Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Livv Housing Group (202402811)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402811

Livv Housing Group

21 October 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 report that it classed her as aggressive.
    2. The resident’s requests for repairs to the windows and doors.
    3. The resident’s reports of the conduct of the contractors sent to the property.
    4. The resident’s dissatisfaction with staff conduct, and its decision to restrict her contact with its staff members.
    5. The formal complaint.
    6. The resident’s reports that it did not take into account her personal issues when considering the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord has stated that its records show the resident has limited mobility and requires 48 hours’ notice of appointments and contact 20 minutes before the appointment is due to take place. The resident has Fibromyalgia and PTSD which impacts on her wellbeing and mental health.
  3. The resident made a complaint to the landlord via its call centre on 22 December 2023 regarding the actions of the landlord’s contractor involving inappropriate remarks made to her daughter. The landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident on 25 January 2024. The response informed her it had expressed its concern to the contractor following her complaint and the contractor had completed their own internal investigation. It had been informed appropriate action had been taken and all staff was reminded about professional boundaries and conduct.
  4. The resident requested the escalation of the complaint on 30 January 2024 stating that the landlord had not taken the complaint seriously. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 29 February 2024. It apologised if its response made her feel that it had not taken the allegation seriously. The landlord confirmed that the operative no longer worked at the contractor so no further action could be taken. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the time and trouble of raising the complaint.
  5. On 19 April 2024 the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord through the Ombudsman regarding:
    1. The landlord had labelled her as aggressive.
    2. How it handled repairs to windows and doors.
    3. Its handling of reports of the conduct of contractors who had allegedly kicked her dog, and reports of inappropriate language by the contractors.
    4. Its handling of reports about staff conduct, specifically about the housing officer’s communication and refusing to log complaints.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 May 2024. Its response included that it had not labelled the resident as aggressive, various works had been attempted and completed at the property to windows and doors, she had previously complained about the actions of the contractor and received a final response. It stated that it had amended the contact arrangements. It found no evidence of the officer’s poor communication and had responded to her dissatisfaction with call centre arrangements at stage 1.
  7. The landlord also stated in the stage 1 response that other issues the resident had raised, it would address as part of the complaint. This included the landlord making contact during unsociable hours and it extending the response time for the stage 1 response. It did not uphold either of those complaints.
  8. The resident requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 3 June 2024. The reasons included that she did not agree with the landlord restricting her to once a week calls to discuss repairs and that she had to wait for someone to call her. She had chased repairs she raised on the 9 May 2024 several times and the landlord was removing reasonable adjustments made for her to be called before operatives attended the property.
  1. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 July 2024 and repeated its position set out in the stage 1 response for the complaints raised except for the extension of the stage 1 complaint which it upheld and offered £50 compensation. It also responded to additional concerns the resident had made with it during a phone call on 13 June 2024. These included the landlord making contact during unsociable hours, and it not taking into account her personal issues when considering the complaint. The landlord did not uphold either of the additional elements of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has multiple complaints that are currently being investigated by the Ombudsman.
  2. The landlord noted in its stage 1 and 2 responses that there was an ongoing issue regarding the repairs. It stated that the resident made a complaint regarding access issues in August 2023, and it issued a stage 2 response in April 2024. That complaint has been referred to the Ombudsman for investigation and as it will be investigated separately that complaint will not be considered as part of this investigation.
  3. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that ‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’.
  4. The resident did raise a complaint about her concerns regarding contact arrangements which required her to only contact the landlord’s call centre for emergency repairs. This matter received a stage 1 response in April 2024 but was not escalated to stage 2. As the complaint did not complete the landlord’s complaint process the Ombudsman will not investigate that complaint. However, the resident continued to raise this issue with the landlord and the landlord did not escalate the complaint. Therefore, this investigation will be considering the landlord’s handling of that complaint.

That it classed her as aggressive

  1. There were no specific examples provided of the landlord calling the resident aggressive. It stated in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses that it did not have any notes on its records to suggest the resident was aggressive.
  2. The evidence provided to this Service did not show the landlord had indicated on its systems, any appointment records, or any internal correspondence that evidenced it called or labelled the resident as aggressive.
  3. It is acknowledged the landlord had introduced 2-person visits to the resident’s property but from the evidence provided this was in response to her concerns of having 1 operative visit, and her safety concerns. That was clearly noted in the landlord’s repairs records. There was no evidence the landlord labelled the resident as aggressive and it explained this in its complaint responses to the resident, including clarifying why the 2-person visits was introduced. There was no maladministration by the landlord.

Requests for repairs to windows and doors.

  1. As previously stated, this investigation will consider the landlord’s response to repair requests for the doors and windows made after April 2024.
  2. The landlord did mention in its stage 1 and 2 responses that in January 2024 it suggested fitting a thumb turn cylinder lock for the resident’s door and those works had been completed. It visited the property on 24 April 2024 regarding her reports that the front door was hanging off. Although it found the door to be safe, it did complete a repair to PVC trim on the frame and conducted a full inspection in the property on 9 May 2024, including the windows for thermal loss.  
  3. However, the resident’s escalation request made on 3 June 2024 stated, following the landlord’s inspection on 9 May 2024, that she was told the locks on her doors would be changed due to her weak hands and that she would be having a video doorbell fitted, amongst other repairs. It had been nearly a month since that visit, and she had heard nothing about most of those jobs.
  4. The landlord issued a letter to the resident on 20 May 2024 which referred to the home visit on 9 May 2024 and the identified repairs. It offered to attend the property on 30 May 2024 to complete those repairs. The landlord’s records did not show that the repairs had been completed or the doorbell installed by the time the stage 2 response was issued.
  5. The landlord stated in its complaint responses that there was no outstanding works, which was in contrast to the resident’s escalation request and the landlords repair records. There was also no evidence the landlord responded in the stage 2 response specifically to the resident’s concerns about the works she said were outstanding.
  6. Although the landlord stated in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses that it inspected the windows for thermal loss and no repairs were necessary, it has not evidenced the inspections it did resulting in the findings it made.
  7. This investigation was hampered by the poor quality of the landlord’s repair records that were provided to this Service. Although the landlord’s records did show some repairs where no access was possible, the repair records lacked details, such as repair completion dates and details about the actual works completed or steps taken to rebook the repairs if no access was possible. It is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. 
  8. Given the resident’s concerns that works had not all been completed and the landlords records not being clear about what works were requested, when works took place and the absence of any inspection reports, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the doors and windows.

Conduct of the contractors

  1. This element of the resident’s complaint was regarding 2 issues. The first issue was her report to the landlord that her dog had been kicked by its contractor during a visit to her property. The landlord established the incident took place on 13 June 2022. It informed her that, as the event took place more than 12 months prior to the complaint being made, its complaints policy prevented it from investigating the complaint.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy states events that happened more than 12 months ago which had not been raised since would not be considered a complaint. This Service’s complaint handling code also states if the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 12 months ago it could not be considered as a complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to not proceed with that element of the resident’s complaint.
  3. The second issue reported by the resident was inappropriate behaviour of the landlord’s contractor. The resident did raise that complaint in December 2023 and received a stage 2 response in February 2024.
  4. The resident in making her complaint stated that 2 contractors attended her property, completed works and left. She left the property straight afterwards and left her daughter in the property. When she left, the contractors returned, saying they had left tools in the bathroom. One of them was then inappropriate towards her daughter. She stated the contractor did not leave any tools but used it as an excuse to return and that the contractor asked her daughter for her number. When her daughter refused, he asked her daughter to add him on social media and she wanted the matter to be investigated.
  5. From the evidence provided, an operative of the landlord confirmed on 23 January 2024 that they attended the property with another operative after the work was done. The resident had mentioned what the contractor had said to her daughter and the operative apologised for the incident. It assured her it would address the concern she raised. It contacted its contractor and explained what had happened at the address and asked them if they could look into the matter to investigate it and follow their disciplinary procedure. As it was aware, the operative was no longer employed by the contractor.
  6. The landlord in the stage 1 response informed the resident it had expressed its concern to the contractors following her complaint who had completed their own internal investigation. The landlord had been informed that appropriate action had been taken and all staff had been reminded about professional boundaries and conduct. It apologised that the visit upset her daughter.
  7. The resident requested the complaint be escalated stating she felt the incident was brushed under the carpet and not addressed by the landlord. In its stage 2 response on 29 February 2024 the landlord reiterated the actions it had taken. It however did offer £50 compensation to the resident for the time and trouble of raising the complaint. 
  8. The contractor was not employed by the landlord but once the landlord was made aware of the resident’s reports, it made contact with the contractor, asked them to investigate and take action, and was informed of the outcome. The landlord did all it could at that stage as the contractor would be required to take any action regarding its own employee. This Service, therefore, finds that the landlord’s response was appropriate.

Staff conduct and contact restrictions

  1. The resident raised a complaint regarding only being allowed to make complaints via a single Housing Advisor. The landlord had put in place contact restrictions to the resident via its solicitor and issued a pre action warning letter to her on 8 September 2023. The letter stated that this was due to the landlord receiving over 100 repair logs and 40 complaints from the resident since March 2019. This arrangement was raised as part of a complaint which received a stage 2 response on 15 April 2024 and is currently being investigated by the Ombudsman and as such this investigation cannot consider that element of that complaint. However, we have assessed the resident’s concerns over the contact restrictions, which she raised after the landlord’s stage 2 response for that complaint.
  2. The resident had informed the landlord she felt she was not being treated like an adult by being instructed to contact its call centre for emergency repairs and for all other contact to be through her Housing Adviser, later amended to a Head of Service.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 30 April 2024 and stated that it spoke to her on 19 April 2024 and 22 April 2024. The landlord said it was made aware of the residents concerns that emailing was difficult for her and that operatives calling her 20 minutes before attending the home had also caused issues as it had not been able to get through to her on some occasions. As an interim measure it asked the resident to call the contact centre but asked her to be mindful about the number and length of the calls made. It also suggested that a member of the Housing Management team called her on a set day, an approximate time, once per week to discuss any issues she had regarding her tenancy or property.
  4. The landlord asked the resident to provide a response regarding communication by 10 May 2024 and it would discuss that with its solicitors to ensure that any agreed plan was agreeable and manageable for its business. There was no evidence that the resident provided that to the landlord.
  5. In a letter to the resident on 31 May 2024, the landlord had written to her with the proposals it could implement and if she felt that these would not meet her requirements to let it know. The landlord did not provide a copy of the letter to the Ombudsman. However, it is clear that the resident was given the opportunity to consider the contents and respond to the landlord. This showed that it was considering the residents concerns about contact restrictions and was attempting to make adjustments for her vulnerabilities.
  6. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that the contact restrictions would remain in place, but it had tried to make reasonable adjustments. Although the resident may have been unhappy with the landlord’s response, it did demonstrate that it continued to review the contact arrangements made after the previous stage 2 response. It also provided suggestions for the resident to consider and respond to.
  7. With respect to the issue of poor communication by the landlord’s staff member, this was regarding the resident stating that she had been shouted at by the Housing Advisor, who also refused to log her complaints. The landlord has stated it found no evidence of the resident being shouted at. It is acknowledged that this can be a difficult element of her complaint to prove without witnesses or phone recordings (if available) with specific details of the date and time a call was made. In the absence of any evidence of a specific event provided this Service cannot determine a housing advisor shouted at the resident.  
  8. The landlord has evidenced that it logged and responded to the resident’s requests for complaints to be logged. It has evidenced it raised at least 4 complaints between May 2023 and this complaint in May 2024, with responses being issued to the resident. There was no evidence provided that the resident made a complaint to the landlord that it refused to log. Thus, this Service finds no evidence of wrongdoing by the landlord with respect to this aspect of the complaint.
  9.  The evidence provided showed that the resident complained to the landlord on 13 May 2024 that it hand delivered the letter advising of the extension to the complaint to the resident around 6:30pm on 10 May 2023. The landlord stated it did not knock on the resident’s door and that the letter was delivered within its working hours.
  10. The landlord’s customer access policy states that residents can contact it through its customer contact centre between 8am and 8pm Monday to Friday and 9:30am -1pm on a Saturday. The policy does not specify if residents can expect the landlord to make contact to residents during those hours. However, it would be reasonable for a resident to expect that contact could be made during the landlord’s opening hours. The landlord stated it delivered the letter within the timescales of its working hours.
  11. Although the resident may have felt the timing of the letter was late, the time the letter was delivered was within the landlord’s opening hours. As the letter was posted and there was no interaction with the resident, this Service cannot determine there would have been any distress or inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord posting the letter.
  12. The resident also raised that the landlord telephoned her at 7pm and emailed her at 10:15pm. The landlord’s records confirmed the resident was contacted around those times.  The landlord in its stage 2 response stated that its residents must expect to receive email communications into their inboxes outside of legacy 9am to 5pm working hours, and it was up to residents to decide if they wish to open the email.
  13. This Service acknowledges that the resident receiving an email outside of the landlord’s opening hours would be unexpected to the resident. There was no evidence this was occurring on a regular basis, and it appeared to be 1 occasion due to the landlord attempting to avoid delays. This was a shortcoming by the landlord but not of a degree as to warrant a finding of maladministration. It is reminded to ensure it considers the resident’s vulnerabilities and makes contact with residents within the timescales of its opening hours. The landlord may wish to consider discussing if any contact options regarding when the resident should be contacted could be agreed.
  14. Overall, although there were some shortcomings by the landlord, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The complaint was brought to the attention of the landlord by this Service on 19 April 2024. It issued the stage 1 response on 28 May 2024. This was 26 working days later.
  2. From the evidence provided the landlord informed the resident about the delay in her complaint being responded to at stage 1 on 10 May 2024 and at that time also requested more information from her.
  3. Section 2.11 of the landlord’s complaints policy states it may extend the complaint response time by up to 10 working days. Thus, the landlord was entitled to extend the complaint. However, the letter of 10 May 2024 was issued 15 working days after the landlord had been made aware of the complaint and therefore the complaint was already outside of the landlord’s complaint policy timescales. It is understandable that the resident was unhappy with the timing of the letter. The letter also failed to apologise to the resident for the delay or provide details of the Ombudsman. The stage 1 response was issued 12 working days after the landlord informed the resident of the extension which added to the delay incurred by the resident. This was service failure by the landlord.
  4. The landlord did acknowledge its failings at stage 1, but no redress was offered. In the stage 2 response it offered the resident £50 compensation. The Ombudsman considers that amount of compensation to be reasonable for the service failure.
  5. The landlord, in its stage 2 response, stated that the resident had previously complained about being limited to contacting its call centre for emergency repairs and gave instances where her emergency repairs requests were refused. It had previously investigated that issue and provided a stage 1 response in April 2024. The landlord advised the resident to let it know if she wished to progress that complaint and it would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  6. Given the resident had continued to inform the landlord of her concerns over that issue and raised it as part of this complaint, the landlord having established it had already issued a stage 1 response should have discussed that with the resident prior to issuing the stage 2 response considered in this investigation and raised that complaint to stage 2 if the resident wished to do so.
  7. Section 1.3 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states ‘A resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint’ The landlord has not evidenced it offered to discuss with the resident about if she wanted to escalate that complaint before it issued its response to the resident. This was a service failure by the landlord.

The landlord not taken her personal issues into account

  1. From the landlords records and correspondence to the resident, it has demonstrated that it had taken the residents personal issues and vulnerabilities into account when considering her complaint. The landlord’s repairs records had clearly set out the actions it should take at the times those repairs were raised. These included calling the resident before attending the property; text messages sent to her advising of operatives attending; to wait at the property for the resident to reach the door, and it offered the resident a video doorbell for her to identify operatives who attend.
  2. The landlord was made aware of the residents concerns that emailing was difficult for her. It emailed her on 30 April 2024 and stated that it spoke to her on 19 April 2024 and 22 April 2024. It offered to make weekly phone calls to the resident to discuss any repairs or housing issues she had. It asked her to suggest an alternative method, but there was no evidence provided indicating that she provided that to the landlord.
  3. In the same email the landlord informed the resident that it could also work with the local authority and other agencies who could provide support and advocacy to the resident, and it could make referrals on her behalf if she requested.
  4. The landlord has demonstrated it had considered the resident’s personal issues in her complaint and offered alternative solutions to the resident. There was no maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
    1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that it classed her as aggressive.
    2. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to doors and windows.
    3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of its handling of contractor’s conduct.
    4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about the conduct of its staff members, and its restrictions of her contact.
    5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the related formal complaints.
    6. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of it not taking into account the resident’s personal issues when considering the issues in her complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report with respect to the repairs to the doors and windows.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the doors and windows.
    3. Contact the resident and arrange an appointment to complete a full inspection of the resident’s property to identify any repairs required and provide her with a report of any identified repairs, what works will be needed and a timetable for completion.
    4. Pay the resident £50 for its handling of the complaint regarding emergency repairs.