LiveWest Homes Limited (202327070)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327070

LiveWest Homes Limited

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of poor staff communication and his request for a new Housing Officer.
2. Response to the resident’s questions about its lettings criteria.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a joint tenant of a 2-bedroom mid-terraced bungalow. The tenancy began in 2014. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the property. The landlord is aware of health vulnerabilities within the household.
On 4 July 2023 the resident emailed the landlord. He asked about its lettings criteria for his street. He questioned its decision to allocate a property to a family with a child under 16 years old. He believed residents needed to meet an age condition of at least 55 years old and have no children under 16. He said the new residents were attracting other children and expressed concern for the “peace and quiet of elderly resident’s.” He asked the landlord to respond before the matter escalated.
On 29 September 2023 the resident complained. He was unhappy with the standard of service given by his Housing Officer. He said he had sent 2 or 3 emails in 12 months which the officer had not responded to. He also said he had previously gone to more senior staff to get things done and wanted the officer changed due to the ongoing lack of support.
On 10 October 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It apologised for the level of service received and reassured the resident it had discussed the matter with the Housing Officer. It accepted he had experienced similar service failings before, which it had not resolved successfully. It offered him £75 compensation and encouraged him to contact a manager directly.
On 10 and 11 October 2023 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response. He was unhappy that it had not responded to his queries regarding its letting decision. He said the area had become a playground due to groups of children visiting the area. He repeated his desire for it to change his Housing Officer.
On 15 October 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He considered he had given the landlord sufficient time to answer his letting criteria questions, which it had not.
On 16 October 2023 the landlord emailed the resident. It said:
1. Its large geographical areas made it difficult to change an officer’s working location.
2. That its manager remained willing to accept his concerns directly.
3. Funding changes in 2014 meant the properties in his street became general needs homes. But its local lettings plan continued to give preference to people over 55 years old.
4. There would be exceptional circumstances when someone would have a need for a bungalow.
5. That he had not reported any antisocial behaviour for it to investigate.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 2 November 2023. It said it:
1. Should have provided reassurance to him that its communication would improve.
2. Should have allocated the stage 1 complaint investigation to another manager as they had not resolved the matter previously.
3. Had interviewed the Housing Officer and identified learning and training.
4. Had identified the Housing Officer had been communicating with the resident’s wife and believed it beneficial to maintain this consistent contact.
5. Could not discuss the circumstances of its decision but remained satisfied with the allocation of the property in question.
6. Would refer his household to additional support if he accepted.
7. Offered to meet him in person to apologise for the identified failings.
8. Would offer an additional £200 compensation, raising its total offer to £275.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. He said the Housing Officer’s lack of communication and compassion over a number of years had caused his household distress. He also said the landlord should change his point of contact because of this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says the landlord has repeatedly failed to provide his household with support. He described how both he and his wife had experienced significant mental health difficulties.
The resident’s summary of events and the effect on his household includes past antisocial behaviour following the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown. This matter, while upsetting, is separate and does not form part of this investigation. Any reference to past events will be to provide context.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability, nor award damages. Whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health requires a decision by an insurance claim or through the courts. Our role is to investigate if the landlord acted fairly, reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages.

Handling of the resident’s reports of poor staff communication and his desire for a new Housing Officer

The landlord does not dispute that it had previously failed to provide the resident with a satisfactory level of communication. While the circumstances of a previous failure are separate to this complaint, the evidence shows it also involved the resident’s Housing Officer.
A recurring service failure would be upsetting for the resident. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to acknowledge this. And to offer him direct contact to a manager. This demonstrated the landlord recognised an issue existed and offered a solution while it took steps to remedy matters.
The evidence shows the landlord interviewed the resident’s Housing Officer as part of its complaint investigation. It identified training needs and, given a previous failure, accepted it should have allocated the stage 1 complaint to another manager. This demonstrated the landlord thoroughly investigated the resident’s concerns and identified lessons learned.
The resident insisted on the landlord changing his Housing Officer. However, it is not possible for us to instruct the landlord to change how it allocates its staff. Landlords may use their staff as they see fit. The matters raised by the resident concern terms of employment and he seeks an outcome which we cannot determine.
However, faced with such a complaint and request to change an officer, it would be reasonable for the landlord to consider the request and provide a response. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to explain the geographical areas of its staff and that it had evidence of communication via his wife.
While the resident disputes this claim, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to meet the resident in person, with the Housing Officer, to discuss and apologise. Furthermore, it offered £50 compensation in recognition of the identified communication failures. This was consistent with our remedies guide and demonstrated the landlord tried to rebuild the relationship.
That said, in contact with us in March 2025, the resident says he continues to feel unsupported by the landlord. He described never meeting his Housing Officer and feeling unable to raise matters with them or the Area Manager. It is clear that the landlord and resident relationship remains affected. We recommend the landlord discusses this with the resident.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
In this case, the landlord responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint reasonably. It considered his request and addressed it in its complaint response. While the resident was unhappy with the outcome, the landlord offered for him to meet a new Area Manager and did so when convenient for him. It is not always practical for a landlord to change the working location of its staff. However, by continuing to offer its manager as the resident’s point of contact was a reasonable remedy.
Based on our findings, we would have made a finding of service failure but for the steps taken by the landlord to put things right. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Response to the resident’s questions about its letting criteria

The landlord’s compensation guide states it will offer £10 when it has failed to provide a service such as returning a telephone call or responding to a letter on time. Alternatively, it will offer £25 as a goodwill gesture to say sorry for how the customer feels.
The evidence shows the resident emailed the landlord on 4 July 2023. While the landlord’s policies are silent on its response timeframes for general enquiries, it was unreasonable for it not to respond for 19 working days. This caused him time and trouble having to complain. This did nothing for the landlord and resident relationship and left the resident feeling unheard.
The landlord’s responses explained how the provision of care and support had changed in 2014. This included the funding available from the local council. As such, it had created a local letting plan for the resident’s street. It explained it continued to give preference to people aged 55 plus, but the properties were for general needs use. Therefore, in exceptional circumstances someone may meet the needs for a bungalow who did not meet the age criteria. This was a reasonable explanation and demonstrated the landlord answered the resident’s question.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to house a family with children in his street. We have been unable to identify any clause in the resident’s tenancy agreement or the landlord’s allocation policy which restricts this situation. The landlord also has the right to make best use of its housing stock and a responsibility to assist the local authorities with their housing responsibilities.
Although the landlord was slow to respond to the resident’s questions, it reassured him that it tried to preserve the demographic of his street. It also explained the steps it could take if he experienced any nuisance or antisocial behaviour.
The landlord acknowledged its delay to answer the resident’s questions and offered £25 compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with its compensation guide.
We have identified a failure in the landlord’s response to the resident. However, it apologised, responded, and offered compensation consistent with its compensation policy. Therefore, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints process. It would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. At stage 1, it would respond to complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. This was appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), 1 April 2022.
The Code states that a landlord must respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 October 2023. This was appropriate and consistent with its complaint policy.
The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 10 October 2023. However, this was incomplete and failed to respond to the resident’s lettings criteria questions. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to provide the additional explanation on 16 October 2023. Therefore, its final response was 1 working day later than its complaint policy response time.
The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised, recognised its failure to resolve a recurring communication failure, and offered compensation. However, it failed to demonstrate how it would learn to prevent something similar happening again.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request and sent its stage 2 response in line with its complaint policy response times. At this stage, it demonstrated speaking with the resident and conducting a thorough investigation. It provided the resident with a detailed response, showed empathy, and identified training needs to improve the services offered to him.
Furthermore, it said sorry for allocating the resident’s complaint to a manager involved during a similar service failure. It also accepted it had previously failed to resolve the identified communication issues and should have passed his complaint to someone without prior involvement. Its offer of £200 compensation for the identified complaint handling failures was consistent with our remedies guide.
Based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress in this matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor staff communication and his desire for a new Housing Officer.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s response to the resident’s questions about its letting criteria.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord reoffer the resident £275 compensation offered in its stage 2 response, if not already paid.
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident for his feedback about the current communication arrangements.