The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

LiveWest Homes Limited (202216455)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216455

LiveWest Homes Limited

7 December 2023


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:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the decision to decommission the resident’s property;
    2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing concerns.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and lived in a one bedroom flat within a block of flats, originally built in 1975.
  2. In March 2021, the local authority visited the property as part of a joint project with the fire service, to consider fire safety within high rise buildings. Following this, the local authority wrote to the landlord to advise of a fire safety hazard and issued an improvement notice.
  3. In May 2021, the landlord wrote to the residents to advise of future inspections and actions it planned to carry out. These included:
    1. An assessment of the external cladding;
    2. An assessment of the building compartmentation;
    3. A fire door survey and upgrade;
    4. Fire risk assessments, to include review of the stairlift and scooter store

 

  1. The landlord notified residents of the decision to decommission the property in October 2022. The landlord explained that it would not cost effective to improve the building, given concerns about energy performance, and it could not be assured the building would be safe in the long term. It said residents would be permanently decanted and offered new homes, and would also receive a statutory home loss payment of £7,100.
  2. The resident complained on 17 October 2022. He was unhappy as he believed the landlord had made a sudden decision about the future of the building, when it had known about issues for 18 months prior. The resident raised concerns about:
    1. the money the landlord had already spent on remedial repairs for a building being decommissioned;
    2. the availability of similar properties;
    3. the availability of removal contractors and carpet fitters;
    4. confusion about the budget allocation for safe removal and rehousing
    5. the home loss payment changing from £7,100 to £7,800
  3. The landlord provided its stage one response on 25 October 2022. It said it did not anticipate that people would move immediately and it would work with residents on an individual basis to meet their respective housing needs. The landlord said it was confident it had a sufficient number of properties available to rehouse residents, who would be given priority status and not be required to apply through the choice based lettings process. It had dedicated 2 members of staff to helping rehouse building residents and had already conducted viewings. The landlord also stated it would:
    1. reimburse any travel expenses incurred for residents attending viewings;
    2. organise and disconnect any appliances in residents’ properties and arrange for them to be reconnected;
    3. pay for carpet to be installed in new homes;
    4. pay for moving costs (which it already had contactors in place for)
  4. The landlord further explained that the decision to decommission the building had been made following technical reports into the construction of the building. It had continued to maintain the building in the meantime, and had taken time to prepare to disclose the information to residents. It said the statutory home loss payment had increased to £7,800 from 1 October 2022, which was not correctly reflected in the information provided to residents. The landlord offered the resident £50 as a gesture of goodwill.
  5. The resident remained unhappy with the response and requested to escalate his complaint the following day. He said £50 did not reflect the distress caused, he was unhappy with the timeline of events and quality of the decision making by the landlord in its assessment of the building, given that he had received assurances to the contrary the previous year. The resident explained that he was worried he now had to plan for a ‘worst case’ scenario and expressed concern that the landlord would not be able to provide a suitable property for him to move to. He was worried that he would be moved to temporary accommodation and his possessions would be put in storage, describing the situation as one that ‘gave him nightmares’. The resident said he was unhappy that it took him making a formal complaint for the landlord to communicate with the building residents and he was worried for the future. To resolve his complaint, the resident said he wanted clarification on the rehousing process and what would happen if a suitable property was not found.
  6. The resident also brought his complaint to this Service on 27 October 2022, confirming that his complaint was about the rehousing process and concern over the future, should he be unable to find suitable alternative accommodation by May 2023, the deadline given.
  7. The landlord provided its stage two response on 15 November 2022. It said the process was resident led where possible, and the resident could stipulate the type of property he wanted, in his preferred area, and the landlord would accommodate as much as possible. In response to the resident’s concerns over the availability of suitable alternatives, the landlord said if it had to take legal action as a last resort, it would be required to provide suitable accommodation at the point of a court order being granted. The courts would decide on the suitability, but the resident would not be placed in emergency or temporary accommodation, so therefore would not have to put his possessions in storage. The landlord reiterated that it would pay for removal and relocation costs and offered an additional £50 as another gesture of goodwill.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response. He said the landlord had failed to address queries in writing until prompted by him, and he did not consider verbal communication an appropriate means of addressing issues. The resident stated he had to push the landlord to ensure the rehousing processes was confirmed in writing. He further questioned if the landlord would be able to rehouse all residents by May 2023, stating he had widened his search area but was yet to find anything suitable. He explained that he felt offers of compensation were meaningless in light of this.
  9. This Service understands the resident moved to a new property on 6 February 2023 and is no longer a tenant of the landlord. On 30 November 2023, the resident advised of an update to his complaint, stating that when he moved the landlord had completed an affordability check but failed to inform him the property was subject to higher council tax banding. He felt this made the property unaffordable for him and has since completed a mutual exchange. To put things right, he would like compensation for the distress and inconvenience he experienced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. There is an element of this complaint which is outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation. This concerns issues raised by the resident regarding the affordability of his new property, considering the higher council tax band. While the Ombudsman has been provided with case notes relating to an affordability check, 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 involvement of this service. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s affordability assessment, he should raise a complaint with the landlord about this. The resident may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once he has received the landlord’s final response to his complaint.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s portfolio options and disposals policy states that it may dispose of a property if it impacts on its ability to meet its health and safety or building safety obligations.
  2. The landlord’s lettings and allocations policy states that it will offer housing through an exceptional transfer when residents’ needs cannot be met through the local choice based lettings system. It will work with residents and other agencies to meet housing needs.

The landlord’s handling of the decision to decommission the resident’s property

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The resident would have understandably been distressed to learn that his building would be decommissioned and he was required to move to another property. This Service appreciates that such upheaval may cause feelings of stress and worry. However, the Ombudsman cannot make a judgement on the validity of business decisions undertaken by the landlord. Therefore, we cannot comment on the resident’s concern that the landlord had chosen to ‘waste money’ by deciding to decommission the building after having invested financially in it. We can consider the timeliness of the landlord’s communication and how it acted in response to the resident’s complaint.
  4. The resident said he felt the landlord should have communicated its decision to decommission the building sooner than it did. He also said that he felt if he had not have pushed the landlord, it would not have told residents in October 2022. The landlord said in response that the decision was made ‘relatively recently’ following a technical report into the building, and that it had taken time to prepare its communication to residents. From the evidence provided, it appears the landlord made the decision in August 2022, and met with residents just over a month later. Following the meeting, the landlord wrote to the residents outlining the reasons for the decision and enclosing ‘frequently asked questions’. The deadline given for residents to be rehoused was May 2023, 7 months later. The landlord appears to have communicated the decision to residents within a reasonable timeframe, and given appropriate consideration to the time needed to move.
  5. The landlord wrote to the residents again on 1 November 2022, clarifying the amount of the statutory home loss payment. Though the landlord could have provided residents with this information sooner, it did not have an affect on the overall outcome.
  6. Overall, the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in its handling of the decision to decommission the resident’s property and a finding of no maladministration has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing concerns

  1. The resident raised several concerns about the availability of suitable alternative properties within the area. He said he was very worried about what would happen in May 2023 if suitable accommodation had not been found, and expressed concern over the possibility of temporary accommodation. In response, the landlord reassured the resident that should legal action be taken as a last resort, it would have to have alternative accommodation ready for the resident, and the court would decide if it was suitable.
  2. The resident said he was concerned about the availability of housing in his area, and widened the search area of where we would be willing to move to. The resident provided the landlord with a list of acceptable areas, and this Service understands that the landlord found the resident a suitable property in one of his desired areas, moving house in February 2023. The landlord acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances, by giving the resident a choice of areas and finding a suitable property within his criteria.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord covered relocation costs and paid for transport costs for the resident to attend viewings, carpets, curtains and blinds in the new property. The landlord arranged for contractors to help the resident move and disconnect his appliances and reconnect them at his new address. It also paid for the relocation of the resident’s motorbikes and for the resident’s internet services to be moved, as well as reimbursing the resident any costs for changing his insurances policies. This is an example of best practice by the landlord, and it acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances by mitigating the impact of moving on the resident. The resident was also entitled to a statutory home loss payment of £7,800 to help mitigate the financial impact of relocating.
  4. In conclusion, the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing concerns.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the decision to decommission the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s rehousing concerns.