LiveWest Homes Limited (202214339)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214339

LiveWest Homes Limited

13 February 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour (ASB) made against the resident.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB about a neighbour.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord since November 2011, with an assured tenancy. The property is a one-bedroom semi-detached bungalow. The landlord confirmed it had vulnerabilities recorded for the resident which were noted as hearing difficulties and mental health issues.
The landlord received multiple reports of ASB about the resident from a neighbour between September 2021 and September 2022. The reports stated that the resident had played loud music, shouted, and was talking loudly about the neighbour during the day and at night-time. The landlord shared the reports about the resident with the NHS mental health team. The mental health team informed the landlord that they had visited the resident on 26 September 2022 with the police, to discuss the ASB reports, and concerns about the welfare of the resident.
On 30 September 2022, the landlord called the resident to discuss her consent for it to make a safeguarding referral to social services following a further report of ASB by a neighbour. The resident declined consent and reported that a neighbour had shouted abuse aimed at her. On the same day, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about the following:
1. She was being “bullied” by a neighbour and the housing officer.
2. The Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) who visited her property had told her that a neighbour was keeping a diary of when she was playing music or speaking on the phone, including recording personal calls.
3. The PCSO had said the housing officer had made inappropriate comments about the resident’s home.
4. She spoke louder because she was partially deaf.
5. The PSCO had told her to make calls from the kitchen in order to not affect the neighbour and this was unreasonable because she needed a comfortable chair to help with her disabilities.
6. The neighbour was being unreasonable about normal day to day living noise.
7. She had played music at 8.15am that morning and her neighbour had kicked the wall and shouted.
8. She did not want to have any contact with the housing officer.

The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and said it would respond by 7 October 2022.

The landlord opened an ASB case on 3 October 2022 in response to a report from neighbours that the resident had placed personal information on lampposts. Further reports about noise from the resident had been reported between 6 and 12 October 2022. The landlord shared the ASB reports with the mental health team, who visited the resident in October 2022. During the visit the mental health team discussed the ASB allegations and noted that the resident agreed to make calls in kitchen to reduce noise levels, and keep a note of any noise from her neighbour.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 12 October 2022. The landlord said the following:
1. It had received reports from a neighbour in September 2022 which alleged the resident had played music loudly and shouted insults. The incidents had also been reported to the police.
2. It had an understanding of the resident’s mental health difficulties and had been in touch with the police and mental health team in the past.
3. The housing officer had contacted the resident on 30 September 2022 and discussed the reports received. Following a conversation with the mental health team a safeguarding referral had not been made.
4. An ASB case had been opened on 3 October 2022 following the neighbour’s reports of intimidating behaviour from the resident.
5. It did not uphold the complaint about the housing officer bullying the resident. The landlord had a responsibility to investigate the ASB reports and the suggestion of a safeguarding referral indicated it had considered the resident’s welfare as part of the solution.
6. The housing officer had been concerned about the welfare of the resident and had taken appropriate steps to ensure the resident was supported.
7. In regard to the PCSO referring to the housing officer comparing the resident’s home to that of a neighbour. It said the comment made was in response to an allegation made by the resident about the neighbours home and had not been used in the context of comparison.
8. It reassured the resident that she would not lose her home due to the reports.
9. It was evident that the resident’s behaviour had a significant impact on the neighbour’s quality of life and the neighbour was right to approach the landlord.
10. It had taken into consideration the resident’s vulnerabilities and its intention was to ensure both parties were able to enjoy their homes.
11. The landlord had offered mediation but the neighbour had declined this.
The resident escalated her complaint on 18 October 2022. The resident raised further reports of her neighbour shouting on 25 October 2022. The landlord advised the resident to keep a diary of any further noise issues. On 1 November 2022 the landlord issued its final response. It said the following:
1. It had discussed the situation with the resident on that day and said it would only seek repossession of her property as a last resort, and this was not its intention at that time.
2. In regard to the resident’s complaint about feeling bullied by the housing officer, it said it had reviewed all communications and had concluded that the housing officer had been seeking a resolution and ensuring that the resident received the appropriate support.
3. The landlord was required to notify the resident of the reported ASB and to have investigated this.
4. Where it believed ASB reports were linked to a deterioration in mental health, it had a duty to ensure this was reported to the relevant support services. It was important that when receiving reports it had taken any disabilities or support from other agencies into consideration. The housing officer had been seeking to offer support to the resident from specialised agencies by raising concerns with the mental health team.
5. It was not able to change the housing officer in the resident’s area. It had introduced a communication plan and had placed a note on the resident’s file to ensure visits to the resident were conducted in pairs for the following 6 months.
6. It was in an early stage of an ASB investigation and it had to act in the best interest of both parties.
7. Mediation had been offered but this had been declined by the neighbour.
8. The resident was asked to continue to take steps to reduce noise levels when making calls or listening to music at unsociable hours.
9. In regard to the counter allegations the resident had made about her neighbour, the landlord said it had added these to the ASB case and the allegations would be investigated accordingly.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 17 November 2022 in relation to the resident’s reports of a neighbour banging on the wall and shouting. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response from the landlord and contacted this Service in December 2022 to request an investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident raised further reports of ASB after 1 November 2022. This report considered matters from the date of the reports of ASB in September 2022 to the date of the landlord’s final response on 1 November 2022. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s jurisdictional authority under the Scheme, and in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the investigation of this Service. Any further issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour ASB made against the resident.

The purpose of this investigation was not to establish if ASB had occurred, or which party was responsible. It was for the Ombudsman to determine whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, a resident must not act or behave in a way which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress. It says residents must not; cause a nuisance to anyone, cause harassment, commit any act that disrupts another person’s right to live peacefully, commit any act which results in physical or phycological harm, or play music at levels or at times that cause nuisance or annoy neighbours. It also states that the landlord will investigate reports of nuisance, harassment and ASB and if appropriate it will take firm action against those responsible.
The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy confirms that it aims to take proportionate action to resolve ASB. The policy states the following:
1. Consideration will be given to the personal circumstances of the residents involved, any previous reports, the evidence available, and relevant actions or interventions being undertaken or considered by other agencies.
2. The landlord will use intervention tools such as warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, mediation services, and multiple agency working.
3. The landlord’s initial intervention aims to work with those responsible to stop the behaviour.
4. Commencing possession proceedings is considered as a last resort where other action has been unsuccessful.
5. If someone is vulnerable, the landlord aims to give appropriate support and make safeguarding referrals where necessary.
6. Where appropriate, the landlord will seek the co operation of other statutory agencies such as the police, social services, and the local authority.

The ASB Policy also states that noise nuisance, intimidation, verbal abuse, and persistent loud music amounts to a ‘priority two’ or ‘amber’ category, which should be responded to within 24 hours, with an investigation beginning within five days.

When ASB is reported, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies and deal with reports in a proportionate and appropriate manner. The landlord must consider its obligation as a landlord to treat allegations from all its residents in a consistent and evidence-led way.
The landlord’s records stated that complaints had been received by the landlord from September 2021 onwards about the resident’s behaviour. Due to the number of complaints received, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate this with the resident. The landlord demonstrated that it took steps to discuss the allegations with the resident as part of its investigation on 30 September 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the allegations with the resident. This is because landlords are expected to provide residents with a reasonable opportunity to respond to any allegations, which it should then give due consideration to before making an informed decision about how best to proceed.
To be clear, the Ombudsman is not making a statement that the alleged ASB of the resident did or did not take place, as this is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to determine. Rather, the Ombudsman is acknowledging that, given that allegations made were supported by evidence, it was therefore not unreasonable for the landlord to discuss the concerns with the resident. This was in line with its policies and procedures.
The landlord demonstrated that it took the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration when making decisions about the action it had taken. This Service was provided with evidence to show that the landlord engaged in multi-agency working prior to and during the time of its discussions with the resident about the allegations of ASB made against her. The landlord demonstrated that it worked appropriately with other agencies throughout the case. It shared information with the relevant services who had been supporting the resident and sought advice from them. This showed good practice and was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. The Information the landlord received from relevant agencies was appropriately considered in the landlord’s management of the case and its decision making.
During the complaint process, the resident raised concerns about the actions of the housing officer. This Service, when investigating a complaint about a landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.
When a resident raises concerns about staff conduct, it is expected that the landlord will conduct a thorough investigation into these concerns. In both its complaint responses the landlord demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s concerns about comments made by the housing officer. It had explained the context in which the conversations the resident had raised concerns about had taken place. This was an appropriate response from the landlord and demonstrated it had investigated the conversation with the parties involved.
The landlord said in its final complaint response that where it believed an ASB report may be linked to a deterioration in someone’s mental health it had a duty to report this to the relevant support services. While this Service recognises the discussion about a potential safeguarding referral between the housing officer and the resident on 30 September 2022 had caused the resident distress, the landlord’s actions here had been in line with its ASB policy.
The landlord said in its final complaint response that it was not able to provide an alternative housing officer for the resident due to the geography of its homes and the patches in which its housing officers were based. The landlord said it had introduced a communications plan and had placed a note on the resident’s file to recommend that visits to the resident were to be conducted in pairs for the following 6 months. This was an appropriate action to taken by the landlord. It had set expectations for the resident on a solution it was able to put into place to support the resident. The landlord had here considered the resident’s request and found an alternative option. It also demonstrated that the landlord had put steps into place to rebuild the relationship between itself and the resident.
The resident said in her complaint that she felt it was unreasonable for her to reduce the noise, in consideration of her hearing difficulties. The landlord demonstrated that it had considered this in its approach both prior and during the complaint period. It had engaged with the agencies supporting the resident, who had then discussed reducing the levels of noise with the resident. The landlord said the neighbour had a right to approach it for advice and support on the matter. The landlord had balanced its requirements as a landlord to intervene, with the needs of the resident, by using non-legal action to try and resolve the noise issue. The landlord also demonstrated that it had offered mediation to both parties. While this offer was declined, it demonstrated the landlord had taken this additional step in line with its policy to offer an early intervention.
In conclusion, overall, the landlord had taken actions in line with its policy and procedures when handling the allegations of ASB made against the resident. It was proportionate for the landlord to discuss the concerns with the resident. In this case, before and during the formal complaint period, it was evident that the landlord fulfilled its obligations to consider and respond to the reports of ASBmade against the resident in a proportionate way.
While the Ombudsman understands how difficult events must have been for the resident, the landlord sought to balance the needs it recognised that the resident had, against the reports it had received. It reviewed the evidence provided, took a multi agency approach, liaised with mental health and local police services and took action where it and other agencies agreed this was appropriate. It clearly took steps to try to work with the appropriate agencies to support the resident to avoid any behaviour that would lead to further reports. This action was proportionate and customer focused. The landlord had here made decisions in ways that this Service would expect to see, in line with its ASB policy. Therefore, this Service has found no evidence of maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour ASB made against the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour.

Following the resident’s reports of ASB about her neighbour, the landlord demonstrated that it had taken reasonable steps in line with its policy to attempt to resolve the ASB through informal measures. On 30 September 2022 in response to the resident’s reports that her neighbour had shouted abuse, the landlord asked the resident to use an ASB app to provide evidence of this. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take, in order to be able to investigate the resident’s reports and to be able to consider the appropriate action it could have taken. The landlord also asked the resident on 25 October 2022 to keep a diary of any further noises. These actions are both things that a landlord would usually be expected to request during the initial stages of an ASB investigation.
Given that there was an absence of evidence for the landlord to take further action against the resident’s neighbour, the request from the landlord for further evidence was appropriate. The landlord told the resident on 25 October 2022 to keep a diary of further incidents and said it would go through the reports with the resident on its next visit to her. This Service had not seen evidence that the information available to the landlord at this time warranted further action against the neighbour.
The landlord confirmed in its final response that it had added the resident’s reports of ASB to her ASB case and the reports would be investigated accordingly. The landlord had provided evidence to this Service to demonstrate that it had opened an ASB case in relation to this on 17 November 2022 following a visit to the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to have opened an ASB case in response to the resident’s reports. However, the case was not opened until 6 weeks after her initial report in September 2022. The ASB policy stated that responses to reports of noise nuisance would be responded to within 24 hours. The landlord had not demonstrated that the resident received a response to her concerns within this timeframe. While the landlord had requested further evidence from the resident, it should have been clear about the steps it could or could not take following the residents initial reports in order to set the resident’s expectations about how it could investigate.
In conclusion, the landlord’s response overall to the resident’s reports about ASB from her neighbour was in line with its ASB policy. The landlord advised the resident to record further evidence in order for it to investigate further. It provided the resident with the option of using an ASB app or to use a diary to note any incidents of ASB and noise. The landlord also offered the use of mediation. The actions were in line with both good practise and the landlord’s ASB policy. However, the landlord delayed in opening an ASB case for the resident. While this did not affect the outcome of the landlord’s investigation, the resident was not clear at the time about whether or not the landlord had investigated her concerns. Therefore, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. As such, an order had been made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 of compensation. This has been calculated in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure which a landlord had not appropriately acknowledged.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of allegations of antisocial behaviour ASB made against the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) about a neighbour.

Orders and recommendations.

Orders.

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 of compensation within 4 weeks, for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay in opening the ASB case. The compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.