LiveWest Homes Limited (202310745)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310745

LiveWest Homes Limited

13 February 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Noise and vibration from the neighbouring property.
3. Issues with the ventilation system and noisy pipes.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2008. The property is a 2-bedroom second floor flat. The landlord is aware that the resident has health conditions including post-traumatic stress disorder.
The resident had previously raised complaints to the landlord concerning the transference of noise and vibrations from the flat above. During 2021 the landlord used specialist contractors to investigate this and carried out extensive work to attempt to resolve this. This was to soundproof and improve the floor structure of the flat above. The resident told the landlord she was still experiencing problems in October 2021.
The resident came to the Service in 2023 and said she had complained to the landlord about this on 21 October 2022. She said the disturbance was mainly when the neighbour had the washing machine or dishwasher on. The resident also reported she had a problem with the ventilation system and heard noises from the pipes when the neighbour showered. The resident suspected the neighbour created the noise in a retaliatory manner. The resident emphasised her health concerns.
We referred the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 27 September 2023 and asked it to respond. It did so. In the landlord’s final resolution letter, it:
1. Recognised this was a long-standing case which it had investigated.
2. Explained the steps it had taken to resolve the issues and the offers it had made to try to support the resident. This included offering a move and to cover expenses, counselling, tenancy sustainment support, and provided its insurance details to the resident.
3. Outlined its plan to tackle the issues. This was to put the structural work out to tender and it gave a timeline for this.
The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate the case. As a resolution the resident would like the landlord to rectify the structural issues and to address its delays in achieving this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord and resident have provided us with a number of complaints which the resident raised during October 2022. This investigation centres on the complaint the resident sent us on 19 September 2023 which she advised she sent to the landlord on 21 October 2022.
The resident previously brought a case to us concerning the landlord’s handling of noise and vibration. This was assessed in June 2021. In line with 42.l. of the Scheme, we will not reassess this period.
The resident also raised concerns that the reported noise issues and stress caused have affected her health. We are unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will not be considered in this report.

ASB reports

The resident’s complaints included noise from the pipes, the washing machine, and dishwasher. The resident also complained of hearing the neighbour moving round the property and “stomping”. According to the landlord’s ASB policy, disputes concerning normal living noises and from appliances would be classified as lifestyle differences.
The ASB policy states that in such situations it expects a degree of tolerance from residents. It may offer mediation and will offer advice and coach how to approach neighbours in a ‘neighbourly way’. The evidence shows the landlord offered the resident mediation prior to, as well as in the complaints stage. It also offered guidance on how to approach and discuss the issue with the neighbour. These were proportionate responses for the landlord to take given the nature of the disturbances the resident had reported.
There were a number of incidents which the resident wanted the landlord to log but not to raise with the neighbour, including an altercation in the communal area. The resident said when previous allegations were put to the neighbour, she noticed more frequent and disruptive noises coming from upstairs. The resident’s hesitation is understandable, but for the landlord to take action it would need to discuss the allegations with the neighbour. In the face of the resident’s request there was no meaningful investigation it could do.
Nonetheless, the evidence shows the landlord took other steps to support the resident. These included:
1. Advice about moving either permanently or temporarily with expenses and moving costs paid for by the landlord.
2. Asking the neighbour to be mindful about when they used their appliances.
3. Offering mediation.
4. Offering to pay for counselling or therapy (something the resident has asked it to do).
5. Information about requesting a multi-agency ASB case review/community trigger.
In summary, it was reasonable for the landlord to view the resident’s reports of ASB as lifestyle differences and to progress the matter focussing on a resolution along that line. The advice and guidance it provided, along with the resolutions it suggested were appropriate to the nature and scale of the issues the resident had reported.

Noise and vibration.

The resident advised she first reported this issue before 2018. As stated previously the period considered in this investigation starts in October 2021. We acknowledge prior to the assessment period the landlord had conducted extensive works to the flats to try to resolve these issues and the resident lived with noise and vibration throughout.
The landlord did the following after the resident made it aware the works had not resolved the issue:
1. 22 October 2021 it visited the resident and agreed to carry out tests. This assessed the floor’s airborne and impact sound insulation.
2. 15 December 2021 the testing equipment was installed. The landlord received the results on 11 January 2022.
3. 15 February 2022 it visited the resident to discuss the results. This showed the floors comfortably met the airborne and impact sound insulation criteria. The washing machine was proved to cause a low frequency noise which could cause disturbance in the resident’s property. The contractor advised the landlord it could install an antivibration mat to attempt to combat this. The contractor could not comment on the vibration levels as it was outside the scope of the assessment.
4. 9 June 2022 it installed the antivibration mat in the neighbour’s flat.
5. 13 June 2022 the resident contacted it to advise the antivibration mat did not make a difference. The landlord asked the contractor to redesign a different antivibration solution. This was provided in June 2022, and the landlord considered the redesign but deemed it unworkable.
6. 20 October 2022 it agreed to carry out additional vibration testing.
7. 9-13 January 2023 the testing equipment was installed. This did not pick up significant vibration levels. The resident advised the neighbour had not used the washing machine during this period. The landlord agreed to install the equipment again.
8. 27 March – 3 April 2023 the testing equipment was installed. The landlord received the results on 14 April 2023. This showed the vibrations were significant enough to cause a disturbance. During this time, the landlord witnessed the vibration. This prompted the landlord to offer the resident a move either temporarily or permanently to a ground floor flat in the same block.
9. May 2023 it asked a contractor to redesign the neighbour’s floor to minimise the vibrations. The landlord planned to incorporate this with other works. It would need to go use the tender process, and it outlined its timeline for carrying this out.
10. 22 January 2024 it formally advertised the tender.
11. 8 March 2024 it received only 1 suitable tender. It could not satisfy the criteria for value for money.
12. July 2024 it started the tender process focussing solely on the resident’s flat.
It is clear that the problem the resident was experiencing went unresolved for a lengthy period of time. It is also apparent that the landlord took continuous steps to investigate the issue, identify potential causes and then address them. Some of its actions were not successful, which led to the need for further time to decide its next steps. Conversely, the resident’s clear frustration is understandable, especially as there were some periods of up to several months with no apparent activity. Some of these periods were due to the nature of the work the landlord was attempting, such as putting out tenders and waiting for responses. Those periods were not always within the landlord’s control. Other periods of inactivity are not explained by the records and potentially indicate avoidable delay (for example June to October 2022, and October 2022 to January 2023).
The landlord was clearly aware of the time it was taking to resolve the problem, and the ongoing impact on the resident because it offered a range of types of support to her. This included a temporary or permanent decant along with moving costs, and assistance from its tenancy sustainment team.
The resident advised that moving would put more pressure on her health than the current situation. It was still a reasonable option for the landlord to offer and would have removed her from the problems she was experiencing while the landlord sought to resolve them.
The resident asked the landlord to cover costs she incurred by staying out of the property, in cafes or hotels. The landlord had not agreed to this prior to her incurring the costs, but it provided its insurance details, for her to make a claim should she wish to. It was appropriate for the landlord to do this and demonstrated the landlord’s appreciation of her distressing situation.
The actions the landlord took and the support it offered were reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint. However, there were periods of unexplained inactivity in its investigation and resolution of the problem, which the landlord did not clearly address in its complaint responses, meaning the complaint was not fully remedied. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the noise and vibration from a neighbouring property.

Ventilation system and noisy pipes.

In the landlord’s final resolution letter, it referred to a conversation held with the resident who it said had told it she was no longer dissatisfied with the ventilation system. She also did not believe the noisy pipes warranted further investigation as this would be resolved if the neighbour ran drain cleaner through them. Therefore, in the final resolution letter the landlord did not uphold this or investigate further. This was reasonable given the resident’s wishes at that time.
However, in her complaint to us the resident said she wanted us to investigate the issue because while the ventilation system is now working, she panics if the humidity levels rise and has to use a dehumidifier. The resident described to us in December 2024 that this remains an issue and that the landlord had not witnessed this noise. She recently raised a further complaint with the landlord concerning this topic and that it had completed a thorough investigation into the issue. This is outside the scope of this investigation. However, it illustrates the issue is ongoing and the landlord’s willingness to address the issue.
The grounds for the resident’s complaint to us about this issue appear to have resurfaced after the landlord sent its final complaint response, which is presumably why she did not raise it as part of her complaint. In that circumstance it is not one we can investigate at this stage, until the resident has raised it as a complaint to the landlord and the landlord has given its responses.
As the landlord acted in line with the resident’s wishes at the time there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an issue with the ventilation system and noisy pipes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise and vibration from the neighbouring property.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an issue with the ventilation system and noisy pipes.

Orders

The landlord clearly took significant steps to assist and support the resident. Nonetheless, this investigation finds some failings which it did not put right in its complaint responses.
The Ombudsman’s investigation orders are intended to put a resident back in the position they would have been had the landlord’s failings not occurred. In some cases, such as here, that will not be possible due to the nature of the problem. That is when, we consider other remedies such as compensation.
Because of that, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £600, this is inclusive of the £200 the landlord has already offered the resident.
This amount of compensation reflects that the unexplained delays had a greater impact on the resident than might normally be the case in different circumstances.
As the landlord has committed to carrying out works to rectify the issue, we are not making an order to progress this. However, the resident is reminded about how to progress a complaint if there are further issues.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.