Livv Housing Group (202328127)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328127

Livv Housing Group

19 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Decision to issue a formal warning to the resident for alleged antisocial behaviour.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house. The landlord told us it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but that she had mentioned her mental health being affected during the complaints process.
On 21 June 2023 the landlord issued a formal written warning to the resident in response to an ASB report made on 19 June 2023. The warning stated that in an incident on 17 June 2023 the resident had verbally abused a neighbour and that her visitor’s dog was acting aggressively towards that neighbour. It said the behaviour of visitors and their pets were her responsibility and that two of its employees would visit her home on 28 June 2023.
During the visit on 28 June 2023 the resident disagreed with the warning and said the dog had been briefly in her garden when its owner was picking up the resident’s friend. She said it was the neighbour who had been abusive when the dog barked when she arrived home. She said she felt harassed by the neighbour and had contacted the police about her several times in the past. The landlord said itwould contact police the following week for evidence of the residents previous reports and wouldreview the warning once it receivedpolice evidence. The landlord’s records noted that the resident was visibly anxious during the visit.
There is no record of the landlord contacting the police the following week or updating the resident. On 12 July 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. She asked the landlord to revoke the warning and apologise. There is no record of the landlord issuing a formal response to this complaint. The landlord has told us this was dealt with as a service request and that a manager reviewed the decision and told the resident they agreed with the warning.
It Is not clear when the resident was told of the review outcome but on 25 August 2023 the resident made another formal complaint about the decision to issue a formal warning. She said she had been assumed to be guilty and given a warning without being given a chance to discuss the allegations. She said this had affected her mental health.She asked to see the evidence it had relied on and said it had still not confirmed that it had requested police evidence of her previous reports about the neighbour.
In its stage 1 response on 13 September 2023 the landlord did not revoke the warning and said it was unable to share the evidence provided by a third party due to data protection laws. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 September 2023.
In its stage 2 response on 1 November 2023, the landlord said it had found failings in the handling of both the complaint and the ASB report. It said it was not standard practice for a formal written warning to be issued without contacting a resident to discuss it first and having reviewed the evidence it could also not find sufficient reason for a formal written warning to have been issued at that stage. It also said it could have better explained that the third party had not given consent for their information to be shared.
It awarded compensation of £200, which it said was for:
1. Failure to follow the correct process for investigating anti-social behaviour.
2. Failure to fully investigate the stage 1 complaint.
3. Failure to explain clearly the reason for not sharing the third party evidence.
4. Delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2.
The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 November 2023, as she felt the landlord had not acknowledged the impact its failings had on her, which included months of stress and anxiety.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the landlord’s actions impacting on her mental health. Although we would give consideration to any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because we cannot establish whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and/or inaction and the resident’s health. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. This is in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme which states:
‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.’
The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord’s refusal to provide details about the evidence it had received due to data protection laws. Complaints about issues relating to access to data are considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). As such the Ombudsman will not be investigating this part of the resident’s complaint. This is in line with paragraph 42 (j) of the Scheme which states:
‘The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.’ The resident may wish to contact www.ico.org.uk to discuss this issue further.

Decision to issue a formal warning to the resident for alleged antisocial behaviour.

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. It is also not within the Ombudsman’s remit to decide on matters such as tenancy breach in the same way as the courts. However, the Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with ASB reports it has received and assess whether the landlord has acted reasonably and in line with its ASB policy and procedure.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that “action against respondents will be proportionate to the situation”. Its ASB procedure states that “the procedure will ensure that [the landlord adopts] a consistent approach to tackling ASB that is fair, transparent and proportionate”. In order for a landlord to take proportionate action, an allegation needs to be properly investigated. The procedure states that following an allegation of ASB the ASB officer should arrange an interview with the alleged perpetrator and should explain that the purpose of the interview is to obtain their version of events and agree an action plan with them to try to resolve the matter.
Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have properly investigated the allegation by interviewing the resident, to hear her version of events before it made a decision about what action to take. However, the landlord failed to do so. The landlord’s records show that when the landlord received the report of alleged ASB on 19 June 2023 it advised the complainant that it would issue a warning to the resident. In a letter to the complainant on 21 June 2023 the landlord again confirmed that it would be issuing a warning to the resident, and the formal written warning was issued to the resident that day. The landlord had made no contact with the resident at this point.
This was unfair to the resident as the landlord had made a decision to issue a formal written warning without giving the resident a chance to discuss or dispute the allegations. As the landlord failed to act in line with its ASB policy and procedure there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to issue a formal warning to the residentfor alleged antisocial behaviour.
Once the landlord had spoken to the resident, it agreed to contact the police the following week and then look at reviewing its warning. However, it failed to do so and the resident had to chase the landlord for an update. The landlord has provided no evidence that it contacted the police for information until 19 October 2023 during stage 2 of the complaints process when it only asked whether there had been any reports made to police within the last 6 months. As the landlord failed to provide regular updates to the resident and failed to contact the police within the timeframe agreed this was a further failing by the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had failed to follow procedure and awarded total compensation of £200 for 4 failings that it had identified. 3 of the 4 failings related to the complaints process and will be addressed in the complaint handling section of this report. As the landlord’s complaints policy states that its service failure payments are based on the amounts in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (which start at £50) we will assume that the £200 compensation was split equally into £50 compensation for each failing.
The Ombudsman does not consider £50 compensation to be reasonable or proportionate. This is because the impact of the failure to follow procedure was significant. As was the landlord’s failure to keep the resident updated or to contact police within the timeframe agreed. The resident has referred to her mental health being affected by the landlord’s failings. Although we cannot assess the impact on the resident’s health we can consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord’s records state that the resident was visibly anxious during the meeting on 28 June 2023. The resident has explained that she was worried that she could lose her home and that the landlord’s failure to contact her before issuing the warning caused considerable distress. Its decision not to revoke the warning until 1 November 2023 meant that this distress and worry continued over an extended period of 4 months. The resident has explained how she still worries that it could happen again and she has now purchased CCTV cameras. She has also expressed concerns that the warning could be used against her at any point in the future whilst it still remains in the landlord’s records.
Therefore, the Ombudsman will be ordering the landlord to pay additional compensation of £450 for this aspect of the complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings.
We will also be ordering the landlord to issue a letter of apology from a senior member of staff which recognises the significant impact on the resident. The landlord’s records say that following the stage 2 response it contacted the resident by telephone to confirm that the warning would only stay on its records for auditing purposes. However, the landlord said it was unable to locate any documented evidence of this call. The resident has no recollection of such a call taking place. Therefore, the letter of apology should also address the resident’s concerns that the warning could be brought up or used against her in the future.
The Ombudsman will also be ordering the landlord to carry out a full case review.

Complaint Handling.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy whereby it states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at stage 1. It further states it will provide a response within 10 working days of the acknowledgment and will confirm the outcome in writing. At stage 2 it states it will respond within 20 working days of the escalation request. It also states that “In all cases, if a customer specifically asks for the issue raised to be treated as a complaint, then we will accept this and investigate their issue.”
When the resident raised a complaint on 12 July 2023, she specifically stated that she wanted to make a formal complaint. As such, in line with its complaints policy the landlord should have treated this as a formal complaint and provided formal written responses. However, it failed to do so and has told the Ombudsman that the complaint was treated as a service request instead.
The landlord’s records from 28 July 2023 state that manager would need to review the warning which suggests it had not been reviewed at that point. However, due to poor record keeping it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to confirm exactly when the manager contacted the resident following her first complaint, when the review took place and when the resident was informed of the outcome of the manager’s review.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 14th September 2023 the landlord should have provided a response within 20 working days, in line with its complaints policy. However a delay in actioning the complaint led to the stage 2 response being issued 34 working days after the escalation request. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the complaint handling failings in respect of not fully investigating at stage 1 or clearly explaining its reason for not sharing third party evidence and the delay in escalating the complaint to stage 2 and awarded £150 compensation for those failings. However, it failed to acknowledge or apologise for its failure to follow its complaints policy when dealing with the initial complaint that the resident raised on 12 July 2023.
Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. We will be ordering the landlord to award an additional £100 compensation in respect of this additional failing. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged failings but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
The Ombudsman will also be ordering the landlord to review the recordkeeping within its ASB department.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s decision to issue a formal warning to the residentfor alleged antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write a letter of apology from a senior member of staff, to the resident that also addresses her concerns about the warning being brought up in the future.
2. Pay additional compensation of £550, comprised of:
  1. An additional £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its maladministration in respect of its decision to issue a formal warning to the residentfor alleged antisocial behaviour.
  2. An additional £100 for the impact on the resident of its maladministration in respect of its complaint handling.
  3. This is in addition to the £200 the landlord has already awarded, which it should also pay within 4 weeks if it has not already done so.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review the recordkeeping within its ASB department.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out a full case review to establish how the failings occurred. It should provide a copy of the completed case review to the Ombudsman and the resident.