LiveWest Homes Limited (202006530)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006530

LiveWest Homes Limited

7 May 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 reports about:

a)     The property condition at the start of the tenancy;

b)     Staff conduct.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a general needs one bedroom flat. The tenancy start date was 30 January 2020.
  2. The landlord’s empty homes standard includes the following:

a)     All walls to be free of ‘ingrained dirt, graffiti, damp and mould’, with surfaces ‘reasonably smooth and free from disrepair, ready to receive decoration’;

b)     Floor coverings should be in good condition and will be left in place if the condition is appropriate;

c)     The property should be cleaned thoroughly and should be free from ‘grease, stains, limescale, mould, dirt and dust’.

  1. The landlord’s compensation guidance includes a matrix for discretionary awards of compensation:

a)     Low level impact – no significant inconvenience or distress – up to £25 one off payment;

b)     Moderate level impact – moderate level of inconvenience – £200 maximum payment

c)     High level impact – serious failure in service standards – £500 maximum payment.

Summary of events

  1. The landlord has provided evidence of the allocation process that took place in advance of the tenancy start date, this includes:

a)     Property advertised 17 September 2019;

b)     Landlord attempted to contact resident on 23 October 2019, no answer;

c)     Landlord carried out a phone interview with resident 28 October 2019;

d)     Resident accepted the offer of tenancy on 13 November 2019;

e)     Viewing originally arranged for 2 December 2019, then re-arranged for 19 December – this second viewing was then delayed due to a roof leak;

f)       Landlord emailed resident to say that it was using a contractor to try and push forward the date that the property would be ready for let. It said that it wanted to give her the chance to ‘view and sign up on separate days so that you get the chance to measure up and decide if you’d definitely like to take it’.

g)     Viewing re-scheduled for 30 January 2020 as a ‘simultaneous viewing and sign-up at resident’s request’. This was confirmed by an internal landlord email following a telephone call with the resident. The email reads ‘she’ll actually like to view and sign up in one go should it definitely be ready’.

  1. The landlord’s repair records from the end of the previous tenancy until the start of the resident’s tenancy include confirmation that ceiling works to make good damage caused by the roof leak was completed on 24 January 2020.
  2. The viewing went ahead on 30 January 2020, and the resident signed both the tenancy agreement and the sign–up checklist/property acceptance form on that date.  The property acceptance form signed on 30 January 2020 includes the following: ‘I/We confirm that the condition of the property has been agreed with the landlord staff member as being in accordance with the landlord’s letting standard at the time of accepting the tenancy’. No repairs were listed as outstanding at the time that the tenancy was signed.
  3. The landlord’s repair records from the end of the previous tenancy until the start of the resident’s tenancy confirm that flooring was removed from the property on 28 March 2020. The specific flooring that was removed on this date is not stated, though an addendum to the landlord’s records also states ‘the voids team also arranged for the removal of flooring in the lounge area that had been left as a gifted item from the previous tenancy’.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2020 in relation to concerns she had regarding the property condition and the sign-up process that had resulted in her being offered the tenancy. She said that she had viewed the exterior of the property before bidding for it; and had then been offered the tenancy following a telephone interview. She said that she had been unable to attend a planned viewing in November 2019, that a further viewing planned for 19 December 2019 did not go ahead due to a leak and that she eventually viewed the property on 30 January 2020. She said that she understood that she would be permitted to view the property and then decide later if she wished to proceed, however, on the day, the landlord officer had ‘snapped’ at her and left her with ‘no option but to sign a tenancy agreement’. She said that she regretted accepting the tenancy as it had ‘blood spatters’ from the previous tenants and several other indications that the property had previously been used as a drugs den. The landlord raised a formal complaint in response to these concerns.
  5. The landlord has provided evidence of the investigation it carried out in relation to the conduct of the staff member during the viewing/sign up. The member of staff denied having acted inappropriately on the day and said he had been more than willing to provide the resident with more time to think about her decision, but that she had wanted to proceed on the day. He also said that he had continued to liaise with her over the following weeks in relation to the removal of the floor and provision of a gas safety certificate, during which the resident had raised no concerns about his earlier conduct.
  6. The landlord reports that it experienced difficulties in making contact with the resident in order to progress the complaint, resulting in it closing the complaint at a time when COVID-19 had caused an impact on its service delivery. It wrote to the resident to confirm this (7 April 2020) and confirmed that it would re-open the complaint if she chose to get back in contact when its service delivery returned to normal. The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 May 2020, sending photos of what she considered to be ‘blood marks left by drug users’ throughout the property. The landlord re-opened the complaint and carried out a review of the sign-up process.
  7. The landlord’s investigation identified that the property had not met its service standards at the tenancy start date. This was confirmed to the resident in its stage one response of 1 July 2020, in which it apologised and offered the resident compensation of £250, to reflect costs she had incurred in re-decorating and the ‘moderate’ level of inconvenience that had been experienced. The landlord did not identify any service failure with respect to staff conduct in the sign-up process, stating that ‘it was felt by him that he gave adequate information in allowing you to raise your concerns’. However, the landlord recognised the complaint as a potential learning opportunity for the staff member involved and said that it would review training/policy needs as a result.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied and requested escalation to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. She said that she was not satisfied that no further action would be taken against the staff member, nor with the level of compensation, which she believed ought to have been significantly higher (£2,500). She said that her main concern was that she had not been given the opportunity to think about whether she wanted to proceed with the tenancy, as she had previously been told would be the case. She said that she was unaware what the landlord’s policy was for signing tenancies, but knew what she had been told.
  9. The landlord sent its stage two response on 24 July 2020. The landlord confirmed the original decision and re-offered the £250 in compensation. It said that a major leak occurred just before the property was ready to let which delayed remedial works and that it had then used a contractor to complete the works, including the re-decorating. The landlord acknowledged that there were lessons to be learnt from the complaint, particularly regarding responsibility for final checks. Regarding the staff conduct issue, it said that such issues were difficult to prove either way. It also said that the officer involved felt that he had sought to follow process and not to apply pressure.
  10. The resident submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 September 2020. She said that she had been ‘bullied’ into accepting the tenancy and requested that the landlord award her compensation and subsidise her moving costs to a property not owned by it. She also said that she had been told that she would lose entitlement to the £250 compensation offered during the complaints process if she escalated her complaint.
  11. The landlord stated, in correspondence with the Ombudsman, that all concerns regarding the property condition have been resolved, with the exception of some ceiling works, for which it was unable to access the property.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s complaint relates to her dissatisfaction with the process that led to her moving into the property. In her view, the property was not fit for moving in due to the stains left on the walls by previous occupants, including blood stains left over from drug usage. It is clear that her main point of concern relates to what happened on the date of sign-up, as she felt pressured into accepting for fear of losing the opportunity to take the tenancy. For the purposes of this investigation, the complaint has been separated into two parts; the landlord’s response to the reports about the condition of the property and its response to the reports about how the sign-up process was handled.
  2. The Ombudsman’s role in the investigation of complaints involving member landlords is limited to an evidence–based analysis of events as they occurred. Having reviewed and considered the evidence available, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has acted inappropriately or unreasonably in light of its obligations under the occupancy agreement or any relevant policies or procedures.

Property condition at sign-up

  1. It is not disputed that, on 30 January 2020, the resident met with the landlord at the property and completed a viewing of the property. Following this viewing, she signed the tenancy agreement and property acceptance form, which confirmed no outstanding repair issues at that time, indicating that the property was ready to let. Having signed these documents, it is evident that the resident accepted the property in its existing condition at that date.
  2. Following the resident’s complaint however, the landlord acknowledged that the property had not met its service standards at the point of sign-up. Whilst this was a reasonable response by the landlord following its review of photographic evidence from the resident and following its own internal investigation. It would have been helpful however if the landlord had provided more detail at either stage one or two of its investigation as to the specific failures it had identified – including its position regarding the resident’s comments about blood stains throughout the property. Internal landlord correspondence implied that these stains may have in fact resulted from the roof leak in December 2020, though there is no reference to this in the landlord’s responses to the resident. Providing this clarity might have given the resident reassurance about the staining and the thoroughness of the landlord’s investigation.
  3. Having identified the service failure in its voids process, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised and offered compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. Its offer of £250 was listed to reflect a ‘moderate’ impact upon the resident, though the amount was actually in excess of the maximum award under such a definition within the landlord’s compensation guidance. In the Ombudsman’s view, the amount offered was both reasonable and proportionate to the service failure identified.
  4. The resident said in her complaint to the Ombudsman that she understood that the landlord’s offer of compensation would be rescinded should she decide to escalate her complaint. There is no evidence of this in the landlord’s correspondence, with the final response confirming that it viewed the amount offered to be reasonable. As such, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Staff conduct

  1. It is not disputed that, prior to the viewing that took place on 30 January 2020, the resident had discussions with landlord staff about the process for completing the sign-up of the tenancy. Landlord correspondence dated 23 January explicitly stated that it wanted the resident to have the chance to take time after the viewing to consider whether she wanted to accept. In addition, according to the landlord’s records, a phone call from the resident on the morning of the viewing confirmed her decision that she wanted to do the viewing and sign-up at the same time as she had viewed the property externally and she could not ‘foresee there being anything to put her off’. As such, it is accepted by the Ombudsman that the landlord was prepared to schedule separate appointments to view the property and then to sign the tenancy agreement to ensure that she had adequate time to consider her decision.
  2. Beyond the documents that were signed during the viewing/sign-up meeting, there is no evidence of the discussions held between the resident and the landlord staff member. The resident has confirmed that she felt pressured during this meeting and the landlord member of staff disputed this version of events. The Ombudsman is not able to make a finding based on the balance of probabilities in such circumstances as doing so would be beyond the remit of the evidence based nature of the Ombudsman investigation process. It is expected however, that a landlord will take any such reports seriously and will conduct a suitable investigation in an attempt to identify any service failure. In this case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s investigation was suitably thorough and that, having identified no inappropriate behaviour nor procedural failures, it did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress for the service failures it identified relating to the property condition at tenancy start date.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about staff conduct.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s investigation of the complaint identified that it had not met its service standards regarding the property condition at the tenancy start date. The landlord’s apology and offer of compensation amounted to a reasonable offer of redress for this service failure, in consideration of the landlord’s compensation guidance as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  2. There is evidence that the landlord carried out a suitable investigation into the resident’s reports about staff conduct and, having identified no evidence of inappropriate behaviour or procedural failures, it was appropriate that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to pay the resident the £250 compensation previously offered during the complaints process.