LiveWest Homes Limited (202507569)

Decision
Case ID	202507569
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	LiveWest Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

1. The resident has cancer and she reported to the landlord antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour and requested rehousing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   2. The landlord’s handling of an exceptional transfer request, including an allegation of discrimination.
   3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of an exceptional transfer request, including the allegation of discrimination.
   3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of ASB

4. While the landlord took several actions in line with its ASB and Hate Crime Policy it did not respond to the resident’s  request for a camera, or carry out a risk assessment matrix. This was not in line with its ASB and Hate Crime policy and procedures, or vulnerability policy.

 

 

The landlord’s handling of an exceptional transfer

5. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s request to move by agreeing to an exceptional transfer and it provided explanations and appropriate support around this. However, it did not consider whether it could make more than 1 offer to the resident as a reasonable adjustment.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the timeframes in its customer compliments, complaints, and feedback policy. It accepted there were failures in its communication around complaint handling. It appropriately apologised and offered proportional compensation to reflect this.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 made up as follows: –       £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB –       £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the exceptional transfer, including discrimination allegation. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 December 2025

 

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord re-offer and pay the resident directly the £200 it offered during the complaint process for complaint handling failures unless it has already paid this. The landlord should provide documentary evidence it has paid this by 23 December 2025. The finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is made on this basis.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 September 2024	The resident complained that the landlord lacked understanding of her situation. She referred to recovering from cancer and feeling anxious that stress would increase the risk of recurrence. She said she had experienced ASB from a neighbour since June 2023 and had requested rehousing, but was uncertain if the landlord had agreed this. The resident stated she felt the landlord had not applied its vulnerable person policy.
6 September 2024	The resident told the landlord she wanted her complaint cancelled.
7 September 2024	The resident complained about the conduct of 2 of the landlord’s employees.
13 September 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process.
25 September 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response under its complaint policy and said: The ASB duty officer gave appropriate advice to the resident regarding the ASB. A housing officer contacted the police and agreed an action plan, including offering to fund mediation, arranging a meeting with the council and police, and a therapy referral. It considered the resident’s health concerns and vulnerabilities at the meeting on 20 August 2024, and it updated her on 22 August 2024 on the meeting. It cancelled a face-to-face meeting planned for 4 September 2024 on the resident’s request. It was a standard part of its ASB procedure to request evidence. The case was properly categorised and well managed, and it had acknowledged the impact of the ASB. It had requested an independent review. It had agreed to an exceptional transfer to acknowledge her vulnerabilities but noted the resident was unhappy about its policy of making one reasonable offer of accommodation. It had not seen evidence it told the resident she would get multiple offers. It had limited powers to deal with ASB from a non-resident, and it offered advice and engaged in partnership working. It had offered mediation with it to help rebuild the landlord-resident relationship. It agreed to process the resident’s transfer request with her preferred areas and intended to offer suitable properties. It agreed to appoint an independent female member of staff to deal with the housing transfer and had increased the period for an escalation as a reasonable adjustment.
25 September 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
26 September 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process for the first time.
15 October 2024	The landlord agreed the resident could escalate her complaint when she was ready to send it her reasons and it agreed to close the current complaint.
27 October 2024	The resident sent the landlord her reasons for escalation and said: Her housing officer had not acted on medical evidence and had catergorised her complaint as a noise nuisance. The landlord had placed her health at risk by asking her to gather noise recordings. An area housing manager had delayed processing an exceptional transfer application and had inappropriately discussed the complaint with her son. She felt the landlord’s operations manager was biased and dismissive. The landlord had ignored her request that an area manager not deal with a complaint because she felt he had not understood the ASB or the impact of gathering evidence was having on her and lacked impartiality. The resident felt the complaint was “unprofessional and poorly managed.” The landlord had told her different things over the number of houses she could consider, and she found it stressful the landlord only allowed one offer.
1 November 2024	The landlord sent the resident a second complaint acknowledgement at stage 2 of its complaint process.
19 November 2024	The resident asked the landlord to stop the complaint.
27 November 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response under its complaint process. It reiterated what it said in its stage 1 response about the limitations of what actions it had available to it, and it gave examples of the partnership working it engaged in and the support it offered. It also said: It had recorded the resident’s reports as ASB and responded to the ASB in line with its ASB & Hate Crime Policy. It noted the resident had asked it not to contact the neighbour and declined mediation, but it re-offered this. It had not completed a risk matrix or provided an action plan, but this would not have changed how it delivered the service. It accepted that completing the risk assessment would have provided the resident with reassurance. It agreed to complete a risk assessment. It was extremely limited in what properties were available to it via exceptional transfers which applied  where an immediate threat and unmanageable danger to life existed, or where it needed to agree one for strategic management reasons. It had agreed to an exceptional transfer as a reasonable adjustment as the resident’s circumstances did not match this criterion. It was working on the resident’s application and agreed to contact her when a suitable property became available. It could not guarantee a timescale and could not find evidence it promised the resident up to 10 properties, and this was not its policy. It recommended the resident bid through the choice-based lettings system because the demand for social housing exceeded the availability and it could take a long time to get rehoused. It offered its tenancy sustainment service to help the resident with choice-based lettings and mutual exchange. It found no evidence of any unprofessional action or behaviour. It had provided alternative colleagues to try and support her when requested and it had agreed to offer this where possible. It accepted at times it could have managed its process and communication better. It also accepted it could have been clearer on the role of its service improvement advocate and the scoping of the complaint. It ought to have let the resident know its reasons for allowing an area housing manager to investigate her complaint when she asked for him to cease contact. It also accepted that it could have provided clear information on the stage 2 escalation process and the scope of the stage 2 complaint. It accepted there were some delays in responding to some emails. It offered £200 for complaint handling failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident would like us to investigate the landlord’s handling of the ASB and exceptional transfer, including alleged discrimination, and wants compensation. The resident has said she is moving property but not via an emergency transfer. The resident has told us that the ASB continued after the complaint closure, but the landlord has said it closed the ASB case in February 2025 as it had received no recent reports. The landlord told us the resident has now obtained rehousing through the choice-based lettings system.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of ASB
Finding	Service failure

7. The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of ASB placed additional stress on her which exacerbated her cancer and affected her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident reported to the landlord that between June 2023 and August 2024 her neighbour:
   1. allowed and encouraged her dog to bark at her aggressively
   2. allowed her dog to attack her cat
   3. ‘weaponised’ her dog against her
   4. drove a car at her
   5. created banging sounds and her neighbour defecated in her garden.
9. The resident raised concerns about her neighbour entering her garden on 30 July 2024. She also told the landlord she had concerns about the safety level her garden gate provided, and she requested a security light. The landlord told her a day later she could fit a security light unconnected to the property without its permission. It also said she could replace the gate with its permission.
10. It was reasonable of the landlord to give the resident permission to install a safety light because it was under no obligation to provide one. When the resident told it the gate was in disrepair the landlord’s account is that it tried to call her 3 times to discuss this. While we have not seen a record to verify this there is no evidence either the resident requested permission to install a new gate or pursued this issue.
11. The landlord told the resident on 31 July 2024 of the limitations of what action it could take as the neighbour was not a resident of the landlord. It offered advice, opened an ASB case, and completed an ASB plan on this day in line with its ASB and Hate Crime policy. It also created an action plan with the resident over the telephone on 9 August 2024. It ought to have provided the resident with a copy of the action plans in line with its ASB and Hate Incident procedures. However, we cannot see its failure to provide a written copy affected its service. This is because it:
    1. made a referral on 12 August 2024 for therapy for the resident
    2. updated the resident on 19 August 2024 and on 22 August 2024
    3. contacted the police on 5 August 2024 (within 5 days of the resident’s report) and 3 September 2024 to make enquiries
    4. offered mediation to the resident with her neighbour and offered to contact other neighbours as part of its investigation
    5. offered to help the resident complete ASB diary sheets on 29 August 2024, after the resident complained 9 days earlier these were unsuitable
    6. offered a home visit on 4 September 2024 and completed an ASB case review on 13 November 2024
    7. offered the resident an exceptional transfer.
12. The above actions showed the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously and were in line with its ASB and Hate Crime policy. This required the landlord to work with other agencies to address the ASB and provide advice and support. However, we have found the following failures in the landlord’s handling of ASB because:
    1. it did not respond to the resident’s request for a camera when it told her on 13 September 2024 that it would ask about it and when its vulnerability policy specifically allowed it to provide video doorbell cameras
    2. it failed to complete a risk assessment matrix in line with its ASB and Hate Incident procedure, both during the complaint process and after it promised to in its final complaint response.
13. The landlord was under no obligation to provide a camera, but it asked internally if it could provide one, which was a fair response to the resident’s request. However, it has not shown it responded to the resident on this point, even after she raised this again on 2 November 2024 and 17 November 2024. This was a service failure which likely caused the resident distress considering her concerns for her safety and wellbeing.
14. While we have not seen the landlord’s failure to complete a risk assessment adversely affected its service to the resident it undoubtedly caused the resident some distress. This is because the resident requested one as she felt at risk and the landlord agreed to offer one, having acknowledged it was under a duty to complete this. We have therefore made an award of compensation of £100 to acknowledge these specific failures which is in line with our remedies guidance. This allows for awards of this amount where there has been service failure.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of an exceptional transfer including an allegation of discrimination
Finding	Service failure

15. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns throughout the complaint process that the landlord allegedly discriminated against her in relation to its handling of her exceptional transfer request. Unlike a court the Ombudsman is unable to make findings under the Equality Act 2010. The allegation is therefore a legal matter that likely needs considering by a court. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s allegation and whether it considered its equality duties to promote equal opportunities and fairness.
16. The resident told the landlord on 25 November 2024 that she planned to take legal action in respect of the alleged discrimination. She added she did not need the landlord to investigate claims of discrimination as she planned to obtain legal representation and bring a legal claim. Under these circumstances it was reasonable of the landlord to explain in its final complaint response that it would await details of this from her.
17. The resident told the landlord on 2 September 2024 that she needed to move house. The landlord acted reasonably in response to this request because it:
    1. provided the resident with a map of the area it had properties in, and offered to support her on 2 September 2024 in response to her request to move
    2. offered a transfer and explained its emergency transfer process on 6 September 2024 in line with its exceptional transfer procedure
    3. provided the resident with information on the local choice-based lettings system on 20 September 2024
    4. made the resident’s exceptional transfer live within 13 days of it agreeing it (between 6 September 2024 and 19 September 2024) and allocated a dedicated officer to deal with this on 26 September 2024
    5. spoke to the resident on 23 October 2024 and 31 October 2024 about her housing areas.
18. Although the resident said on 17 November 2024 the landlord did not send her a letter to explain the exceptional transfer process it emailed her on 20 September 2024 with this information. It also provided further information about this on 29 October 2024, 12 November 2024, and again on 18 November 2024. The landlord’s explanations were in line with its allocations and lettings policy and exceptional transfer procedure.
19. The resident asked the landlord on 13 November 2024 to ask the council to waive its local connection requirements, which were a pre-condition for some properties. The landlord explained to the resident on 20 September 2024 and 2 November 2024 this was not possible. As this requirement was a stipulation of the district council and part of the council’s policies it was not within the landlord’s power to consider a change to this policy as a reasonable adjustment.
20. The resident felt the landlord had not complied with its vulnerability policy and the provisions of the Care Act 2014 as it had not made her a housing offer in an area of her choice. However, these provisions did not create an obligation to rehouse the resident, or to make an offer within a set time, or in a specific area. The landlord sought to find her alternative accommodation in line with the district council’s policies and its allocations and lettings policy.
21. The resident said the landlord failed to take account of her health condition during the transfer application process and abused her, however we have not seen evidence that this was the case. On the contrary the landlord agreed to an exceptional transfer promptly on account of her circumstances and outside its criterion. In doing so it took the resident’s vulnerabilities into account, which was in line with its vulnerability policy and its equality duties.
22. However, it failed to consider if it could make the resident more than 1 offer as a reasonable adjustment. This would have been in furtherance of its equality duties because the resident had told it its 1 offer policy had affected her health condition. The landlord’s failure to consider allowing an adjustment to its policy likely caused the resident distress.
23. However, as we cannot say that, had the landlord considered this, it would have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident we have found service failure. We have therefore made an award of £50 compensation to reflect this in line with our remedies guidance. We have not ordered the landlord to consider if it has a duty to make an adjustment to its policy as we understand the resident is now rehoused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

24. While the resident complained to the landlord on 3 September 2024 the resident cancelled the complaint 3 days later. When she made another complaint on 7 September 2024 the landlord acted reasonably because it:
    1. acknowledged the complaint on 13 September 2024 (within 5 working days of the new complaint) in line with our Complaint Handling Code “the Code”.
    2. helped the resident with the scope of the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process following her request for assistance, in line with its customer compliments, complaints, and feedback policy (“complaint policy”) and its vulnerability policy
    3. provided its response at stage 1 of its complaints process on 25 September 2024 which was 8 working days after the resident agreed the scope of the complaint, within the 10 working days target set out in its complaint policy
    4. acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 26 September 2024, within the target of 5 working days under its complaint policy
    5. allowed the resident an extension on 15 October 2024 to provide her reasons for escalating the complaint on her request
    6. took the landlord 4 working days to acknowledged the resident’s second stage 2 request from when it received the resident’s reasons to escalate the complaint (27 October 2024 to 1 November 2024) which was in line with the complaints policy.
25. It took the landlord 22 working days to respond to the complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process (27 November 2024) from receipt of her reasons for escalation. This was against a target of 20 working days in its complaint policy. This was a short delay and there is no evidence this caused any detriment to the resident.
26. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord provided her with a response at stage 2 of its complaint process after she asked it on 19 November 2024 not to investigate further. The landlord explained it responded to provide a remedy, and by providing a stage 2 response the resident benefited from referral rights to our Service. This was a reasonable position to take as it allowed the resident the option of referring her complaint to us, in line with the landlord’s complaint policy.
27. The landlord accepted that it could have been clearer on its complaint process at stage 2 and on the separate role of its service improvement advocate. It also acknowledged that it should have explained to the resident its reasons for allowing an area housing manager to continue with investigating and providing a response at stage 1, after the resident asked him to cease contact.
28. It was reasonable of the landlord to apologise and offer £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This level of compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where we have identified failures which have had an adverse but no permanent effect. It also said it would share the learnings from its complaint handling failures. The landlord’s response showed a willingness to apply our dispute resolution principles; to act fairly, put things right, and learn from outcomes. We are satisfied that this amounted to reasonable redress and have recommended the landlord pay the resident the compensation it offered, unless it has already done so. This determination is made on this basis.

Learning

29. While the landlord took many positive steps to deal with the ASB the resident reported, it fell short of managing her expectations by not responding to her request for a camera. It failed to carry out a risk matrix after it told the resident this would be helpful and it promised to. It also could have considered if it was under a duty to offer more than 1 offer as part of its equality duties. It is important for landlords to respond to resident’s requests for support, to act on promises made, and to consider how the Equality Act 2010 may affect it in all its decisions.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s record keeping was good; it kept detailed records of communications.

Communication

31. The landlord’s communication around the exceptional transfer was good, but it accepted that it could have communicated better over its complaint handling. It caused the resident distress by not providing reasons for why it allowed the complaint handler at stage 1 of the complaint process to continue investigating and not explaining specific roles in its service (service improvement advocate).