Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

LiveWest Homes Limited (202016064)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016064

LiveWest Homes Limited

9 September 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns the resident’s request for the landlord to change the classification of the property from a three bedroom to a two bedroom.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. In 2008 the resident took out a tenancy agreement for a new build three bedroom property.
  2. In 2012, one of the resident’s daughters moved out of the property.
  3. The landlord has provided evidence to show that the resident contacted it on February 2015 to discuss their property. The resident explained that her daughter had moved from the property, and a spare room subsidy was now being applied. The resident also said she was unhappy as she didn’t believe the property was a three bed house because the third room couldn’t fit a bed. The landlord’s records show that it inspected the property and was satisfied that the room could be considered as a bedroom.
  4. In April 2015, the landlords records show that the resident requested that the room be measured again as she disagreed with its initial assessment.
  5. On 1 May 2015, the landlord visited the property and re-measured the room. It found that a standard UK single bed could be contained within a room its size at either rotation allowing adequate room for a chest of drawers and the door to fully open. The resident was then provided with a copy of the dimensions and was told that the property would not be reclassified and she would need to pay the spare room subsidy. The landlord also informed the resident that she would need to start making payments towards the arrears on the rent account.
  6. On 2 October 2019, the resident’s daughter called the landlord to dispute whether the third bedroom should be considered as a bedroom due to its size. The landlord contacted its surveying team and the local authority to ask about the criteria they use to define a bedroom.
  7. The landlord responded with information about how room sizes are assessed.
  8. The resident’s representative has also provided information to say that a further visit to the property occurred on 23 July 2020.
  9. On 10 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that it would not reclassify the property but would offer to remove arrears. It also suggested that the resident should seek independent legal advice.
  10. The resident then brought a complaint to the landlord, which issued its final response to the complaint on 7 June 2021.It reiterated its previous position and referred the resident to this service if she was unhappy with its response.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39 e of the Scheme states that: ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising;
  2. The resident’s tenancy commenced on 2008. If there were concerns about the suitability of the size of a bedroom, it would have been reasonable to expect that these were brought up at the time.
  3. From the information provided by both parties, it is clear that the resident first raised issues concerning the size of the third room in 2015 when she had received a spare room subsidy bill. This is supported by the evidence provided by the landlord concerning the resident’s enquiries and comments concerning the room.
  4. In the first instance, this service would expect a complaint about the size of a room in a property to be brought shortly after the start of the tenancy.
  5. From the information provided by both parties, this issue was first raised by the resident in 2015, around seven years after the tenancy commenced. A formal complaint about this issue was not brought until 2019.
  6. As the resident did not complain about this issue for more than ten years after the tenancy commenced and more than four years after the result of the landlord’s first inspection, it is not a matter that the Ombudsman can consider.