LiveWest Homes Limited (202007797)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007797

LiveWest Homes Limited

30 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding defects which she had reported in respect of the property.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding high energy costs.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the shared-owner of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
The resident purchased their share (25%) of the property on 31 August 2018.
The property is a new build three storey mid-terrace house.
The defects period for the property ended in August 2019.

Summary of events

On becoming the shared-owner of the property the resident began raising concerns regarding the property and continued to do so up until the landlord issued its final response. In summary the resident’s concerns included:
1. Defects and repairs.
  1. Defective windows and Velux window blind.
  2. Defective gully grill drainage and guttering.
  3. Flower beds containing gravel rather than soil.
  4. Garden fence.
  5. Garden paving slabs.
  6. Faulty rotary drier.
  7. Rear doors.
  8. Faults to the heating system including thermostats.
  9. Missing switch for landing light.
  10. Electrics, including smoke alarm and carbon monoxide detector.
  11. Bathroom flooring.
  12. Screws sticking out of water meter.
  13. Missing internal door between garage and property.
2. High energy consumption due to faults with the heating system.
3. No internet connection on becoming the shared-owner.
The Ombudsman can see that between August 2018 and October 2020, the date which the resident referred her complaint to this Service, the resident raised two complaints with the landlord regarding the property.

Complaint one

The resident made a complaint about the property’s heating system in early May 2019. The resident stated that her complaint was about “heating problems and [her] enormous energy bill”. The resident noted that she had first reported defects to the heating system on becoming the shared-owner. The resident reported that engineers had recently inspected the heating system and identified “defects” which had led to “greater energy consumption”. The resident advised that she was unable to pay her energy bill and wanted assistance from the landlord.
Following acknowledgment of the complaint by the landlord the resident provided further details to support her complaint on 8 May 2019. In summary the resident said:
1. Thermostats:
  1. Initially she was unable to programme the two thermostats in the property.
  2. Both thermostats were programmed “twice incorrectly” by the landlord.
  3. No instructions were provided on how to use the thermostats.
  4. The landlord replaced one thermostat with an incorrect model which “didn’t work at all”.
2. Inability to control energy consumption:
  1. As the thermostats were wrongly programmed it resulted in higher energy consumption.
  1. As she was unable to turn the radiator off on the ground floor, which housed only the garage and front door, it resulted in higher energy consumption. The resident noted that the heating engineer turned the radiator off in April 2019.
3. Availability of heating:
  1. As the thermostats were programmed incorrectly the heating did not “come on at any regular time”.
  1. Various parts of the heating system stopped working on “at least three occasions” and she was therefore left without heating.
4. Due to the problems she had experienced with the heating system the property was “either too hot or too cold”.
5. Despite raising concerns with the landlord it had not been proactive.
6. The problems with the heating system were only resolved “after months of battling [with the landlord] and only because the heating stopped working”.
7. Her recent energy bill was £493 for four and a half months which was “ridiculous”. The resident noted that she could not afford this.
On 9 May 2019 the landlord responded to the complaint following a conversation with the resident. The landlord has not indicated if the response was given under its complaint procedure. The landlord said it agreed that the resident had “experienced a number of issues with [her] heating since [she] moved into [the property”. The landlord confirmed that it had therefore agreed to issue the resident £250 to cover the “excess spend” in relation to her energy consumption.
On 14 May 2019 the resident responded to the landlord to thank it “for providing a solution to the problems with the excessive energy consumption”.

Complaint two

On 6 December 2019 the resident registered a complaint with the landlord. Within her correspondence the resident did not explicitly detail the grounds on which she made the complaint, however the resident expressed that she was concerned regarding staff conduct in relation to the issues she was complaining about including inappropriate emails, intimidation and poor communication. With her complaint the resident enclosed several supporting documents including:
1. Photos of a carbon monoxide detector and thermostat.
2. Gas meter report.
3. Electric meter report.
4. Electricity sign-off.
5. Electrical installation condition report (EICR).
6. Landlord’s guide to electrical safety.
7. Letter from the developer regarding her conduct dated 22 November 2019.
8. Redundancy letter from her employer dated 21 September 2018.
9. Statement of fitness for work.
On 11 December 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to acknowledge the complaint. The landlord confirmed that the complaint was in relation to its “approach to managing [her] concerns”. The landlord did not go on to provide further details of the complaint which it had registered.
Throughout December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord detailing the issues which were the subject of her complaint. The concerns raised by the resident included:
1. Unsafe electrics.
2. Defective windows.
3. Defective bathroom flooring.
4. Missing light swich for landing light.
5. Faulty heating system causing excessive energy consumption.
6. Faulty smoke alarm and carbon monoxide detector.
The resident stated that despite raising concerns with the landlord on many occasions since becoming the shared-owner of the property, the problems had not been remedied. The resident noted that some of the issues, such as defective windows and bathroom flooring, had been raised in the end of defects inspection in August 2019 but were still outstanding.
During December 2019, and while its complaint response was outstanding, the landlord reviewed the EICR provided by the resident and instructed an electrician to inspect the property to ensure that it was safe. The landlord reported back to the resident on 19 December 2019 that the electrics in the property were “safe and operating correctly”.
On 6 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. Her experience of living in the property had been “quite traumatic” and therefore she wanted to “move as quickly as possible”.
2. She had lived in the property for a period of one and a half years with many defects, of which not all had been resolved.
3. While she was “confident that [the landlord intended] to have the defects addressed, [she believed] it [would] take considerable time to organise and put everything right” and she did not have the energy to deal with the situation further.
4. She proposed that she “move out as soon as possible and hand [the property] to [the landlord] to resolve all outstanding defects”. The resident provided the following “solutions for moving”:
  1. Solution one – she rent out the property at “market rent” for a period of two years which would allow her to rent another house. Following the end of the two-year period she would make decision on next steps in relation to her shared-ownership.
  2. Solution two – the landlord rent out the property on a seven-year tenancy and provide her with a suitable alternative property during this period.
  3. Solution three – the landlord buy back her share of the property and provide her with “a social housing tenancy”.
5. In respect of solution one she would require compensation for her “experiences and most significantly for loss of earnings since [she] lost her job”. The resident stated that in relation to the other solutions she would not make a claim for compensation as the landlord would be offering her security and offering her affordable rent.
6. She required the landlord to pay the outstanding amount on her energy bill due to high energy consumption which was due to faults with the heating system.
During January 2020 the landlord and resident corresponded regarding the complaint, and the resident’s proposed solutions. In summary, and in approximate chronological order:
1. The landlord confirmed that it would contact the resident’s energy provider regarding her energy consumption.
2. The landlord confirmed that it had reviewed the resident’s energy bills and her usage was only slightly higher than normal. The landlord noted that the resident’s tariff was very high, charging “nearly double the best rate available”.
3. The landlord confirmed that it would be happy to instruct an independent gas engineer to investigate if excessive gas was being discharged by the boiler.
4. The landlord confirmed that it had reviewed the resident’s proposed solutions to resolve the complaint. The landlord explained that option one and two “would not be possible” as both options relied on some form of subletting. The landlord confirmed that option three was “potentially possible” as it may be able to buy back the resident’s share in the property, however it would not be able to offer alternative accommodation as this was “not within [its] control” as allocations were managed by the local authority. The landlord confirmed that it would explore this option further, including looking at providing financial support to cover the resident’s “legal costs of the sale, the cost of removal, up to three months storage and other associated costs such as post redirection”.
5. The resident raised questions regarding the National House Building Council’s (NHBC) involvement in the case. The resident noted that she had spoken to the NHBC who confirmed that it would be happy to take the issues forward.
6. The resident stated that the developer had attended the property unannounced to request access to the property to complete defects. The resident stated that she felt harassed and only let them in from fear of “eviction”.
7. The resident stated that the landlord was responsible for “a number of mis-selling issues” in relation to the property. The resident stated that included advising that she could work from home when she could not.
8. The resident stated that subletting should be permitted as her circumstances were exceptional.
9. The resident stated that all defects had not been remedied. The resident reported that some defects had been reported immediately on becoming the shared-owner.
10. The resident stated that the landlord had misinformed her that the defects period was two years rather than one.
11. The landlord confirmed that it would support home working however operating a business from the property would require permission.
12. The landlord confirmed that defects in year one were covered by it, and defects in year two should be raised directly to the NHBC.
13. The resident stated that she had lost her job as the property had no internet when she became the shared–owner.
14. The resident stated that she should be compensated for loss of earnings due to no home working and no internet.
15. The resident stated that the landlord had not reimbursed her the cost of gas and electrical reports which she had paid for and which the landlord had committed to paying.
16. The resident stated that due to a broken post box, which she had reported as a defect, she had missed communication from the local authority which had resulted in court fees. The resident stated that the landlord had not reimbursed the legal fees which it had committed to paying.
17. The resident stated that in order to resolve the complaint she required £129,250 compensation comprising:
  1. The property – approximately £67,000 for the share which she owned.
  2. Carpet, laminate flooring and tiles – £4000.
  3. Decoration materials – £150.
  4. Electrical fittings – £450.
  5. Garden – £900.
  6. Travel costs to return to Portugal – £800.
  7. Removal costs – £3000.
  8. Short term renting – £3000.
  9. Storage for three months – £450.
  10. Legal costs – £500.
  11. Loss of earnings – £49,000
On 3 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out that it was in the process of finalising its response and offer to the resident’s complaint. The landlord noted that the decision was delayed due to authorisation needed in respect of its proposed resolution.
On 6 February 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had arranged for payment to reimburse the resident for the gas and electrical report, in addition to the legal fees she was required to pay due to missing post.
Also on 6 February 2020 the landlord provided the resident with its proposal to resolve the complaint which was to buy back her share of the property, to pay her £3900 to cover moving costs and sale legal costs, and £850 as a good will gesture. The landlord noted within its proposal that it had identified “no evidence to substantiate” mis-selling of the property and it was better to focus on reaching an agreement to the resident’s complaint.
On 9 and 10 February 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s proposal. In summary she said:
1. She was unable to accept the landlord’s proposal as it left her “in a much worse position than when [she] bought the property”.
2. None of her other concerns had been investigated such as defects, the energy issue, staff conduct, mis-selling the property and loss of earnings.
On 12 February 2021 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. In summary the landlord said:
1. Loss of earnings:
  1. The information the resident had provided in relation to loss of earnings did not “sufficiently justify any claim in this regard”.
  2. It would have supported a request for home working had one been made in line “within the parameters acceptable to other occupiers” nearby.
  3. It noted that the resident had been made redundant in September 2018 due to lack of internet in the property. The landlord confirmed that it was a resident’s responsibility to make arrangements for internet and to make suitable arrangement until internet access was provided.
2. Energy usage:
  1. It had reviewed the resident’s energy bills and liaised with the energy provider and it had found that her energy usage was “normal”. The landlord confirmed that it had however identified that the resident’s tariff was higher than average which was resulting in a high cost for her energy.
3. Staff conduct:
  1. It had interviewed the team who had had contact with the resident since she became the shared-owner of the property.
  1. It was satisfied that its staff had conducted themselves appropriately in dealing with the resident.
  2. It noted that the resident’s conduct had been “challenging” at times.
4. Its review of the case showed that “shared ownership was not the right product” for the resident and it was sorry that she had struggled to meet the cost of living since losing her job.
5. In order to resolve the complaint it would like to make the following offer:
  1. To purchase the resident’s share of the property at independent valuation.
  1. To cover the resident’s removal costs – £3000.
  2. To cover the resident’s storage costs – £450.
  3. To cover the resident’s legal costs – £500.
  4. To award its “maximum level of compensation” of £850 as a goodwill gesture to “reflect the fact that [the resident has] had a high level of defects and disruption to the enjoyment of the property since moving in”.
6. Permission had not been given for the resident to sublet her property. The landlord said the resident’s latest request was to sublet the property and market rent an alternative property in the same area. The landlord stated that this did not represent an “exceptional circumstance” and was an “unacceptable risk” to it in terms of the security of the payment of the rental element of the property. The landlord added that it was not clear why the resident wished to rent another property in the same area rather than live in the property.
7. Its properties were designed to give residents the opportunity to work from home. The landlord advised that the resident would not need express permission from it to undertake office duties and telephone based-employment from the property. The landlord confirmed that if the resident wished to run a business from the property it would need to consider the request.
8. Its records showed that “any defects raised for [the property had] been addressed and rectified”. The landlord noted that the resident provided access to the developer to complete the defects in January 2020.
9. It provided the resident with a copy of the electrical investigation of the property “last week” which confirmed compliance.
The landlord concluded by confirming that if the resident was not happy with its response she may refer her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding defects which she had reported in respect of the property

In responding to the complaint the landlord’s position was that the defects which the resident had reported had been “addressed and rectified”. The landlord did not go on to provide further details in relation to the defects within its response. This is unsatisfactory as it has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate this aspect of the complaint. In responding to the complaint the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide adequate reason and explanation to support its position that all defects reported by the resident were addressed. Without this information it is difficult for the Ombudsman to assess the quality of the landlord’s decision making, taking into account the known circumstances at the time, and therefore whether its position was reasonable or not.
While the landlord did not provide reason and explanation to support its position that all defects were addressed and rectified within its complaint response, the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with its contemporaneous records to demonstrate how it did respond to the resident’s reports of defects between August 2018 and February 2020, the date of its final response. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s records are extensive. The defects include windows, electrics, heating system, gutters, and bathroom flooring.
In determining this aspect of the complaint, the Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s overall response to the defects rather than considering its response to each of the individual defects reported by the resident. The Ombudsman considers that this is a proportionate approach noting the number of defects reported, and the lack of clarify as to the defects registered and considered as part of the landlord’s complaint investigation.
Following a review of the landlord’s records the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the records demonstrate clear ownership of the defects which the resident began reporting after she became the shared-owner, and thereafter. While the landlord did engage with the resident’s reports and did look to take steps to put things right for items which it was responsible for, the Ombudsman has not identified a clear action plan to record and progress the reported defects, including with the developer. The Ombudsman suggests that this resulted in unclear outcomes for the resident, including timescales for issues to be resolved, and prevented prompt resolutions on some issues. The Ombudsman notes that some issues which the resident reported on becoming the shared-owner were highlighted as outstanding following the end of defects inspection in August 2019. From the evidence, the Ombudsman has not been able to determine whether the resident received an outcome to each defect which she reported. While this is unsatisfactory the Ombudsman has however not identified any evidence which suggests that the landlord was trying to evade its responsibilities or that it was unwilling to address the issues which the resident was reporting.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s records document some no access appointments, cancelled appointments and instances of “abusive” behaviour by the resident. The Ombudsman accepts that this will have impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond to and address the defects. The Ombudsman also notes that the resident disputes any inappropriate conduct.
Throughout the period the Ombudsman can see that the landlord discussed the NHBC with the resident. The landlord advised the resident that she was entitled to contact the NHBC in relation to the defects and for assistance in resolving her concerns if she was not satisfied with its response or the action it was taking. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate as the NHBC was the warranty and insurance provider for the property. The Ombudsman can see that the NHBC wrote to the landlord in January 2020, following contact by the resident. The NHBC stated that the resident was concerned regarding the following defects:
1. Electrical issues.
2. Kitchen window.
3. Heating system.
4. Landing light switch.
5. Velux windows.
The Ombudsman has identified an internal email in relation to the NHBC’s letter which sets out that the issues with the windows, Velux window, light swich had not yet been fully resolved. The landlord confirmed that the property’s electrics and heating system had been checked and no issues were identified.
To resolve the complaint the landlord proposed to purchase the resident’s share of the property at independent valuation, offered £3950 in moving costs and legal fees and an additional £850 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of the defects the resident had experienced.
Where a landlord has made an offer of redress to resolve a complaint the Ombudsman will then consider if its offer is reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the circumstances of the case as it sought to return the resident to a similar position to which she was in prior to purchasing the property, in addition to providing a sum of compensation to recognise that its handling of the defects was not always satisfactory. The landlord’s offer was also reasonable as it took into account the resident’s wish to sell her share of the property, and it was not a request that it was obliged to meet.
The resident does not consider that the landlord’s offer of redress goes far enough as it did not make an award for loss of earnings, which she considered was due to the landlord’s actions, and did not provide her with alternative accommodation. While the resident’s concerns are noted, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was not responsible for the resident’s employment status and the landlord was not responsible for providing the resident with alternative accommodation on selling her share. The Ombudsman notes that it is a resident’s responsibility to arrange internet for their property. The Ombudsman also notes the following clause within the property’s lease that states “not to use the premises for anything other than as a private resident in single occupation and not for any purpose which may cause a nuisance or annoyance to the owners, lessees or occupiers of premises of neighbouring properties” which supports the landlord’s position that home working comprising of office duties was permissible.
The Ombudsman notes that as part of the conveyancing process it is the responsibility of the buyer and their solicitor to carry our searches and to identify and resolve any risks in relation to the purchase of a property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was therefore the resident’s responsibility to ensure that she was satisfied that the property was suitable for her needs prior to completing the transaction.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding high energy costs

In response to the resident’s ongoing concerns regarding high energy costs the landlord reviewed the resident’s energy bills and contacted the resident’s energy company. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable approach to investigate the issue, noting that it was the landlord’s position that there was no fault to the heating system. The landlord’s conclusion, following its review was the resident’s energy costs were considered within the normal range however her tariff was higher than average. Therefore, as the landlord had identified that the resident’s energy costs were as a result of her tariff, rather than an issue it was responsible for, it was reasonable for it to deny responsibility for the matter.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct

While the resident’s concerns about unprofessional staff conduct are noted, following a review of the evidence the Ombudsman has not identified any evidence that the landlord’s staff acted inappropriately or unprofessionally in dealing with her concerns. The Ombudsman is further satisfied that the landlord completed an appropriate investigation of the issue as part of its complaint procedure, as it interviewed its staff and reviewed its records as part of that process.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operated various complaints procedures throughout the period under investigation. However, under each procedure the landlord operated a two-stage process, aiming to provide stage one responses within five working days and stage two responses within seven working days.
While the landlord did not set out if its response to complaint one, dated 9 May 2019, was a formal response under its complaint procedure which would have been best practice, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not amount to a service failure. This is because the landlord’s response was provided within its service standard and the resident accepted the landlord’s response and resolution.
The Ombudsman is however not satisfied with the landlord’s handling of complaint two. Despite raising her complaint in December 2019 the landlord did not provide a formal response until February 2020, a period of approximately three months. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the delay in progressing the case through the complaint process was unacceptable. The Ombudsman expects a complaint to progress in a timely fashion as this provides the best opportunity for a complaint process to act in a complementary manner to a landlord’s overall service delivery, enabling potential issues to be identified and addressed. In this case the landlord did not do so. The Ombudsman accepts that it was reasonable for the landlord to not offer escalation of the complaint to a second stage, because as part of its stage one investigation it had liaised with executive staff regarding its response who would be undertaking the review.
On receiving complaint two the landlord did not clarify the scope of the complaint, rather the landlord confirmed that it would investigate its “approach to managing [the resident’s] concerns”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it would have been appropriate, and best practice, for the landlord to set out its understanding of the complaint and the exact issues which it would be investigating under the complaint procedure. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this would have focused the landlord’s investigation and managed the resident’s expectations on the issues which were going to be considered. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code landlords should confirm their understanding of the complaint and the outcome being sought with the resident – clarification should be sought if the complaint is not clear.
As set out in paragraph 25 it was unsatisfactory that the landlord did not provide a detailed response to the resident’s concerns regarding defects. This may have helped the resident to understand its position on the various items and which ones it was actively progressing, whilst drawing a line under issues where the landlord did not intend to take any further action.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves the following aspect of the complaint:
1. Its response to the resident’s concerns regarding defects which she had reported in respect of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding high energy costs.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding defects which she had reported in respect of the property

While the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord’s records demonstrate a clear and robust plan to address the defects which the resident had reported, including whether all issues have been addressed, the landlord’s offer of redress is proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord has made an offer which seeks to return the resident to the position she was in prior to purchasing a share in the property, in addition to awarding a sum to recognise that its handling of the defects was not always satisfactory and therefore did impact on her enjoyment of the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding high energy costs

The landlord’s decision that it was not responsible for the resident’s high energy costs was reasonable as it had established that the resident’s tariff was resulting in the higher cost, rather than a fault it was responsible for.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct

The Ombudsman has not identified any evidence to support the resident’s concerns of inappropriate staff conduct. The Ombudsman must base its decisions on evidence. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord completed an appropriate investigation of the resident’s concerns as part of its complaint response, which was reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was unsatisfactory as:
1. It significantly delayed in providing a formal response to complaint two.
2. It failed to clarify the scope of the complaint on receipt and therefore to set the parameters of the investigation it would undertake.
3. It failed to provide reason and explanation to support its conclusion that all defects were addressed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation in respect of its complaint handling within four weeks of the date of this report. This is in addition to the £850 already offered by the landlord as compensation.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has not accepted the landlord’s offer of redress, which she is entitled to do. In recognition that it is the resident’s position that all defects have not been addressed, and that the Ombudsman’s investigation has not been able to clearly establish if all defects have been remedied, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should inspect the property within four weeks of this determination. Following the inspection the landlord should write to the resident setting out the defects it is responsible for addressing and provide an action plan setting out timescales for the works to be completed. Where a defect is disputed the landlord and resident may wish to consider engaging the NHBC.