Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

LiveWest Homes Limited (202500037)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202500037

LiveWest Homes Limited

16 October 2025

 

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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of reports of anti-social behaviour.
  2. We have also investigated the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has informed us the resident is vulnerable, due to respiratory difficulties.
  2. The resident complained on 10 November 2024 about the landlord’s handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by the resident’s neighbour over the past 11 months. The resident said the landlord had been negligent because it had not taken appropriate action after a good neighbour agreement (GNA) was broken, and he had not received responses from the landlord’s Housing Officer. The resident said the ASB had resulted in criminal damage to his CCTV equipment and affected his health. To resolve matters, the resident asked the landlord to appoint a new Housing Officer and to hold his neighbour to account for the ASB.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 21 November 2024. It said it had addressed issues prior to 24 June 2024 under a separate stage 1 complaint, sent on that same date. So, it would look at what had happened from 24 June 2024 onwards. The landlord said its communication and response to the reports of ASB had been appropriate. It also said, while not normal practice, due to restructuring its neighbourhood teams a new Housing Officer would be responsible for the resident’s area.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 22 November 2024. He said the landlord had failed to act on his reports of ASB.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 December 2024. It said it had reached the wrong outcome in its stage 1 response because it had failed to acknowledge and respond to reports of breaches to the GNA. It accepted it had failed to investigate 5 reported breaches and should have acted proactively. To resolve matters, the landlord agreed to:
    1. Reopen the ASB case.
    2. Agree an action plan.
    3. Update the GNA.
    4. Request the neighbour reconsider mediation.
    5. Complete a vulnerability risk assessment and consider any reasonable adjustments. And appoint an ASB officer.
    6. Review the acoustics in the neighbour’s property.
    7. Complete a subjective sound test of each property.
    8. Clarify its ASB policy to manage expectations.
    9. Support the resident with rehousing options, if desired.
  6. The landlord advised the resident to seek independent support from ASB Help and Citizens Advice and informed him of his right to request a Community Trigger. The landlord offered the resident £600 compensation for the failures it identified, broken down as:
    1. £200 for “Service Failure – reports of GNA being breached not being proactively investigated or formalised.”
    2. £200 for “Service Failure – Stage 1 failed to identify that no formal action was taken after […] continued reports of ASB and GNA being broken.”
    3. £200 for “Recognition of the negative impact this has had…”.
  7. Between December 2024 and March 2025, the resident continued to report ASB, including CCTV tampering and intimidation, stating the damage exceeded £1,000. The resident referred the CCTV tampering to the police. The landlord completed its action plan on 21 March 2025.
  8. Between March and April 2025, the resident reported the neighbour had poisoned his garden plants, and the landlord requested evidence of this. The police closed their investigation into the CCTV tampering due to insufficient evidence of criminal damage or harassment.
  9. In early April 2025, the resident referred the complaint to this Service. In late April the landlord advised the resident that without further evidence of ASB or noise, it could not proceed with a new GNA or keep the ASB case open. It noted the resident had not responded to its requests regarding contacting the local council to set up noise equipment or sound testing. The resident raised further concerns about the landlord’s failure to act and said it had discriminated against him based on gender. It is unclear what happened after this time.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of ASB dating back to around January 2024. On 24 June 2024 the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response addressing the resident’s concerns up to that date. That complaint did not go through the landlord’s full internal complaint procedure (ICP). The resident made a further complaint in November 2024, which he has referred to this Service. Our investigation into this complaint has highlighted concerns about the landlord’s decision to refuse to escalate the June 2024 complaint. While our concerns are explained elsewhere in this report, this means we will consider, where the evidence allows, the landlord’s response to the earlier reports of ASB, prior to June 2024. We will also consider the landlord’s handling of any actions agreed to in its complaint responses.
  2. We recognise this has been a difficult situation for the resident and that issues reported to the landlord have caused distress. It’s not our role to determine whether either party is responsible for ASB or noise. Our role is to assess whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of these issues and the associated complaint in a way that’s fair and reasonable.
  3. The resident has said the reported issues have affected his health. While we recognise the resident’s concerns, we are unable to establish the cause of a reported health issue. Generally, such matters are better suited to consideration by the courts or through a personal injury claim. We can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the impact of the issue on his health.
  4. In April 2025 the resident complained that the landlord had discriminated against him based on gender. This issue was raised after the landlord sent its stage 2 response. We have not been provided evidence the landlord has considered this through its ICP. So, it falls outside of the scope of this investigation. The resident is free to complain directly to the landlord about this, if necessary.

Assessment

  1. Having carefully considered this case, we have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. We have also found the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the complaint handling failures identified in this report. The reasons for this are set out below.

The landlord’s handling of the ASB between January 2024 and June 2024

  1. When the resident made this complaint in November 2024, he said he had experienced issues with ASB dating back 11 months. This suggests the issues started in January 2024. We have not been provided a detailed record of what occurred between January 2024 and June 2024, when the first stage 1 complaint response was reportedly sent.
  2. However, it’s clear the landlord recognised there were issues, as it responded to the earlier reports of ASB by putting in place a GNA on 17 April 2024. This set out, amongst other things, that the neighbour and the resident would be considerate of noise, would not cause harassment, and that they and their visitors would not cause distress.
  3. Depending on the issues reported, putting in place a GNA may be a fair and reasonable way for a landlord to address reports of anti-social behaviour. However, in this case the landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate the GNA was an appropriate response to the issues the resident raised. So, we simply cannot say the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in response to the earlier reports of ASB.

The landlord’s handling of ASB between June 2024 and December 2024

  1. The landlord’s policy says, in part, that intimidation, harassment and persistent noise are ASB. So, the landlord should consider reports of this nature under its ASB policy. Between June 2024 and December 2024, the resident reported intimidation, harassment and persistent noise issues, alongside other issues which would not qualify as ASB under the landlord’s policy, such as items being stored on the pathway outside the property. Given the nature of the resident’s reports and the GNA which the landlord knew was in place, the landlord should have considered the resident’s concerns about harassment, noise and intimidation under its ASB policy. This was a failure by the landlord which it has recognised in its stage 2 response letter.
  2. By failing to consider the issues reported, the landlord missed the chance to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations and to provide important information, such as details of the Community Trigger, at an early opportunity. Additionally, it’s clear the resident spent a considerable amount of time and trouble asking the landlord to appropriately respond to the issues reported between June 2024 and December 2024.
  3. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord identified failures in its handling of the resident’s ASB case and in its complaint handling. It offered £600 total compensation. A breakdown of this has been detailed earlier in this report.
  4. We ask landlords to provide clear breakdowns of any compensation offered, including what failures compensation is for. The landlord has included £200 compensation for the negative impact of failures it identified in both its handling of the ASB case and its handling of the complaint. The landlord’s handling of ASB and its handling of the complaint are separate issues. Combining the £200 compensation in the way the landlord has done makes it difficult for us to establish how much has been offered for each part of the resident’s complaint. Looking at the breakdown of the compensation the landlord has provided, it seems the landlord intended to pay:
    1. £200 for failing to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB and breaches to the GNA appropriately, and a further £100 for any negative impact this failure caused the resident.
    2. £200 for failing to identify its mistakes while investigating the complaint, and a further £100 for any negative impact this failure caused the resident.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy says the landlord may make a payment of between £200 and £600 where reports of ASB have not been addressed. Our remedies guidance says payments of between £100 and £600 may be appropriate where there has been a failure that as adversely affected the resident, as is the case here. In the Ombudsman’s view, the compensation offered for the failures prior to the stage 2 response was fair and reasonable. We are also satisfied that the actions the landlord agreed in its stage 2 response were fair and reasonable based on the circumstances and information available at the time.

The landlord’s handling of ASB following its stage 2 response

  1. Much of the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction relates to the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB following its stage 2 response, including that the landlord did not complete the actions it had agreed. While our investigations are limited to the complaints process under investigation, we expect to see evidence that landlords have followed through on the commitments made during the ICP. So, we have considered the landlord’s handling of the commitments made in its stage 2 response.
  2. It is important to note that while we generally expect landlords to complete actions agreed in complaint responses, this may not always be appropriate or necessary as circumstances change and develop. Additionally, actions agreed in a complaint response do not overrule the terms and conditions set out in a landlord’s policy.
  3. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord reopened the resident’s ASB case, and an ASB Officer was appointed by mid-January 2025. It also completed an action plan, and it provided a leaflet clarifying its ASB policy. This was in line with the commitments the landlord made in its stage 2 response.
  4. While the landlord did agree an action plan, this wasn’t completed until 21 March 2024, which was 84 days after the stage 2 letter. We recognise the landlord wanted to meet with the resident and the neighbour before agreeing the action plan. It also seems there was some difficulty arranging a meeting with the neighbour. Nevertheless, we expect landlords to respond to reports of ASB in a timely manner. It was not reasonable for the landlord to take 84 days to agree an action plan.
  5. The landlord has not demonstrated, in the evidence it provided this Service as part of the investigation process, that it asked the neighbour to reconsider mediation, conducted a vulnerability risk assessment or considered other reasonable adjustments it may have been able to make. Unless no longer necessary or appropriate, the landlord must be able to satisfy itself and this Service that it has made reasonable attempts to carry out any actions agreed in its complaint responses, in relation to the above, it has not done so. So, it has not demonstrated that it acted fairly and reasonably in relation to this.
  6. Regarding the acoustics and subjective sound tests, the landlord has provided us a copy of correspondence sent to the resident which suggests it began to try to schedule the tests on or around 13 March 2025. It is unclear why it took from December 2024 to March 2025 for the landlord to start arranging this. An appointment was later offered for 6 May 2025, but we have not been provided evidence to show whether the resident agreed to this. In the Ombudsman’s view, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not offer an appointment until 6 May 2025.
  7. Between December 2024 and April 2025, the resident raised concerns on a number of occasions that the landlord had not completed the actions agreed in its stage 2 response. It is clear the unreasonable delays identified above caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  8. The resident raised concerns that the landlord said it would close the ASB case after agreeing to re-open it and that it did not update the GNA in accordance with the stage 2 response. The landlord’s ASB policy states the landlord will not pursue an ASB case if there is insufficient evidence to support it. Following the stage 2 response the issues the resident reported were noise and intimidation, including damage to property due to CCTV tampering and poisoning of plants.
  9. The resident provided the landlord CCTV evidence of what he considered to be intimidating behaviour by his neighbour. We are satisfied, on the evidence available, that the landlord considered this and its decision to not treat this as evidence of intimidation was fair and reasonable.
  10. We have seen screenshots from the resident’s CCTV system which appear to show multiple alarms related to video tampering were triggered. We are satisfied it was reasonable for the landlord to say this evidence is insufficient on the basis it does not show the resident’s neighbour to be responsible for any potential tampering. We also recognise the police concluded that there was insufficient evidence of criminal damage and intimidation by the neighbour.
  11. We appreciate the resident has said the rapid deterioration of the plants suggests poisoning. However, it appears the landlord has not received evidence to show the neighbour was responsible for any potential damage to the plants. So, we are satisfied it was reasonable for the landlord to decide there was insufficient evidence of this.
  12. We recognise the resident’s concerns. However, given the lack of evidence of ASB following the stage 2 response, we are satisfied the landlord acted in line with the evidence-based approach to pursuing ASB cases set out in its ASB policy. In the Ombudsman’s view the landlord has not acted unfairly or unreasonably in relation to closing the ASB case or the GNA.
  13. In relation to the noise issues, the local council is responsible for establishing whether there has been statutory noise nuisance. So, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to the local council’s environmental health team in its action plan. That said, it also remains the landlord’s responsibility to respond to reports of noise under its ASB policy.
  14. We would also expect the landlord to respond to reports of noise transference, irrespective of whether it considers this to be ASB. We are satisfied the landlord did respond to the resident’s concerns about noise, by arranging the sound tests. Although, it remains that this was not arranged in a reasonable amount of time.
  15. The resident also complained that as part of its overall handling of his ASB case there had been lack of responses when corresponding with the initial Housing Officer responsible for his case.
  16. From the evidence provided, it appears the Housing Officer generally replied to the resident’s correspondence within 1 to 2 days. On one occasion, in an email dated 28 October 2024, the resident reported intimidation and noise issues, which in line with the landlord’s policy should have been responded to within 42 hours. The Housing Officer responded on 31 October 2024. However, this is only a minor delay and does not appear to have caused the resident any detriment. We have not identified correspondence being ignored or not responded to.
  17. We recognise the landlord has already offered £300 compensation for the failures it identified in its handling of the ASB and the impact this had on the resident. If no further failures had been identified this would have been appropriate and proportionate.
  18. However, as noted above, the landlord has not demonstrated that it responded appropriately to the reports of ASB between January 2024 and June 2024. Additionally, following the stage 2 response there has been further failures by the landlord, as identified in this report. In recognition of this, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused. This is inclusive of the £300 it has already offered for this part of the resident’s complaint.
  19. In summary:
    1. The landlord has not demonstrated that its response to the resident’s reports of ASB between January 2024 and June 2024 was fair and reasonable.
    2. The landlord failed to act promptly and reasonably on the reports of ASB between June 2024 and December 2024. However, the compensation offered for this, and the actions it agreed in its stage 2 response were fair and reasonable at the time.
    3. Following the stage 2 response, there were unreasonable delays to completing the action plan and arranging noise testing. Some actions, such as the vulnerability assessment were also not evidenced. This was unreasonable.
    4. While not in accordance with the stage 2 response, in this case it was reasonable for the landlord to state it would close the ASB case and not update the GNA due to a lack of evidence.
    5. Communication from the Housing Officer was generally good, with only a minor delay identified.
    6. The £300 compensation the landlord has offered was fair and reasonable for the failures it identified. However, we have identified further failures, and in recognition of this we have ordered the landlord to increase the compensation to £500 for this part of the resident’s complaint.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets standards to improve how housing complaints are managed. Landlords that are part of the Scheme must follow these standards by maintaining a complaints procedure that aligns with the Ombudsman’s best practices.
  2. While not included in the evidence we have been provided, we understand that in June 2024 the landlord sent a stage 1 response letter addressing its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB prior to this date. In an email dated 16 July 2024, the resident asked for that complaint to be escalated. We note from the landlord’s telephone call records on 24 July 2024 it declined to escalate the complaint on the basis “the window of appeal” had passed. No other reason for refusing to escalate the complaint was given, and we cannot see the decision or reasons were confirmed to the resident in writing.
  3. We are not satisfied, based on the evidence, that the landlord provided the resident a clear reason for why it had decided not to escalate his June 2024 complaint.
  4. We recognise the landlord’s complaint policy says residents must escalate complaints within 10 working days of receiving the stage 1 response letter. Exceptions to this include complex cases or complaints where the Equality Act 2010 is relevant.
  5. However, section 5.11 of the Code says landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do so. Any reasons must be clearly set out and must comply with section 2 of the Code. Section 2.2 of the Code says a landlords complaint policy must set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered as a complaint or escalated, and these circumstances must be fair and reasonable to residents.
  6. There are circumstances when, due to the passing of time, it may not be appropriate to escalate a complaint. However, it seems in this case the resident asked to escalate the complaint within 4 weeks of the stage 1 response, which is not a significant amount of time. It is also unclear when the resident received the stage 1 response. The landlord said it was sent on 24 June 2024. However, it appears the resident asked for a copy of the stage 1 during the telephone call on 24 July 2024, suggesting he had not seen it. Additionally, it is clear the resident continued to report ASB due to the same issues between 24 June 2024 and 24 July 2024, so the issues complained about were evidently still ‘live’ and ongoing.
  7. Taking the above into account. In the Ombudsman’s view, it was not fair and reasonable, in all the circumstances of this case, for the landlord to refuse to escalate the resident’s June 2024 stage 1 complaint solely on the basis that the window of appeal had passed, particularly as it did not confirm this to the resident in writing.
  8. By failing to escalate the complaint, the landlord missed the opportunity to investigate the matter fully through its complaint handling process, which would have likely led to the landlord identifying failures in its handling of the resident’s ASB case sooner. This would have saved the resident time and trouble in pursuing his complaint in November 2024 and December 2024. This was unreasonable and is a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  9. That said, we recognise the landlord has already offered £300 compensation for the failures it identified in its complaint handling, and for the impact on the resident. This is a significant amount for complaint handling failures. We are satisfied the overall compensation already offered is appropriate and proportionate for all the complaint handling failures identified in this report. So, we have made a finding of reasonable redress and not asked the landlord to increase this. It remains that the failure to escalate contributed to our overall finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
  10. The Code requires landlords to acknowledge and respond to complaints at stage 1 and 2 within specific deadlines. While the landlord generally responded in good time, we have identified a minor delay. The Code says requests for stage 2 must be acknowledged, defined and logged within 5 working days of the escalation request being received.
  11. The landlord’s records suggest the resident called the landlord on 22 November 2024 to escalate the complaint. The landlord subsequently called the resident on 25 November 2024 to confirm he wished to escalate. The stage 2 acknowledgement was sent on 2 December 2024, which is 6 working days after the escalation on 22 November 2024. We recognise this was a minor delay, and there is no evidence this caused detriment to the resident. So, we have not made an order or recommendation in relation to this.
  12. We have not identified further concerns with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the anti-social behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £500 compensation for any distress and inconvenience related to the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the ASB.
  2. This is inclusive of the £300 the landlord has already offered for the failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This amount must be paid directly to the resident.

Recommendations

  1. In addition to the compensation ordered, the landlord should ensure that it has paid any compensation offered during the complaints process if it has not done so already.