LiveWest Homes Limited (202112164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112164

LiveWest Homes Limited

31 October 2022

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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of defects in the property.
2. Concerns that the boundary to the site has allowed access to the property, and antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

The landlord’s Home User Guide states that “Each property has a number of checks carried out before it is handed over to our customers. However, there may be some items that have been missed. If there are any faults in your property please contact us. If the repairs are the contractor’s responsibility, we will aim to get these resolved as soon as possible for you”.
With regards to reporting repairs, the Guide states that “Once the repair has been logged the contractor will be asked to fix this within a set amount of time, you will be advised of the anticipated timescale for this repair. The contractor should contact you to make suitable arrangements for carrying out the work. You will need to provide access … Occasionally it can take longer than our anticipated timescales for the contractor to resolve the repair, for example, if they have to order a specialist part. Where this is the case, we will support you to get these items resolved by the contractor”.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that “Where we receive ASB reports, we will provide advice and support to ensure that complainants understand that often the quickest and most effective resolution is for neighbours to resolve disputes locally themselves. We will intervene only where it is appropriate for us to do so, given our responsibilities as a landlord, and in consideration of the harm of likely harm caused to individuals”.

Summary of Events

The resident is a shared owner of the landlord. His property is a house and the lease for his property commenced on 16 July 2020.
In August 2020 the resident raised several defects with the landlord including a wobbly fence with insecure posts.
On 16 August 2020 the resident reported concerns about dog mess on his doorstep and youths knocking on his door at late hours. He stated this occurred because the boundary to the development, as per the site plans, was not properly built, therefore there was access outside his property to an adjacent playing field. He asked the landlord to pursue the issue with the developer.
On 2 October 2020 the resident advised the landlord that neither it nor the developer had responded to his email of 16 August 2020, and he was still having issues with dog mess on his doorstep as well as youths ringing his bell and running away. He reiterated his view that a secure boundary to the development, or at the very least properly arranged access to the playing field would help remove this issue.
The resident also noted that a fence contractor had attended on 28 September 2020, noted the fence had a “good swing” on it and would inform the developer about the loose footings. On 7 October 2020, the landlord advised it would check whether the boundary fence met with its designs, and that it would pass on the resident’s comments about ASB to its Housing Team.
On 20 October 2021 the resident reiterated his concerns about ASB stating that prior to purchasing his property he had been assured that his property would be at the end of the cul-de-sac and that there would be no access to the playing field or plans to create an access route. However, on moving it became apparent that the fencing was bypassed by people passing within a foot of the kitchen window. He advised that there was a large opening in the fence through which a path appeared to have become established.
In response, the landlord advised that plans could be subject to change as the development progressed, but it would seek further information. It advised the resident to report ASB to the proper agency, such as the police, and that unaccompanied dogs and dog fouling should be reported to the dog warden and local authority.
On 27 October 2020, the resident advised the landlord that four weeks had passed since the developer inspected the fence. On the same day the landlord chased the developer. The landlord also chased the developer on 25 November, 2 December 2020 and 11 January 2021 requesting updates on the outstanding works.
On 13 November 2020 the resident reported that the locking mechanism and floorplate of the front door were faulty. However, the landlord has stated that it did not receive the report at the time.
On 23 November 2020, the resident reported that a meter installer had raised concerns about the electrical installation, in particular damaged wiring from the meter to the consumer unit. The landlord has stated that it did not receive the report at the time.
The resident has stated that on 26 November 2020 he reported that the fire/smoke alarm was poorly installed and that on 31 December 2020, he chased up the outstanding defects. The landlord has stated that it did not receive the reports at the time.
On 8 January 2021 the resident raised a complaint expressing concerns about outstanding defects, specifically, the fence, the locking mechanism and floor plate to the front door, the electrical installation, and the smoke alarm. The resident stated that he had raised concerns about ASB and dog mess shortly after moving in and then about a walk-in burglary, which he attributed to the boundary issue, but was not receiving answers or assistance from the landlord other than being told that it was a developer issue.
The resident queried why he had not been told about access plans for the neighbouring field, stating he would not have purchased the property if he had known about this at the time. On 27 January 2021 the landlord confirmed that the complaint would be investigated by its Sales team with support from other areas.
On 13 January 2021, the landlord advised the resident that an electrician would attend to the smoke alarm on 19 January 2020 and a repair was duly completed. On 20 January 2021 the landlord advised the resident that the fencing contractor would be attending to repair the fence and subsequently agreed an appointment for 29 January 2021. After the appointment, the resident confirmed that the fence issue had been satisfactorily resolved.
On 2 February 2021 the resident advised the landlord that the developer’s handyman had attended that day and told him told that the door and frame needed replacing. This was because the door was twisted out of shape, not sitting flush with the vertical spirit level, which had an effect on the handle/locking mechanism. The resident stated that the contractor further said that remedial works would likely be delayed due to the refund/replacement process for the developer/its supplier.
The resident also advised that the developer had visited on 1 February 2021 and advised that a gap in the boundary fencing needed to remain for access reasons, although this might be looked at again in the future. The resident reiterated that the gap was not there on viewing and not disclosed, and the proximity of it to his home and insecure door was of significant concern.
An internal email sent on 9 February 2021 noted that, having checked, the marketing literature for the property and conveyance plan did not contain any reference to the property being located in a cul-de-sac, therefore there was no service failure. The email noted that the landlord would query with the developer about plans and timescales for any work to the area in question and for any temporary measures.
With regards to the ASB, on 15 February 2021 the landlord spoke to the developer which advised that it would not do anything else to the boundary and that at some point in the future, the hedgerow and post and rail fence would be removed. The landlord asked the developer for permission to put up a sign in the interim to deter dog fouling.
On 18 February 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response stating:
1. It was sorry that the resident felt that he received a poor standard of service from its Aftercare Team but confirmed that the team had acted in line with current policies and procedures.
2. The resident’s reports about ASB had been responded to in line with the landlord’s ASB policy which set out which behaviours it acted on. The resident was appropriately signposted to report any incidents of challenging behaviour to the police and discuss ongoing concerns with his homeownership officer.
3. There was no record of the property being marketed inaccurately or references to being in a cul-de-sac. It encouraged the resident to take this up with his solicitor who was responsible for carrying out searches and assessing whether was any likely development activity planned which may impact his home. It was not privy to future development proposals by developers or future planning considerations by the local authority.
4. The landlord had approached the developer again regarding future plans for the area and it had advised that the fence and posts would remain in position for the foreseeable future until if and when a development commenced on the adjacent land.
On 17 March 2021 the resident escalated the complaint stating that:
1. The landlord had not provided adequate assistance within the aftercare process. The developer had refused to deal directly with him. It was responsible for the NHBC warranty.
2. His reported defects had not yet been resolved, including: an insecure front door initially reported in November 2020; damaged wiring from the meter to the consumer unit; weep-vents and damp-proof course where he had not received any further response after a builder inspected in early February 2021.
3. He was not complaining about the landlord’s response to ASB as such but wished to highlight that no action had been taken to tackle the source of ASB (which in his view led to the house being burgled). His complaint was about the developer not securing the boundary and people forcing access through a hedge, and the landlord’s poor communication with the developer which refused to interact directly with him on this issue. He wanted the landlord to contact the developer and secure the boundary.
4. Regardless of whether the area was defined or not as a cul-de-sac there was still a lack of pre-sale information about access to the green space and this should have been disclosed.
On 21 March 2021, the resident reported damage to a wall behind a radiator and poorly installed internal door frames with gaps between the architraves and walls.
An internal email sent on 30 March 2021 noted that the landlord had approached the developer about securing the site boundary near the resident’s property. It noted that “We are advised that the area of enquiry is not part of LiveWest land or ownership and therefore [the developer] will not engage any further as we are not a party to the land in question”.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it had sought information about alleged inaccurate documentation from its solicitors and would send a full complaint response after it had heard back.
On 7 April 2021, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint stating:
1. The front door had a manufacturing fault and would be replaced by the manufacturer. Generally, production and delivery times were about 8 weeks although it was chasing a timeframe for the resident’s works. In the interim, the developer would visit to ensure that the door was secure.
2. It would carry out a full electrical inspection and identify any non-compliant items. A report would be sent to the resident.
3. It understood that works to weep vents had been attended to and completed.
4. It would be arranging a visit to repair the faulty radiator fittings to make good finishes, and to make good the reported gaps between the door architraves and walls.
5. The developer had an obligation to rectify defects – procedures were set out in its Home User Guide.
6. It had apologised for any misunderstanding around the resident’s concerns about ASB and had sought clarification from the developer about boundary security. The developer responded to say that it would not engage with this any further as the area in question was not part of the landlord’s land or ownership.
7. There was nothing to support the claim that the landlord misrepresented the position or mis-sold the property. The resident’s instructed solicitor should have commissioned relevant searches and raised any queries prior to the sale. Its solicitor could find no records of pre-sale enquiries relating to plans, the gap in the boundary hedge shown on plans, or to accessway generally.
8. It had found nothing to assert or imply that the roadway would be a cul-de-sac, or that it would never be used for accessing the adjoining land or that the adjoining land would then not be developed.
9. It was not privy to future development proposals or the local authority’s planning considerations.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord informed the resident that its electrical contractor would contact him to make an appointment. The resident consequently arranged an appointment for the outstanding electrical works for the following week, but it is not evident that the works were completed at that time.
On 16 April 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended to the indoor door frame repairs but did not complete works as the job was too big for the allocated time.
The correspondence between the parties indicates that architraves were repaired on 26 May 2021 (although some door frames were considered to be within tolerances), the front door was replaced on 27 May 2021, but the door caught in the frame and was unsupported from below therefore a further visit for “tweaking” would take place on 1 June 2021, and the consumer unit repair was booked for 8 June 2021.
The resident confirmed that the consumer unit repair was completed on 8 June 2021 by the landlord’s contractor. He also confirmed that the developer had inspected the front door to ascertain the problems with it. He noted that the remaining works were the responsibility of the landlord – sending an electrician to carry out a full electrical inspection and making good behind the radiators.
On 16 June 2021 the resident reported that a plumber had attended in error believing that there was a loose radiator despite the resident clarifying the repair the previous week. On 19 June 2021 the resident confirmed that the works behind the radiator were satisfactorily completed by the landlord’s contractors and that he had received an electrical certificate from the works carried out on 8 June 2021, although the developer was still to resolve the hole under the front door.
On 23 June 2021, the landlord provided the original electrical certificate that was contained in the handover pack.
The landlord arranged for the developer to attend to the front door on 6 July 2021. On 7 July 2021 the resident informed the landlord that works had not resolved “the sponginess of the threshold strip” and the door was not watertight.
On 27 August 2021, the resident raised his complaint with this Service noting that there had been numerous missed and unnecessary appointments to rectify defects, and that he had to submit repeat emails. He also complained about being subject to ASB largely due to the landlord failing to liaise with the developer.
On 26 August 2021 the landlord advised the resident that the developer had agreed to seal the front door on 7 September 2021. However, on 7 September 2021, the resident advised that the developer had not arrived at the property.
On 30 September 2021 the resident complained that he was still unhappy about “The poorly fitted replacement door and lack of attendance/update from the developer and follow up from LiveWest”. He advised that there had been two missed appointments that month. On 12 and 26 October 2021 the resident sent further emails stating that he had not heard from the landlord or the developer.
On 27 October 2021, the landlord advised the resident that an operative from the developer would be attending to the door on 5 November 2021. It also stated that it had raised the boundary fence issue again. The landlord has advised this Service that the developer upheld its position not to engage any further, which was noted in its internal email of 30 March 2021.

Assessment and findings

The response to reports of defects in the property

As confirmed by the Home User Guide, the landlord is responsible for reporting defects to the developer and monitoring repairs. In this case, the resident raised several defects.
With regards to his fence the resident reported that it was insecure in August 2020. The landlord pursued the developer on 27 September 2020 and again on 25 November, 2 December 2020 and 11 January 2021, and then contacting the resident in January 2020, a further four months later. By then the resident had raised a complaint as he had not been informed of the cause of the unreasonable delay by the developer. As such there was an unreasonable delay in handling the defect to the fence, which caused the resident inconvenience, as well as time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
With regards to the smoke alarm, the resident has stated that he initially reported this on 26 November 2020. The landlord has stated that it did not receive the report at the time and a copy of the report has not been provided to this Service. Therefore, it cannot be confirmed that the landlord failed to respond to the report. However, it is evident that the landlord arranged a repair in January 2021 that was satisfactorily completed and not escalated as part of the resident’s Stage 2 complaint. Therefore, it is concluded that the landlord took reasonable action to resolve this defect.
With regards to the resident’s concerns about the electrics in his property, in particular damage to the consumer unit, although the landlord has stated that it did not receive the resident’s report of 23 November 2020, it was made aware of the issue in the Stage 1 complaint. Regardless, it delayed in responding to the report as it was not until 31 March 2021 that it confirmed that the developer would attend. This was unreasonable given the potential safety implication. It transpired that the developer did not complete the necessary works.
The landlord ultimately took reasonable action to resolve this issue by carrying out a repair to the consumer unit itself on 8 June 2021 and agreeing to carry out a full inspection and to provide electrical certificates. However, by then two months had passed which added to the delay, and during which time the resident’s uncertainty about the safety of the electrics in his property remained. Therefore, taken altogether, the landlord unreasonably delayed in resolving the resident’s concerns about the electrics in his property.
With regards to the repair to the front door, the landlord has stated that it did not receive the report of 23 November 2020. However, the resident raised the issue in his formal complaint. It is evident that the landlord raised the defect with the developer as it attended on 2 February 2021. The defect could not be remedied on this date as it was identified that the door and frame needed to be replaced. However, there is no evidence that the landlord maintained oversight over the defect, seeking to expedite the door replacement and ensuring the door was secure in the interim until after the Stage 2 response of 7 April 2021, over two months later.
The landlord then arranged for the developer to attend on 27 May 2021 and 7 July 2021, in line with its responsibility. It transpired that the works carried out did not resolve the defect reported by the resident. These ineffective works, whilst prolonging the distress and inconvenience to the resident were not a result of failings on the part of the landlord.
The landlord, however, then had a responsibility to maintain contact with the developer to confirm what further action would be taken to resolve the defects, keep the resident informed and monitor that agreed actions were carried out. It is not evident that the landlord took these actions on a consistent and timely basis, for instance, there is no evidence that it responded to the resident’s report of a missed appointment on 7 September 2021 which was particularly unreasonable as the appointment was intended to ensure that the resident’s front door was watertight. As such there were failures in the landlord’s handling of defects to the front door which culminated in the resident making a new complaint on 30 September 2021.
When escalating his complaint, the resident raised further defects including weep vents, gaps in the door frame and repairs behind the radiator. The landlord’s correspondence indicates that it raised and monitored these repairs which were confirmed to be remedied in the Stage 2 response, on the 26 May 2021 and 19 June 2021 respectively. Therefore, it took reasonable action to resolve these defects, although a plumber incorrectly attending on 16 June 2021 to repair the radiator indicates that there was a failure on the part of the landlord and/or the developer to initially understand the last defect.
In summary, it is evident that the landlord has taken action in response to the resident’s reports of various defects in his property. However, there have been instances where it has significantly delayed in pursuing the developer for remedial works, keeping the resident informed and monitoring the progress of the defect. In particular, there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a wobbly fence, potential damage to his consumer unit, and of defects to his front door.
It is also noted that there were several instances where works were not completed at visits or where the contractor did not show up. This exacerbated the resident’s inconvenience and the time and trouble he expended in pursuing repairs to the defects. In not apologising or otherwise acknowledging these unsuccessful visits, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it appreciated the impact on the resident, and potentially improve the landlord/tenant relationship.

The response of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports

Having been informed that the resident was distressed by the actions of other people outside his property, it was appropriate and in line with its ASB procedure that the landlord advised him to report specific incidents. It was reasonable that it suggested that he report incidents to the police given that the perpetrators were not identified and not confirmed to be tenants and leaseholders of the landlord, against whom the landlord had the authority to take action against.
The resident in making his complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB, however, confirmed that he was concerned about the overall security situation as opposed to its handing of particular incidents reported to it. The resident wanted a more secure boundary to the development or controlled access to the playing field. However, the boundary lay on land not owned by the landlord, but which the developer was responsible for, and therefore it was the developer’s decision to determine how the boundary should be marked.
The resident asked the landlord to contact the developer about making the boundary more secure from 16 August 2020. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise these concerns with the developer given its responsibility to report defects and general concerns about the site to the developer on behalf of its tenants and leaseholders. However, it is not evident that the landlord was proactive in seeking a response from the developer or responding to the resident. In fact, it is not evident that the landlord raised the resident’s concern about the boundary with the developer until February 2021, by which time the resident had sent several emails and made a formal complaint.
It is not evident that the landlord’s delay in pursuing the resident’s concerns about the boundary fundamentally affected the developer’s decision on the matter. However, the complainant was left feeling unheard in his reports and complaint, escalating the level of dissatisfaction and sense of lack of action on the part of the landlord.
Related to the resident’s complaint about the boundary was his contention that the landlord did not make him aware that his property was not in a cul-de-sac prior to moving in. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, it was reasonable that the landlord checked the sales literature and the plans, and sought confirmation from its solicitor as to whether it had received any enquiries about the boundary and access to the site.
Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident understood his property would be in a cul-de-sac, with no people passing in front of his property, ultimately there is no evidence that the landlord provided him with written information or verbal advice to lead him to believe that the property was in a cul-de-sac.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its response to reports of defects in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about access to the property through the development boundary, including antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Reasons

The landlord has taken action in response to the resident’s reports of defects in his property. However, there have been instances where it has significantly delayed in pursuing the developer for remedial works, keeping the resident informed and monitoring the progress of the defect. In particular, there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a wobbly fence, potential damage to his consumer unit and of defects to his front door. Cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.
Ultimately the landlord did not own the land on which the boundary lay, therefore it was the developer’s decision to determine how the boundary should be marked. However, it is not evident that the landlord was proactive in seeking a response from the developer to the resident’s concern that the boundary was not adequately secure. Nor was the landlord proactive in responding to the resident. In fact, it is not evident that the landlord raised the resident’s concern about the boundary with the developer until February 2021, six months after the resident’s initial concerns, by which time the resident had sent several emails and made a formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to, within the next four weeks:
1. Pay the resident £200 compensation in respect of his distress and inconvenience and time and trouble arising from the failings in its handling of his reports of defects.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the delay in raising his concerns about the boundary with the developer.
3. Confirm to the resident and the Ombudsman whether any defects to the front door remain outstanding and, if so, to confirm what further action will be taken to resolve these defects.

Recommendation

The landlord reviews its handing of reports of defects to ensure that all relevant staff members and the developer are clear about the defect being reported and the action being taken at any given time.