LiveWest Homes Limited (202326312)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326312

LiveWest Homes Limited

14 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:
   1. response to the residents reports of poor staff conduct
   2. complaint handling

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 10 August 2020. The property is a 2 bed mid-terrace house. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord held no record of vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. On 25 July 2023, the landlord surveyed the resident’s property and raised a number of repairs including mould treatments. On 18 August 2023, the landlord attended the property to carry out repairs, including a mould wash in the bathroom. The resident wished to postpone the mould wash until the landlord completed a damp and mould survey which was scheduled in the near future. The building surveyor spoke with the resident on the telephone and urged her to have the mould treated.
4. On 18 August 2023, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said that the phone call from the surveyor was intense, demanding, and forceful. She reported that the surveyor had interrogated her, had not considered her reasoning for postponing the mould wash, or considered the impact that his behaviour had on her.
5. On 31 August 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint about staff conduct. It said that the staff member had the resident’s best interests in mind but apologised that she felt that he interrogated her. The landlord apologised for the delay in the stage 1 complaint response and offered £25 compensation in recognition of this.
6. On 13 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said that on 25 July 2023, the staff member attended her property earlier than the agreed appointment time when she did not have support present. She said that the staff member was persistent in surveying the property before the appointment time. She said that the surveyor did not have her best interests in mind or consider her support needs. She felt victimised, unfairly treated, and the landlord did not consider her mental health needs. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint delay and the compensation offer.
7. The resident provided medical evidence to the landlord on 22 September 2023 which confirmed that she has Bipolar Affective Disorder and Emotionally Unstable Personality Disorder.
8. On 2 October 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It confirmed that it investigated the issue with the staff member who accepted that he could have handled the situation differently. On reflection he accepted he could have listened to the resident’s concerns and adapted his behaviour accordingly. The landlord acknowledged the distress caused when it attended the appointment earlier than the agreed time. It also acknowledged the resident’s disabilities and said it would agree with her how it would conduct future visits to limit distress and inconvenience. It apologised for this and offered £125 compensation compromising:
   1. £25 for the delay in providing a stage 1 complaint response
   2. £25 for not attended the appointment at the agreed time
   3. £25 for not arranging to return when support was present
   4. £50 for distress and inconvenience.

Events after the internal complaints process

9. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she remained unhappy because the staff member had delivered professional misconduct despite her vulnerabilities. As a resolution, the resident wanted increased compensation.          

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of poor staff conduct

10. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, we will consider whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. The landlord would generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
11. The initial complaint was in relation to the telephone call with the resident when she wished to postpone the mould wash. An internal email on 30 August 2023, shows that the landlord discussed the issue with the staff member and concluded that he was acting in the best interests of the resident. The landlord conducted a proportionate investigation into the report of poor staff conduct. It provided the resident with the outcome of its investigation through its stage 1 complaint response which was appropriate.
12. When the resident raised her stage 2 complaint, she reported another previous instance of poor staff conduct when the staff member initially carried out the building survey. She alleged discrimination because the staff member had not considered her mental health. Based on the evidence, the landlord carried out a further investigation with the staff member about the previous interaction with the resident. This was reasonable, as the landlord had been provided with new information.
13. Through its complaints response the landlord acknowledged that it should have attended the appointment at the agreed time, and it should have returned when her support was present. It apologised for these failures and offered compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. This was a reasonable response by the landlord when it identified service failures.     
14. The resident has said that the landlord discriminated against her. Discrimination is the less favourable treatment of a person based on a protected characteristic including disabilities. The landlord has a duty to ensure that its staff operate in accordance with the Equality Act 2010, therefore, it would be expected to carry out a thorough investigation of any claim of discrimination.
15. Based on the evidence, the landlord held no record of the resident’s disability until it received evidence after the stage 2 complaint escalation. When it received the information, the landlord committed to agreeing with the resident on how it would conduct visits in the future. It further recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities on her file. This was appropriate and demonstrates that the landlord has given due regard to its responsibilities to the resident in accordance with the Equality Act 2010.
16. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in its response to reports of poor staff conduct. It conducted a reasonable and proportionate investigation into the reports and when it identified service failures it offered compensation which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, put things right. Also, when it identified vulnerabilities, it committed to putting actions in place to reduce the resident’s distress for future visits.

Complaint handling

17. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days.
18. When the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint. She said that the complaint process prolonged the outcome for her.
19. Based on the evidence, the landlord’s complaint responses were within the Code’s timeframes. It received the initial complaint on 18 August 2023 and responded 9 working days later on 31 August 2023. However, the landlord had provided the resident with a deadline of 30 August 2023 and so it was appropriate and reasonable for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation of £25 for the delay. 
20. The resident escalated the complaint on 13 September 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 October 2023, which was 14 working days later. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
21. The Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it identified a service failure in its complaint handling. The landlord effectively used its complaints procedure to address the substantive issue of the complaint within the Codes timeframes and it appropriately compensated the resident when it identified a service failure in its complaint handling.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, in its response to reports of poor staff conduct, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
23. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, in its complaint handling, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

24. Our determination of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £125 is paid to the resident within 28 days of this report, if it has not already been paid.