Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

LiveWest Homes Limited (201912691)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912691

LiveWest Homes Limited

1 March 2021


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 response to the resident’s complaint about the service charges for the property.

2.     The complaint is about the level of service charges for the servicing of the fire extinguishers, communal electricity charges and storage clearance.

Jurisdiction

3.     What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

4.     After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the complaint about the level of service charges for the servicing of the fire extinguishers, communal electricity charges and storage clearance.

    Reasons

5.     The resident explained that he had concerns which went back to 2012 about the landlord’s charges for the services it provided. These included the charges for the electricity in the communal area and the emergency lights. In October 2019 the resident said “lighting has been on 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The fault has been reported on numerous occasions the sensor had been replaced this summer”. The landlord said that a repair had been reported twice and it had since rectified the cost of the communal electricity, however, the resident remained dissatisfied with the level of the charges. The resident was also dissatisfied with the cost of fitting the lights and explained that this was an integral part of the building which the landlord should not be charging residents for.

6.     The resident explained his dissatisfaction with the costs incurred by the residents for the landlord’s maintenance of the fire safety equipment, stating that these were too high. This included the replacement of fire extinguishers and, upon escalating the matter to the Ombudsman, the cost of checking that the fire alarms were working.

7.     The resident also complained about the cost of clearing the storage cupboards. The resident also felt that the cost of replacing the internal doors had been incurred by residents. The landlord said that there is only one cost associated with storage clearance and replacing the internal doors will not be charged to residents. It said that the clearance of the cupboard occurred in March 2019 and residents were told in May 2018, June 2018 and January 2019 about removing their belongings. It offered notice to residents, though the resident said he had been unwell and had not seen this at the time.

8.     The ultimate cause of dissatisfaction for the resident is the level of the service charges. Complaints about the level of service charges, including whether these are fair and reasonable, can be enquired about with the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The Scheme excludes such complaints from the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as per paragraph 39(g), “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.

Background and summary of events

Background

9.     The resident’s secure tenancy with the landlord commenced in 1992. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat. There are 12 flats in the block and the residents pay a variable service charge, meaning that the costs are based on the actual or estimated costs of services and so can vary each year.

Complaint policy

10. The landlord’s compliments, complaints and feedback policy states that the landlord has a two-stage complaint procedure. At stage one it aims to reach an “immediate solution” within 24 hours, failing that it discusses the complaint, including the resolution and timescale, with the resident. At stage two, the landlord considers meeting with the resident to discuss the complaint, the next steps and the timescales. The timescale to respond is “normally no more than 7 days” but can be negotiated with the resident.

11. The policy also allows the landlord to agree to “small goodwill gestures and compensation payments” as part of the complaint process. The basis of offering a goodwill gesture is not an identified loss or impact from service failure but rather to “recognise a level of inconvenience or to say sorry for a customer’s experience”. The guided amount for goodwill gestures is £25 as a one off payment.

Summary of events

12. On 17 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to query service charges at the property. On 6 November 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to follow up. The resident had asked about the repairs to the fire extinguishers, the electricity cost for the communal lighting and lack of action to replace the sensors, the rubbish removal, cost of repairs to the fire alarm among other items.

13. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage one of its internal complaint procedure on 6 November 2019 before subsequently providing its response on 20 November 2019; it held it had responded to his queries within a reasonable timeframe and it offered detailed answers. A copy of its response has not been provided to the Service.

14. The resident escalated the complaint on 13 December 2019 as he was “unhappy with the (stage one) response”. The landlord’s records state that it escalated the complaint internally on 16 December 2019.

15. The landlord’s records state that it contacted the resident several times in January 2020, it discussed:

  1. the stage two investigation and timescale
  2. the reason for delays in its investigation, citing the Christmas and New Year’s public holiday
  3. additional information regarding the resident’s original request
  4. the possibility of a meeting to discuss the items, closing the complaint unless otherwise advised by the resident

16. The landlord issued a stage two response on 10 January 2020. This said that:

  1. the fire extinguishers were serviced following recommendations from a third party fire consultant, it offered sight of the reports which recommended faulty equipment be replaced
  2. it did not replace equipment unless necessary
  3. it referred to an earlier response of 13 November 2019 (not provided) about a historic dispute over the electricity costs. It said that there had been a fault with the lights reported twice, in October 2018 and April 2019, and these costs were rectified
  4. it also referred to previous communication whereby the resident was provided with information related to the invoices for the replacement of emergency lights during 2018-19
  5. it gave notice to residents to remove items from the ground floor storage cupboard and it did not charge residents for the replacement of its doors, it also said that there was one cost related to clearance, and
  6. it offered to arrange a meeting to discuss the points the resident raised.

17. It subsequently arranged a meeting on 30 January 2020. Later, on 11 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to summarise the outcome of the meeting, and how the landlord would approach resident queries about service charges, delivery of services or any other matters. It explained the reason for splitting the service charge and rent, so that the residents could view the breakdown of the service charges. It also offered all residents a gesture of goodwill credited to the rent account; this was for £50 per resident.

18. In the escalation to the Ombudsman in March 2021, the resident confirmed that the lighting was the responsibility of the landlord, the charges had increased by 30%, the residents were charged for fire equipment, there was an increase in the charge for servicing fire equipment/smoke dispersal and repairs. The resident felt that the costs were too high.

Assessment and findings

19. It is worth iterating that the key concern which the resident had about the landlord’s service is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or the scope of this investigation. The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s services were that the costs of these services were too high and the cost of the maintenance or repairs were too high. The resident progressed the complaint with this Service nonetheless, on the basis that the Ombudsman could consider if the landlord responded reasonably.

20. The landlord’s complaint procedure does not stipulate a timeframe for when the complaint response is due, other than to say that the stage one complaint will first try to be resolved within 24 hours, where possible, and the stage two response should be provided within seven days and after discussions with the resident. The procedure otherwise sets out the landlord’s approach to complaints and that it will agree a timescale with the resident, before setting out the ways it may try to resolve resident dissatisfaction. The landlord is expected by the Ombudsman to respond to formal complaints within a reasonable timeframe and offer the resident communication about the progress of a complaint, especially if this becomes protracted.

21. The landlord was contacted by the resident in October and November 2019 about the service charges. It acknowledged the complaint on 6 November 2019. It did not explain the delay between October and November, but it stated that it called the resident to discuss the issues before logging the matter as a formal complaint in November. After escalating the complaint to stage two on 13 December 2019, the landlord’s records suggest it logged this internally and requested more information about the service charges. It then contacted the resident on 8 January 2020 to explain the delays and discuss the timescale before sending a further response on 10 January 2020 to provide information and propose a meeting. The records from 16 December 2019 to 8 January 2020 have not been provided to the Ombudsman, but the resident has not disputed this. The landlord then sent a follow up letter on 21 January 2020 to confirm the arrangement for the meeting which took place on 30 January 2020, with a final response after the meeting sent on 11 March 2020.

22. The ongoing communication from the landlord to the resident demonstrates that it took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s complaint and offered opportunities to engage with the resident’s concerns about the service charges. While the overall complaint journey appears to be protracted (from November 2019 to March 2020) the evidence seen demonstrates that the landlord was resolution focused by arranging discussions and a meeting with the resident about the service charges and it maintained its communication with the resident throughout this period, including to explain the delays during the stage two escalation process.

23. With respect to its response to the substantive issues, the landlord explained the reason for its actions in respect of the fire equipment but it has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the third party evidence which the landlord relied on and shared with the resident. However, the resident has not disputed that this was shared with him. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it provided an explanation for the actions and offered the resident the third party evidence to substantiate this.

24. The landlord’s language and tone with the resident as seen in its complaint response reflected its willingness to work in partnership with the resident to resolve the issues, such as by inviting the resident’s comments and agreement before closing the case. Though the resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint, this was due to his dissatisfaction with the level of service charges. In accordance with the discretion allowed to it under its complaint procedure, it also offered the resident a gesture of goodwill, though no fault had been identified with its service

Determination (decision)

25. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about the service charge queries.

Reasons

26. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint reasonably as it acted within the parameters of its internal complaint procedure; it arranged a meeting with the resident to discuss the concerns raised about the service charges and demonstrated a resolution focussed approach.