Livv Housing Group (202414782)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202414782

Livv Housing Group

10 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of concerns about:
1. the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. outstanding repairs at the property.
3. pest infestation.
4. staff conduct.
5. antisocial behaviour (ASB).
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since June 2023. She lives at the property with her husband and 3 children. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
The landlord’s empty homes standard says that:
1. only kitchens beyond economic repair will be replaced during empty homes refurbishment.
2. roof coverings will be free from major defect and watertight.
3. all visible plasterwork will be left in a state that it can receive decoration.
4. flooring will be free from structural defects, trip hazards and be securely fixed.
5. properties will undergo a valet clean, and all windows will be clean on the inside.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. Its infestation framework says, following a report, it will raise a visit from a property surveyor within 7 calendar days.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out behaviour such as excessive noise and verbal abuse/harassment. While its policy does not mention reports of drug use, the landlord says on its website that ASB could include drugs. Its ASB policy says it will take action that is proportionate to the situation.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident complained to the landlord on 11 December 2023. She raised concerns that:
1. the property was not cleaned properly before she moved in.
2. the attitude of the housing officer was “absolutely disgusting”, and that they had been dismissive of issues/questions the resident raised.
3. she had been told the whole house would be plastered but only patch repairs were completed.
4. she was told she would get a new kitchen and this did not happen.
5. she had found mouse droppings and wasps’ nests in the loft.
6. there were various repair issues at the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 19 January 2024. It proposed to attend to inspect repair issues on 24 January 2024. It apologised if the housing officer’s attitude came across as unprofessional and said it would discuss this with her.
On 9 February 2024, following its inspection on 24 January 2024, the landlord sent the resident a further letter. It noted some issues with the property should have been resolved before the resident moved in. These were an exposed plug behind the washing machine, some cracked wall tiles and paint coming off the banister. It apologised for this and awarded the resident a £50 decorating voucher and £100 for the failings in its service.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 March 2024. She said the level of compensation awarded by the landlord was “ridiculous”. She questioned how the £50 decorating voucher would cover work to the whole house. She also said she had reported issues with her neighbour smoking cannabis and had heard nothing back.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 May 2024. It noted the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness of the property when she moved in, and that she said the bathroom was full of “faeces and urine”. It said it could not see evidence of this and that its photos and inspections showed the property met its empty homes policy. The landlord said:
1. it had completed a visual inspection of the loft on 3 April 2024 and had seen items that should have been removed before the resident moved in.
2. it had noted reports of mouse droppings in the loft and would arrange for a specialist contractor to attend.
3. wasp nests in the loft were dormant and it did not remove these as standard practice but would do so to reassure the resident.
4. it would contact the resident about her reports of ASB to provide advice and support. It also directed her to contact the police.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It said there had been several failings, a lack of clear communication about the outcome of inspections and a lack of consistency in approach and advice. It said it had ordered several repairs, but the resident had cancelled appointments. It made a further award of £300. This was £200 for the inconvenience and upset caused and £100 for the multiple inspections and time and trouble caused. The resident remained unhappy and asked this Service to investigate her complaint accordingly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

ASB reports

The resident has continued to report issues about her neighbour, and she has told us of her dissatisfaction with how the landlord has responded to these. The resident’s concerns are acknowledged. However, it would be appropriate for the landlord to have the opportunity to consider any concerns about its handling of these later reports through its formal complaints procedure first. Should the resident remain dissatisfied following this, she could then bring any complaint about this back to us. The focus of our investigation will therefore be the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports up to May 2024, when it issued its stage 2 complaint response.

Condition of the property when it was let

The resident complained to the landlord about the cleanliness of the property when it was let. Specifically, she raised concerns that 2 sets of blinds that she put up had become dirty from the windows and that the bathroom floor had been “full of urine and faeces” when she moved in. These issues were raised several months after the resident’s tenancy began. On receipt of the resident’s concerns, the landlord appropriately reviewed records of the condition of the property at handover. It said it had completed a valet clean of the property prior to letting. It said that it was satisfied the property met the standards set out in its empty homes policy from reviewing photographs and reports from its empty homes team. It said it could see no evidence of urine and faeces on the bathroom floor.
We have seen records from April 2023 noting that the landlord had completed an environmental clean of the property. While not detailed in the landlord’s records, the resident confirmed that a further clean had been undertaken just prior to her moving into the property. We have also seen photographs of the property at handover. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns that she spent time cleaning the property herself after moving in. We do not seek to dispute this. But the evidence suggests the property had been cleaned by the landlord and we have seen no evidence, other than the resident’s comments, of urine or faeces on the bathroom floor.
We note the resident’s concerns that new blinds she put up were damaged by dirt on the windows. The landlord apologised for this in its stage 1 response. But it said it did not consider this to be a failing in its service. Instead, it considered it could improve its communication. It said it should have told the resident to wipe surfaces prior to putting up blinds as plastering work had been completed.
We acknowledge that work such as plastering can create dust. But the landlord should have taken steps clean the inside of windows after work in line with its empty homes standard. It was not reasonable for it to expect the resident do so. As such the landlord should reasonably have offered to consider any damage to blinds and how it could resolve this. That it did not do so was a failing. In light of this we have ordered that the landlord obtain details of damage to the resident’s blinds and consider how to remedy this. The landlord can refer this to its insurer to remedy if it considers this most appropriate. We have also ordered that it remind its staff that surfaces such as the inside of windows should be checked for dirt or dust prior to the start of tenancies.
The resident told the landlord of her concerns that the kitchen had not been replaced. It took appropriate action by arranging to inspect the property. It did so on 24 January 2024 and set out its findings in its letter to the resident on 9 February 2024. It also made records of its inspection in internal communication on 25 January 2024. At this time, it noted it had told the resident it would not be replacing the kitchen. The landlord said it had found it to be in good condition. The steps it took to review the resident’s concerns were reasonable and appropriate. We acknowledge the resident understood the kitchen was to be replaced, but we have seen no evidence within records that this had been agreed or was necessary.
The resident also raised concerns about the level of plastering completed. While the landlord agreed some plastering work following its inspection in January 2024, it said that it had found plastering at the property to be in line with its standard. This sets out that visible plastering will be left in a state where it can receive decoration. While we acknowledge the resident understood more plastering would be completed prior to the start of her tenancy, again there is no evidence this had been agreed by the landlord or was necessary.
Following its inspection of 24 January 2024 the landlord identified some issues that were not at its expected standard. It noted paint on banisters that was already coming off. It also noted cracked wall tiles and an exposed socket that should have been addressed before the resident moved in. It appropriately apologised for this. The award it made at this time of £100 was reasonable. The £50 decoration voucher reflected that it had only found decorating issues with the banister. But it would also have been appropriate for it to have offered to remedy the decoration of the banister, as an alternative to the decorating voucher. That it did not offer this option was a failing.
The landlord had identified some items had been left in the loft during its visit of January 2024. But it did not set out to the resident what it would do to address this. It should reasonably have done so. That it did not do so until its stage 2 complaint response in May 2024 was a failing. At this time, it acknowledged that items in the loft should have been removed before the resident moved in. But it should have been clear about what it would do to resolve this after identifying these items in January 2024.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when it was let. It appropriately compensated the resident for repair issues that should have been addressed before she moved in. But it should have offered to inspect damage to her blinds, and to repair issues to the banister decoration. It should also have set out earlier what it would do about items left in the loft.

Outstanding repairs at the property.

In her complaint to the landlord on 11 December 2023 the resident raised a number of repair issues. Given this, the landlord’s decision to arrange to inspect all the concerns was reasonable. However, it is unclear why it did not arrange to do so prior to 24 January 2024. We have seen no evidence it attempted an earlier inspection. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs within 28 days. Given this, its delay for 6 weeks before inspecting the resident’s concerns was unreasonable. This inevitably delayed it remedying any repair issues. It is acknowledged that some delays may be unavoidable, for example, staff shortages. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained the reason for the delay to the resident at the time. That it did not do so was a missed opportunity and it failed to manage expectations accordingly.
The landlord set out the findings of its inspection in its letter to the resident of 9 February 2024. It outlined why it would not be completing some repairs the resident had raised, such as a dip in the living room floor, as it had not identified repairs were needed. It correctly advised the resident to report further issues. That was reasonable.
While staining on windows was raised by the resident in her initial complaint, the landlord misunderstood her concern to be around stains to the window handles. It is clear from the landlord’s records of its inspection in January 2024 that it had identified staining to the window frames. The landlord did not identify the resident’s concern about this. But it would have been appropriate for it to clarify this, given that she had mentioned staining on the windows in her complaint. It could then have clarified if it was an issue it would rectify. Doing so would have saved the resident the time and trouble of raising this issue again in her escalation request.
When the landlord inspected the property in January 2024 it noted the resident’s concerns about a ripped membrane in the loft. But it said that it could see no evidence of water ingress. Later, after the resident raised further concerns, the landlord identified roof work was needed to address a leak coming into the bathroom around the soil stack. But a thorough inspection of the issues the resident had raised previously could have led to work being identified in January 2024. The resident had said in her complaint in December 2023 that there was mould on the soil stack and that the bathroom wall was wet. In addition, it is unclear why it took the landlord so long to raise a further inspection of this issue. The resident said in her escalation request of 2 March 2024 that she had been told during the inspection of January 2024 that the leak above the soil stack would be investigated. But that is not reflected in the landlord’s letter of February 2024. That it delayed in exploring what was causing the issue around the soil stack until 3 April 2024 was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord noted that repairs could have been identified sooner had just 1 surveyor been involved. The landlord acknowledged failings around the number of inspections completed and the lack of consistency in its advice. But it should have explicitly acknowledged and apologised for the delay in identifying the leak around the soil stack. Its failings meant the resident spent more time and trouble pursuing the issue before it was identified.
In its letter to the resident in February 2024 the landlord set out some repairs it would complete such as some plastering work to a bedroom, work to a vent in a bedroom and to repair a missing latch on a door. It said that it would also replace handles on some of the resident’s windows. While repairs were raised on 5 February 2024 we have seen evidence of poor co-ordination of this work by the landlord. It would have been appropriate for it to clearly set out what work it planned to undertake to the property, with timescales. That there is no evidence it did so is a failing. Instead, there is evidence the landlord attempted work in February and April 2024 without confirming appointments in advance. Nor is there evidence the landlord made any attempts to schedule other work until the beginning of April 2024. Given that the inspection had been completed on 24 January 2024, that was an unreasonable delay.
It wrote to the resident in early April 2024 requesting access to complete plastering on 10 April 2024. This appointment was eventually cancelled by the resident as the time of the appointment was not communicated in advance. It is acknowledged the landlord would not necessarily be able to provide a precise time. But it later confirmed it had anticipated this would be an all-day appointment. It should reasonably have confirmed this in advance to the resident so that she could plan accordingly. That it did not was a failing that added to the delays in completing work.
There were also no apparent efforts by the landlord to reschedule the work between 10 April and its stage 2 response of 3 May 2024. While there was some dispute about the extent of repair work, the landlord should reasonably have progressed work that had been agreed. That there is no evidence it did so during this time is failing. It meant that repair work went far beyond timescales set out in its repairs policy.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 3 May 2024 the landlord set out in detail the repairs it would complete. It noted the resident’s concerns about the various repair issues and offered to complete a full inspect of the property in order that she could show it her repair concerns. That was reasonable. We acknowledge that a further inspection and work to the property was delayed as the resident arranged a disrepair survey. This was completed in June 2024. It was a delay in work that was beyond the landlord’s control. However, the landlord should reasonably have taken adequate steps to co-ordinate and complete repairs following this. It has not demonstrated that it did so.
We note the landlord attended the resident’s property in mid-July 2024 to inspect her ongoing concerns about the condition of the property. It noted this inspection ended at the resident’s request. However, records do not show timely steps by the landlord to progress outstanding repair work following this. We acknowledge there was some dispute about the extent of work, but given it obligations under the tenancy agreement it still needed to demonstrate reasonable steps to progress repairs.
The landlord wrote to the resident at the end of August 2024 setting out that it was planning to complete a number of repairs on 23 September 2024. Records show no earlier attempts to arrange work. Given the ongoing leak into the bathroom, it would have been reasonable for it to attempt work earlier. That was a failing. The resident told the landlord in early September 2024 that she was not available for the appointment later that month. She also stated that she wanted work to be completed with no more than 1 workman at the property at a time. But we have seen no evidence the landlord responded appropriately to this communication. That was a failing. It is clear it would need to communicate with the resident to agree how it would complete this work. That it has not demonstrated a timely response to the resident at this time is a failing. The resident told us in November 2024 that the landlord had made recent contact to arrange to complete outstanding repair work.
It is acknowledged that some delays were due to the dispute around the extent of works needed and as the resident raised a disrepair claim. However, we have also seen other failings in the landlord handling work, which have led to delays in repairs needed to the property.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord handling of outstanding repairs. We note the landlord has awarded the resident £300 for the inconvenience, upset and time and trouble caused by issues. This goes some way towards recognising the impact of its failing. In light of the failings we have found and the delays in work caused as a result, we have ordered an increased award. This is aimed at fully recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings. In ordering this we have taken into account the circumstances of the case and made reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We have also order that the landlord contact the resident to agree arrangements and dates to complete all outstanding repair work.

Pest infestation

Records show the resident raised concerns about a pest infestation in the loft on 1 December 2023. The landlord noted at this time that she had reported mouse droppings in the loft. In line with its infestation framework, the landlord should have attended to inspect issues within 7 days. But there is no evidence it made any attempt to inspect issues within this timeframe. That was a failing. The landlord did not do so until 24 January 2024. Following this it said it would bait the loft and that it would remove live wasps’ nests. But it further delayed completing this work. It made no attempts to do so until the beginning of April 2024. As noted earlier, the appointment of 10 April 2024 was cancelled as the landlord failed to take timely steps to confirm it. Following this there is no evidence the landlord took steps to complete pest control work until 6 July 2024.
It is acknowledged that a disrepair survey was completed during this time, which found only historical mouse droppings. Nonetheless, the landlord should have taken appropriate steps to address the resident’s reports in line with what had previously been agreed. If it was not going to do so, it should have communicated this to the resident. The landlord attended on 8 July and 16 July 2024. Later in July 2024 it told the resident it had found no evidence of a current rodent infestation and that it had removed dormant wasps’ nests. It also said that it would consider the resident’s concerns that insulation within the loft now needed to be replaced. While that was reasonable, the landlord should not have delayed to the extent it did before completing work to bait and check the loft. It should have provided the resident with this reassurance much sooner. We have found service failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns about a pest infestation. With consideration of the circumstances and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of this failing.

The resident’s reports about staff conduct

The resident complained to the landlord in December 2023 about the attitude of a housing officer and comments made by contractors about how rats in the garden had been addressed. The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised to the resident if the housing officer’s attitude had come across as unprofessional. It said it would discuss this with her as well as raise the resident’s concerns with its contractor. The landlord said it its stage 2 complaint response that it had spoken to staff/the contractor about the issues raised and that neither had recalled any issues with communication when interacting with the resident. However, the landlord apologised if these staff had said anything in their interactions with the resident to cause her to feel unhappy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the concerns the resident had raised. But it was also important for it to demonstrate that it had properly investigated her concerns. The landlord has told us it made no notes or records relating to discussions with staff/contractors about the issues raised. That was a failing which means it cannot adequately demonstrate how it investigated the matter. As a result, while it appropriately apologised to the resident, we have found service failure in its handling of reports about staff conduct. Accordingly, we have ordered that the landlord remind staff of the importance of documenting internal investigations. This is so it can adequately demonstrate how it has investigated concerns raised.

The resident’s reports of ASB

The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She said that she reported issues with her neighbour smoking cannabis which were not addressed by the landlord. Records show that the resident contacted the landlord about this issue in December 2023. The landlord noted it had registered her concern at this time. However, there is no evidence it provided advice to the resident about what it would do about her report. It should reasonably have done so. As a result, it is clear from the resident’s subsequent complaint in March 2024 that she was left with the impression it had done nothing about her report. In its stage 2 response on 3 May 2024 the landlord directed the resident to contact the police about her concerns that illegal drugs were being used. It also said it would arrange for its advisory team to contact her to offer advice and support. That was positive and appropriate. But this came more than 2 months after the resident raised concerns that nothing was being done about her reports.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acted more quickly to provide this advice and support to the resident. Although it has provided details of an email its housing adviser sent to the resident in April 2024 about visiting her, it is unclear what this related to. In line with its ASB policy, action taken by the landlord should be proportionate to the situation. The reports from the resident may not have warranted formal action against her neighbour. But the landlord should reasonably have taken earlier steps to provide advice and guidance to the resident. Such advice would have reassured her that it was appropriately taking account of her reports. Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed. However, it wrote to the resident in advance to explain the delay. It provided her with a date in January 2024 when it would provide its response. That was appropriate, as was its apology for this delay. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was more significantly delayed. It wrote to the resident in advance of the target response advising that this would be delayed. The resident subsequently said she had not received this letter. It is unfortunate this letter did not reach her, but we have seen no evidence it was not sent by the landlord. However, we note the resident was in contact with landlord by email around this time. She requested it send her the stage 2 response, noting it was already beyond its target response date. In responding the landlord said it would provide the response within the “agreed extension timeframe”. But it could reasonably have identified from what the resident said that she was not aware of this extension. It could then have provided clear information about this. That it did not clearly caused the resident some frustration.
That the landlord also failed to meet its extended target date of 22 April 2024 can only have added to the resident’s frustration. It wrote to her on 23 April 2024 apologising for this further delay, which it said was due to the complexity of issues raised. But it did so after its extended deadline had passed. That was a failing. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), the landlord should reasonably have agreed any revised deadlines with the resident. It “thanked” her for the extra time she had allowed it to investigate her concerns. But she had been given no choice in this. It should reasonably have apologised for the 1-month delay in its complaint response and the frustration and inconvenience this caused to her. Given this, it would also have been appropriate for the landlord to recognise this delay by considering an award of compensation. That there is no evidence it did so is a failing. Its delay in responding to the resident’s concerns resulted in delays acting on outstanding repairs and concerns about its handling of ASB reports. It should have appropriately recognised this. Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of this failing.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs at the property.
3. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about pest infestation.
4. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
5. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
6. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £800 made up of:
  1. £100 previously awarded for failings in its handling of the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy.
  2. £450 for the impact of failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs at the property. This includes the £300 previously awarded.
  3. £75 for the failings in its handling of concerns about pest infestation.
  4. £75 for the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  5. £100 for the impact of its complaint handling failings.
3. provide the resident with the £50 decorating voucher if it has not already done so.
4. contact the resident to agree a clear plan for completing all outstanding work, along with timescales.
5. obtain details of the damage to the resident’s blinds and consider how to remedy this.
6. remind its staff that surfaces such as the inside of windows should be checked for dirt or dust prior to the start of tenancies.
7. remind staff of the importance of considering compensation awards to recognised delayed complaint responses.
8. remind staff of the importance of adequately documenting investigations regarding concerns about staff conduct.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report contact the resident to:
1. review any ongoing ASB concerns.
2. obtain details of any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the resident’s household.