send a high numbers of emails and phone calls. The landlord had previously explained to the resident on 10 July 2023 that it “could not consider it to be reasonable” to agree to the resident’s request to only communicate by letter, in response to the resident’s emails. The resident however had then blocked the landlord’s email address, leaving it no option but to send letters. This likely caused delays as the landlord was unable to contact the resident to request evidence or more information, and it had to conduct investigations on its own before responding to the resident. The evidence shows that the landlord continued to keep regular contact with the resident after this point.
24. On 8 November 2023 the resident wrote that he was unhappy that a letter from the landlord dated 3 October 2023 had not arrived until around 3 weeks later. The resident explained that “there are delays with [the post] but not that long”. It is unclear why the delays happened, though the landlord did apologise for this and clarify that the letter had been sent to the relevant department to be included in outgoing post on the day the letter had been written. Postal delays are not uncommon, and though the landlord did not seek to blame the postal service used for delays, it cannot be ruled out that this was a contributing factor. Overall, the length of delays were not entirely unreasonable in the circumstances and do not constitute a failing.
25. The evidence shows that throughout the period of investigation, the landlord’s communication with the resident was generally good. It worked hard to acknowledge and respond to a large number of varying issues and to keep the resident updated where possible. It generally did well to manage expectations and typically took a number of appropriate actions in response to each of the resident’s reports. There were instances of some potential shortcomings, such as reports of a missed callback in the first week of June 2023 (which the landlord disputed at the time), however any such instance was successfully rectified by the landlord when raised. The landlord also took a number of steps to improve communication with the resident, including inviting him to attend online meetings, trying to persuade the resident to keep open lines of communication by email, and offering to visit the resident in person. The landlord’s efforts were declined. In conclusion, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident.

Handling of reports of unsatisfactory staff conduct

26. The resident had been unhappy with a named member of staff at the landlord, namely that they had “not been impartial” in handling the resident’s reports of ASB, while they also managed ASB case(s) against the resident. The Ombudsman cannot investigate issues which relate to the employment of a staff member, because paragraph 42(h) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which “concern terms of employment or other personnel issues”. However, the Ombudsman has considered how the landlord responded to these reports.
27. The evidence shows that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously. Prior to issuing its stage 1 complaint response, the evidence shows the landlord had robustly investigated its handling of all ASB cases related to the resident, particularly looking to ensure “staff had acted in line with policy, and acted impartially and appropriately”. On 20 December 2023 prior to issuing a stage 2 complaint response, the evidence shows that a senior staff member interviewed 2 staff members who had been heavily involved in the ASB cases. It also reviewed all communications with the resident and with other residents, alongside reviewing all actions taken. It concluded that staff had “been impartial and responded to reports, giving correct advice and support”. The Ombudsman has conducted an independent review of the documents relied upon, finding that there is no evidence to suggest the landlord mishandled this investigation. As a result, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of unsatisfactory staff conduct.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to erect a fence is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of its communication with the resident.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of unsatisfactory staff conduct.

Recommendations

32. The landlord should pay the resident any compensation which was offered during its complaint responses, if it has not done so already.