LiveWest Homes Limited (202015208)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015208

LiveWest Homes Limited

30 November 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 response in respect of:
1. The resident’s reports about delays in completing repairs in the property (including the kitchen floor repairs).
2. The resident’s request to be moved to a suitable property in a suitable location
  1. through the local authority
  2. through the landlord
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved to a suitable property in a suitable location through the local authority.
Paragraph 39 of the Scheme explains that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: (m) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.
The resident lives in a two bedroom house with her family and the tenancy commenced in September 2015. The resident and her family have specific requirements due to their medical needs and the resident has explained that she was first moved into the property under the local authority’s remit and found that it was unsuitable to her needs. The resident has explained that she and her family should not have been placed in the property due to the neighbourhood, and as a result the landlord has put her onto its internal management transfer list and also written to the local authority, where she is on a housing list, in support of her priority for housing.
The landlord’s actions when acting as an agent of the local authority in regard to housing priority for those with reasonable preference are outside the jurisdiction of this Service to consider. This is because such matters usually fall within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
In respect of any concerns about the housing allocation scheme, this may be enquired about with the local authority or the LGSCO if the resident remains dissatisfied.

Background and summary of events

The property is a new build, two bedroom house. The resident and her family were the first occupants when their tenancy commenced in September 2015. The resident is an assured tenant. The resident and her family have various medical needs and specific property requirements.
The landlord has considered various issues dating back to the start of the tenancy in 2015. This is a protracted time period and although the landlord has assessed its service since then, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the historic reports of service issues. However, details of this are set out in this report as part of the background to the complaint or used as reference points to indicate whether the length of time in the landlord’s response has been reasonable.
In November 2015, two months into the tenancy, the resident reported concerns to the landlord about the suitability of the property. She explained her medical condition and the anti-social behaviour (‘ASB’) that she was experiencing. This was in the form of noise and children playing around her property. The landlord visited the resident, advised her of her housing options (with itself and the local authority’s housing allocation), confirmed that she was on a management transfer list and offered to address the noise by writing letters to other residents (December 2015).
The resident and landlord exchanged communication about the ASB and the housing situation throughout 2016. The landlord advised the resident of her options again and confirmed that she was on the management transfer list. The resident made further reports of ASB, which ranged from noise and activities from people visiting the area, car doors slamming, seagulls (being fed) and ball games. The resident expressed her frustration at waiting for 12 months for a suitable property and explained the impact on her family (they were seeking counselling due to the stress). The resident explained that she had tried to exchange her home with another, but people were discouraged by the parking situation and noise.
The landlord conveyed information from the letting team to the resident. It said that the letting team held one transfer list for exceptional transfers of its tenants, the resident was on the list and was waiting for an appropriate property in her chosen area to become available. The landlord also proposed ways to address the ASB (such as putting up railings in the front garden to prevent visitors walking on the grass).
In August 2016 a surveyor’s end of defect inspection identified several defects/repairs at the property. This included that the kitchen floor was unstable/springy (it was noted that the resident instructed that this should be done when she moved out), the toilet floor was lifting and there were also some external repairs identified to the garden and paving slabs outside.
In early 2017 the resident continued to report concerns about noise and parking. She also pointed out that the defect repairs had not been completed, such as the waterlogged garden. The resident said that she first reported this in November 2015.
Later, in July 2017, the resident complained that the defects had not been resolved since she moved into the property and she should not have been moved into the property in the first place, as the neighbourhood was too noisy and not suitable. The resident was on a management transfer list waiting to be moved.
The Ombudsman has not considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from several years ago as this it outside of the scope of this investigation. However, it has not been disputed by the landlord that the resident experienced the ASB and it has placed her on a management transfer list.
The resident explained that she had mental health issues, she found the ongoing situation difficult, and her son also had a medical condition. The resident did not consider it acceptable to be decanted, while the repairs were done, due to the level of disruption this would involve.
The landlord explained the management transfer process and discussed how the resident could increase her banding at the time. It said that it was agreed that the complaint response would be delayed (more than 10 days) and an interim response was issued. The subsequent stage one response has not been seen.
The landlord emailed the local authority housing register on 26 August 2017 to advise of the resident’s medical circumstances and that the property was not suitable for her. The landlord requested the housing scheme to reconsider her banding so that she could have a better chance of moving to improve her health. It also provided some details of the ASB that the resident experienced.
In September 2017 the resident remained dissatisfied at the lack of updates and the deteriorating kitchen floor, so she escalated her complaint. The landlord said that it acknowledged the complaint and discussed the outstanding issues about the defects, which it referred to the developer: waterlogged garden, uneven kitchen floor, downstairs toilet sewage smell, external doors not closing properly. There were also reports of ASB and noise, which the housing officer was engaging with.
The landlord issued its stage two response (18 September 2017) and said that “the specific needs of the family meant that it was very difficult to find a suitable option through the managed transfer process, although we will continue to do everything that we can around this. The family had advised that they could not accept a decant option for medical reasons, which in turn meant that the flooring works were unable to be competed with them in situ”.
It upheld the complaint about delays and offered £50 as a goodwill gesture. It also explained that it would discuss an exceptional transfer list with resident. The landlord closed the complaint but did not explain this to the resident.
In October 2017 the resident remained dissatisfied; she explained that the developer missed an appointment with the housing team and the repairs were outstanding for two years and she wished to escalate the complaint.
The landlord said that it would progress the repairs through its own contractor, rather than the developer, and complete the repairs except for the flooring (this could not be completed with the family in residence). The landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of its complaint review and said that the resident was on a managed transfer list, but the landlord was unable to find a suitable property and it was also looking to the wider local authority home choice scheme. Its housing officer was to follow up on the other concerns. It said that it was clear that its services had not met expectations and the defects had an impact on the resident, and that its focus was on putting things right and learning (October 2017).
The resident chased an outcome in November 2017; at the time the landlord did not escalate the complaint.
In March 2018 the resident’s advocate contacted the landlord to request a final response, so that it could approach the Ombudsman. The landlord did not provide this.
In June 2018 the resident raised a further complaint about the defects, complaint handling and management move (according to the landlord records). The landlord and resident discussed the matters and the landlord subsequently regularly emailed the resident to ask if she needed anything. The landlord also met with the resident to discuss the concerns about the outstanding garden and toilet repairs, the lack of a stage three response/escalation and the outstanding transfer move.
In July 2018 the landlord said that it would prioritise the garden work, update the resident monthly and discussed the complaint handling failures (and service improvements which resulted from its findings). The resident later escalated the complaint and remained dissatisfied that the defects had not been resolved. The landlord did not escalate the complaint and instead met with the resident two months later.
The landlord met with the resident in September 2018 to discuss the case and the resident subsequently confirmed her outstanding concerns: she wanted the complaint to be escalated to stage three, an apology and compensation for distress, anxiety and impact, and to be moved from the property. The landlord responded and apologised to the resident for the time taken to resolve the defects; it acknowledged that it could have intervened earlier in the process to resolve the defects directly rather than deferring this to the developer.
The landlord confirmed that the defects were all resolved except for the kitchen flooring (30 September 2018). It said that this was at the resident’s request, as she wanted this to be completed after she had been moved permanently. The landlord asked the resident to consider if she wanted to escalate the complaint (to stage three) or if there was an alternative option for resolution.
In November 2018 the landlord’s complaint procedure changed to remove the stage three option (to enable more direct and timely access to the Ombudsman).
The resident subsequently contacted the landlord in December 2018 and explained that she had expected the complaint to be progressed (to the independent panel). The landlord apologised for the complaint handling, it offered to make a good will gesture “by way of an apology for stress and inconvenience” and said that as there was no longer a stage three step so it would pass the complaint to a senior member of staff for an independent review.
In January 2019 the resident expressed that she was unhappy with how she had been treated, she thought the complaint had been escalated in October 2017 (but it had not), it was closed without her knowledge and she had not been told of the changes in the complaint process (the removal of stage three) when this took place.
The landlord arranged a visit for February 2019 and followed up with a letter (11 February 2019). It said that the complaint had closed at stage two because the landlord considered that the action plan had been put in place to resolve the issues, it was a “mistake” not to explain this to the resident at the time. There was still an outstanding defect (kitchen flooring) and the priority was to find the resident a new home. The landlord offered £500 compensation for the duration of the complaint and to pay for the removal cost and new carpet once a new home was found.
In March 2019 the landlord and resident discussed the compensation. The resident told the landlord that she will seek advice, she did not consider the compensation to be acceptable given the length of time that the complaint had been ongoing and the impact of this on her health. The landlord said that it was the “highest amount” that it could offer under its compensation guidance, along with covering the cost of the move. It said that it was still working to provide a suitable alternative home. It asked the resident to submit her medical evidence to it so that it could refer to its insurer/solicitor.
In April 2019 the landlord said it would keep the complaint open as per the resident’s request, it also asked the resident for the level of compensation she was looking for.
In June 2019 the resident submitted medical evidence to the landlord which included letters from an OT and GP (dated March – April 2019) that supported her need to be rehoused. This included a letter detailing the “anxiety and panic and a low mood” which the resident experienced living in the property. It is not clear if this was the requested medical evidence for the landlord to pass onto its insurer, which it offered to do so in March 2019 in discussions about the level of compensation.
In June 2019 the landlord told the resident that it was continuing to look for a property that was suitable for the resident’s needs and with her required specification, it also said she was being treated as a priority move. The landlord focused on the compensation dispute and asked for what the resident was seeking in this regard.
On 11 January 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with its final response.
1. It offered £500 compensation as a gesture of goodwill, to apologise for the stress and inconvenience. It also offered to cover the cost of moving (including new carpets).
2. It said that it identified learning points from the case and made improvements to its complaint service.
3. It also said that it acknowledged failures to directly intervene and carry out repairs identified in the defect report, instead of working with the developer (who did not complete the repairs).
4. It also explained that all the defects were resolved, with the exception of the flooring, which remained uncorrected until the family could move out.
5. In respect of the resident’s request to move, it said that the resident and her family were on a management move/exceptional transfer list from early on in the tenancy and a permanent move remained a priority. It had yet to find suitable matches for the resident’s needs within its own stock or in other agencies.
In its submission to the Ombudsman, the landlord advised that:
1. It had not progressed the complaint at times where the matter was being handled by its repair or housing staff or where it had provided an action plan of how the issues were to be resolved.
2. It had offered compensation at the top end of its compensation guidance and invited the resident to confirm the amount that she wanted, as she had said that this was not enough, but it had not gotten a response.
3. The complaint was opened in 2017 and not closed until 2021 and it acknowledged “several service failures” within its complaint handling during this time. However, the landlord pointed out these failures to be in delays within the initial stages of the complaint, closing the stage two complaint without clear notice to the resident and not actioning escalation requests to stage 3.
4. It considered that the delays in its complaint handling would not have altered the outcome of the complaint as it has still not found suitable accommodation for the family or competed the works to the kitchen floor while they remain in situ, it understood that the overall experience was disappointing and had an impact on the resident.
5. The resident “categorically wanted her complaint to remain open until the housing and defects issues had been resolved”.
6. Its complaint process had been through improvements since the complaint was first raised.
7. It had continued to ask the resident about what level of compensation she was looking for and said that it would be able to refer the matter to the insurer but the resident had not confirmed this because the issues were still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

It is important to highlight that the Ombudsman cannot deliver the outcome which the resident has said that she is looking for in respect of her housing situation (ie to be moved to a suitable property). This does not mean that the resident’s situation and her concerns are not valid, rather, it is a reflection of what powers the Ombudsman has.
The Ombudsman has not investigated the resident’s historic reports of problems (such as the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB). This is because these events took place over six years ago, therefore they are beyond the reasonable timeframe which the Ombudsman can investigate.
This Ombudsman has considered if the landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s reports about delays in completing repairs in the property, her request to be moved to a suitable property in a suitable location via the landlord and the landlord’s complaint handling. Some of the historic points in time are considered as reference points to show how long the repairs were outstanding.
It has not been disputed that there was an unreasonable delay in the completion of the repairs. Although the resident has said that this was outstanding since 2015, the Ombudsman’s scope has not extended that far back, it has only extended to August 2016 when the repairs were identified in the surveyor’s report. There was a list of repairs identified in August 2016; this followed a surveyor’s end of defect inspection. The resident complained about the progress in the completion of the repairs in 2017 and the landlord agreed to undertake these itself, rather than continue to pursue them through the developer. They were completed in September 2018 (with the exception of the kitchen floor).
During those two years, the resident and her family who are vulnerable experienced evident distress and inconvenience. The resident explained that her GP and medical team wrote to the landlord many times. The resident and her son both had medical conditions and the resident explained that the situation had worsened her mental health and that she felt suicidal. The delay which she experienced was not reasonable. The landlord acknowledged this failure.
In addition to the failure in the delay to complete the outstanding repairs, there was a failure due to the inappropriate and unreasonable handling of the complaint by the landlord. The landlord did not progress or escalate the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timeframe. She was left without complaint responses on several occasions and an overall delay of about four years in concluding her complaint. This was not reasonable.
At one stage in March 2018 her advocate asked the landlord to issue a final response, so that she could go to the Ombudsman, and it failed to do so. This was not appropriate and prevented earlier access to this Service. On another occasion, the landlord had delayed escalating her complaint and the complaint process changed to remove the next step which the resident was expecting in the meantime. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident’s communication in a timely manner when she contacted it and to have provided a relevant complaint response irrespective of the outstanding repairs.
The landlord told the Ombudsman that it had not escalated the complaints at the time because the issues were being dealt with by relevant staff. However, this is not an appropriate justification for failing to progress a complaint. In those kinds of circumstances, the complaint response would be a tool that the landlord could use to present this information to the resident and provide her with a resolution that involves the actions which the staff intend to take (in respect of outstanding repairs).
The landlord arranged to discuss the outstanding issues with the resident and would communicate informally about her concerns. At one stage, the housing staff contacted the resident regularly to ask if she needed anything. However, it would have also been reasonable for it to present her with a formal complaint response.
The landlord identified its service failure in not progressing the complaint and communication with the resident about closing the complaint at stage two, however, it failed to evidence its learning in respect of the decision to draw out the complaint for over four years. It said that it had improved its complaint system following the resident’s complaint, but it did not specifically address or identify the timeframe of this complaint as an issue nor did it reflect this in its compensation to the resident. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence that it has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord also explained that the resident had requested to keep the complaint open as the issues were ongoing. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and inform the resident of her right to complain in future in respect of the outcome of the ongoing issues, if she remained dissatisfied, despite the closure of her current complaint. The landlord is entitled to close complaints in a timely manner and not keep them open indefinitely, and the resident is entitled to raise new complaints concerning new timeframes or new items. Circumstances change, and there is no bar to raising fresh reports or concerns to the landlord.
In those circumstances where a matter is ongoing or open ended, it would be reasonable for the landlord to provide the resident with its action plan to address the items as part of its resolution, and the resident may dispute this at a later date if there are outstanding concerns. Timely redress is an important factor in reasonable dispute resolution and the landlord is reminded of the terms of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code regarding the maximum timescale for responses (3.11). In the circumstances of this case, the landlord has not taken reasonable steps in resolving the resident’s complaint in a timely manner.
It has not been disputed that the repairs have been completed except for the kitchen floor. The resident’s outstanding concern is that she has not been told of what will happen with the kitchen repair and she is not able to move out temporarily or have them carry out the work while she is there.
The evidence shows that the landlord has been willing to complete this repair but it has not done so due to the particular concerns and needs of the resident and her family. The resident’s request to be moved permanently before this is done has been difficult to arrange, and the landlord’s alternative option of providing temporary accommodation instead has not been suitable for the resident due to her medical needs and her concern about the level of disruption that this would entail.
It has clearly been a difficult journey for the resident and her family. Her circumstances have not been disputed. It is recognised that the resident has explained that moving temporarily would cause her disruption and that her family’s medical needs make this an unsuitable proposal; she wishes to move permanently before works are completed but is waiting for a suitable property to become available. It is therefore also a difficult situation for the landlord to manage. It is recommended that the landlord and resident have a meeting or discussion to confirm the options to repair the kitchen floor, including any temporary measures that the landlord can take to make this safe for the resident and her family while they wait for a suitable property to become available.
In respect of the resident’s complaint about her request to be moved, the Ombudsman has looked at whether the landlord has taken reasonable steps in regard to an internal transfer using its own stock.
The landlord took reasonable steps. It acknowledged that the property is unsuitable for the resident and it has not disputed that she should be moved; it said that she was placed on the management transfer list, and it explained how this worked (ie that it was an exceptional transfer list and there was only one of these, but there had not yet been a suitable property for her under this process).
The landlord has continued to try to manage the situation by facilitating the resident’s application for suitable housing, contacting housing agents to search for housing and contacting the relevant bodies to explain the resident’s circumstances and support her needs in her priority/banding status. It has taken reasonable steps on its side of the process. It is understandably disappointing that the process for relocating to a suitable property has not yet been successful for the resident.
The landlord’s offer of redress comprised its apology for the stress and inconvenience, the completion of the repairs (excluding the kitchen floor), an acknowledgement of the failure to complete these in a timely manner, its ongoing search for suitable housing for the resident’s needs within its own stock and other agencies and £500. It also made a further offer to pay for the carpet and moving costs, once the resident successfully relocates, and to pass on the resident’s request for higher compensation to its insurer, once she confirmed the amount that she was seeking.
It was resolution focused for the landlord to offer the resident the cost of the new carpet and moving costs as well as £500 compensation for the inconvenience in the delays to the repairs (which were outstanding for two years). It was also reasonable for the landlord to offer to forward the resident’s medical concerns to its insurer as part of the ongoing compensation negotiation about the suitability of the property.
However, the compensation amount in respect of the complaint handling failure has not been reasonable.
The landlord kept the complaint ongoing for four years. The impact on the resident has been time, trouble, and inconvenience. The lack of a timely complaint process prevented the resident from having access to the landlord’s redress, or clarity and closure of the complaint sooner than she did. Given the resident’s known vulnerabilities and the stress which she explained that she experienced, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to conclude its complaint process in a timely manner with details of further recourse, should the resident have needed it.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves their complaints about:
1. delays in completing repairs in the property
2. her request to be moved to a suitable property in a suitable location.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged a service failure in its delay to completing the repairs and explained the reason for this (that it was initially deferred to the developer before it decided to complete this through its own contractor). It offered reasonable redress for the delays to the repairs and inconvenience which the resident has experienced.
The landlord took reasonable steps to facilitate the resident’s rehousing journey in so far as it could.
The landlord kept this complaint going for 4 years, which is unreasonable and inappropriate. Although the landlord acknowledged service failure in its complaint handling, it has not evidenced an acknowledgement and sufficient redress for the protracted complaint journey.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay a total compensation £700, comprised of the original £500 (if this has not already been paid) for its acknowledged service failures and a further £200 for the complaint handling delay.
2. Confirm its standing offer in respect of the resident’s carpet and moving costs.
3. Review the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling code in conjunction with the identified service failure in this report and its own investigation and ensure that its complaint team is made aware of the requirement to respond to complaints in a timely manner.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, it is recommended that the landlord and resident have a meeting or discussion to confirm the options to repair the kitchen floor, including any temporary measures that the landlord can take to make this safe for the resident and her family while they wait for a suitable property to become available.
The landlord is requested to confirm compliance with the above orders and recommendations to the Ombudsman.