Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

LiveWest Homes Limited (202113187)

Back to Top

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113187

LiveWest Homes Limited

4 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a meeting with the resident.

Background and summary of events

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised a previous complaint regarding the handling of an anti-social behaviour (ASB) case involving a hate crime, which is the reason for the meeting in this complaint. While details of the ASB case are included for context, it was part of a separate complaint and will not be assessed in this report.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 28 June 2021 stating the police had been made aware of an incident between the resident and her neighbour and had requested a joint visit with the landlord to “find a resolution to the situation” on 6 July 2021. It advised the resident to contact it if the date was not suitable.
  3. The landlord’s records show the meeting took place on 6 July 2021 at the resident’s property; two of the landlord’s staff, a PCSO and a police officer were present. The meeting was to discuss implementing a good neighbour agreement and when this was raised, the resident asked the landlord’s staff to leave, which they did. 
  4. On 20 July 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint regarding the meeting as she was unaware that four people would be present and felt intimidated by this. 
  5. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 29 July 2021 stating that as the complaint had exhausted both stages of the complaint procedure, she would need to contact this Service (this was in regard to a separate complaint about the handing of the ASB). An internal email the same day stated the landlord had spoken to the resident and she had explained she wanted to raise a new complaint about the meeting on 6 July 2021, separate to the complaint regarding the handling of the ASB reports.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 July 2021 and confirmed it would respond by 6 August 2021.
  7. An internal email on 5 August 2021 stated the landlord spoke to the resident and agreed to extend the response time until 13 August 2021. Following this, the landlord extended the deadline to 20 August 2021, again this was agreed with the resident. 
  8. The landlord sent the stage one response on 20 August 2021. It said prior to the visit it had sent a letter advising the police would be present, and advised the resident during a phone call that two of the landlord’s staff would be attending. It understood that she felt uncomfortable but it had asked her if she was happy for everyone to enter the property before the visit started, which she confirmed she was. The visit was to discuss the good neighbour agreement, when this was raised the resident asked them to leave, which they did. It concluded it found no evidence that the visit was not conducted properly.
  9. The resident sent a letter to the landlord on 26 August 2021, stating she wanted to escalate the complaint to stage two. She disputed the claim that the landlord had informed her that two staff members would be attending and said she was not happy for four people to enter the property. 
  10. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation on 1 September 2021. 
  11. The landlord sent the stage two response on 10 September 2021. It reiterated the stage one response and added it was not aware prior to the visit that the police officer would be attending, this was due to the police wanting to discuss a crime she had reported. In future joint visits it would ensure it was aware of all parties attending and inform the resident, so it was not overwhelming upon arrival. It explained how the complaint could be escalated to this Service.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is good practice for the landlord to inform the resident of who will be attending a meeting, including any other agencies that will be present. While it is acknowledged that the resident felt distressed by the situation, the landlord acted appropriately by informing her prior to the meeting that it would be attending with the police and what the meeting was about. The landlord has also said that it checked the resident was happy for the meeting to go ahead before its staff and the police officers entered the property, and that its staff left as soon as the resident requested that they did so. This demonstrates that the landlord was mindful of the resident’s wishes.
  2. The landlord cannot be held accountable for not informing the resident that both a PCSO and police officer would be attending the meeting, if it was not aware of this prior to the visit. It has since explained that the additional police officer had been in attendance to discuss a crime the resident had reported. It has also demonstrated how it has learnt from the complaint, as in the stage two response it said in future joint visits it would ensure it is aware of all people attending and inform the resident accordingly.
  3. While the landlord stated in both complaint responses that it told the resident that two landlord staff members would be present, there is no contemporaneous evidence to confirm this and the resident has disputed this claim. However, it is not practical or proportionate to expect the landlord to record all the communication it has with the resident. The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the matter by speaking to the staff involved, who confirmed what they had told the resident about who would be attending the meeting.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the meeting with the resident.

Reasons

  1. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the meeting was reasonable. It let the resident know beforehand what the meeting was about and that it would be attending with the police, and it left the meeting when requested to do so by the resident. The landlord has demonstrated how it has learnt from the complaint as it will ensure it notifies the resident of everyone attending future joint visits.