LiveWest Homes Limited (202317217)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317217

LiveWest Homes Limited

26 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning its member of staff’s conduct.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a 3-bedroom end of terrace house. The lease started in April 2022.
3. The property is a new build, constructed in March 2022.
4. The resident raised issues about structural defects after moving into the property. The landlord appointed its head of delivery (member of staff) to oversee works to address these. The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the defects however details of this complaint are not included here as the resident has not brought this to the Ombudsman.
5. By July 2023, the resident and his family had moved out of the property temporarily to accommodate the works. The landlord had arranged to meet the resident with the developer at the property on 26 July 2023 to discuss the ongoing defects.  On 26 July 2023, the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive to report comments that had been made about him by its member of staff earlier that day. He said this had been captured on his ring doorbell footage. The resident sent the landlord the transcript of conversation. He said this showed that the member of staff’s comments and behaviour was inappropriate, disrespectful and contradicted the landlord’s values.
6. On 28 July 2023 the landlord met with the resident at the property to discuss his complaint. In his subsequent communication to the landlord dated 30 July 2023, the resident said the comments had suggested he would inflict violence upon him and indicate its member of staff had a preconceived perception of him based on his age, gender and tenancy. The resident also said the comments showed a lack of trust and were morally wrong. The resident stated he expected the landlord to follow the proper disciplinary procedures and asked to be informed of what action would be taken against the member of staff.
7. On 3 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the scope of its investigation. In its stage 1 response to the resident on 9 August 2023, the landlord told the resident it had upheld his complaint and offered £200 in compensation in recognition of its service failure. It also stated:
   1. It had interviewed the member of staff as part of its investigation who confirmed that the comments were made as stated.
   2. It was extremely shocked that a member of staff had made these comments which showed a lack of understanding and empathy in relation to the resident’s experience with ongoing defects in his home.
   3. The member of staff agreed his comments were entirely inappropriate and he was “genuinely” sorry that he had broken the trust in his relationship with the resident.
   4. The member of staff said the comments were made “as a throw away remark in jest”.
   5. The member of staff confirmed he had not at any time felt physically threatened by the resident.
   6. His use of the phrase “jump me” was due to the resident having asked difficult questions that he did not know how to answer or had put him on the spot.
   7. It had asked the developer to remind their team of the conduct and behaviour expected when working in any of its homes.
   8. It was not able to share with the resident the nature of any action taken against the member of staff.
   9. Where its standards of behaviour were not met by employees, it could take disciplinary action, get staff to undertake further learning or set specific targets as part of the appraisal and review process.
   10. It would remind its staff of its values and conduct expectations as part of its organisational briefing process
   11. Given the nature of the resident’s complaint and as it had already been reviewed at executive level, his complaint would not be progressed to stage 2.
8. On 10 August 2023 the resident replied to the landlord’s complaint response explaining he was dissatisfied with its response. At the same time, he escalated his complaint to this Service. The resident told us that he did not accept the explanation given by the landlord for the inappropriate comments made by its member of staff. The resident also told us the level of compensation offered was not proportionate to the distress caused to him and his young family. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. In his complaint communications with the landlord, the resident alleged the comments by its member of staff were discriminatory. This Service cannot consider whether discrimination has taken place, as this is better suited for a court to decide. However, we will consider if, while handling the resident’s reports about staff conduct through its complaints process, the landlord acted fairly and appropriately.
10. The resident told us that the landlord had been “intentionally vague” about what, if any, disciplinary action had been taken against the member of staff. However, we cannot consider or comment on how a landlord has dealt with individual members of staff’s disciplinary proceedings. This is in accordance with our Scheme which states that we will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. Neither can we require the landlord to tell the resident what if any disciplinary action it has taken against its member of staff. Therefore, we are unable to consider this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning its member of staff’s conduct

11. Where there are admitted failings by the landlord, our role is to assess whether it has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. When considering the landlord’s handling of the matter, we are guided by the landlord’s policies and procedures and our own dispute resolution principles, which are:
    1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process
    2. put things right and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
12. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, we consider not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address any failings and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
13. In his 26 July 2023 complaint, the resident said he was “utterly appalled” by the inappropriate comments made about him by its member of staff while in conversation with an employee of the developer. He said they showed a complete lack of respect for him and his family. The resident explained that he had always been courteous and respectful towards the member of staff throughout their dealings.
14. It is not in dispute that the comments in question were made by the member of staff. Having reviewed the comments, this Service acknowledges that they were both inappropriate and unprofessional. The landlord’s code of conduct (for its staff) states colleagues must treat others with respect and consideration and be professional, fair and courteous in all dealings with customers. Therefore, in making such comments, it is clear that the member of staff failed to act in line with its code. His behaviour represents a failing in the service provided by the landlord which the resident has told us caused distress.
15. Within 1 day of his formal complaint, the landlord agreed to the resident’s request to meet him in person at his home to discuss his allegations. This meeting took place the next day on 28 July 2023. This enabled the resident to discuss his concerns in more detail with the landlord. It was also an opportunity for the landlord to ensure it fully understood the resident’s complaint. As this indicates a willingness by the landlord to listen to the customer and understand what had gone wrong, it acted appropriately.
16. The landlord subsequently provided the resident with a transcript of their meeting. Landlords are expected to keep records including when investigating complaints.  Therefore, by making a transcript and providing this to the resident whom had requested this, the landlord acted reasonably.
17. The landlord also interviewed the member of staff who was the subject of the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate and allowed the landlord to put the resident’s allegations to its member of staff and understand his version of what had happened. The landlord’s record of this interview shows the staff member acknowledged that he made comments as stated by the resident and that his behaviour was “totally inappropriate”. The member of staff said he was sorry for the impact his comments had on the resident and his relationship with him and the landlord.  He confirmed the resident had never acted in a way which made him feel physically threatened but referred to having had “difficult” conversations with the resident regarding resolving issues (the defects). During its interview the landlord raised with the member of staff how his behaviour did not meet its standards. It also checked that the member of staff had personally apologised to the resident which he had.
18. In addition, the landlord’s records show it contacted the developer about their employee’s involvement in the conversation in question. The landlord asked the developer to remind their team about how important it was that their conduct and behaviour was respectful and courteous while working in its homes.
19. In its responses to the resident between 27 July 2023 and 9 August 2023, the landlord apologised to the resident on 4 occasions, for the comments made by its member of staff. The landlord said it was appalled and shocked by the conduct of its member of staff which it said was not in line with its values and reassured it was taking the matter “extremely seriously”. During this timeframe the landlord appointed a different member of staff to be the resident’s point of contact for management of ongoing defects. This action was appropriate, and indicates the landlord was attempting to rebuild trust with the resident that had been broken as a result of the comments made. 
20. In its stage 1 (final) complaint response dated 9 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged the comments made were contrary to its code of conduct for staff as well as its values. It said the comments made show its member of staff lacked empathy or understanding of his experience with the ongoing defects. It reiterated its apology to the resident and told him it had upheld his complaint. The landlord set out what it had done to put things right and explained the reason given by the member of staff for making the comments. We are satisfied that in providing this explanation the landlord was not trying to condone the inappropriate behaviour, rather it was to provide the resident with one of the outcomes he had requested.
21. In summary, the landlord took appropriate steps to fully investigate the resident’s complaint which included meeting the resident in person to discuss his complaint and interviewing the member of staff. The landlord acknowledged from the outset that its member of staff’s behaviour was unacceptable and contrary to its code and standards. It provided appropriately worded apologies to the resident and agreed to appoint a different member of staff to be the resident’s point of contact in terms of managing defects.
22. The landlord offered the resident £200 in compensation in recognition of the distress caused by its failing. This is consistent with the amount recommended in its compensation policy for ‘moderate level impact’ failings. On balance the compensation offered was reasonable and proportionate to the service failing and the detriment caused by this.
23. In its response the landlord also stated it would be reminding all staff of its values and conduct expectations as part of its organisational briefing process. This indicates the landlord had learned lessons to avoid the same situation recurring.
24. Therefore, we consider that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of his reports concerning its member of staff’s conduct.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s reports concerning its member of staff’s conduct.

Recommendation

26. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord, if not already done so, pay the resident the £200 in compensation offered in its complaint response.