Livin Housing Limited (202318325)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318325

Livin Housing Limited

17 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about internet connectivity.

Background

2. The resident was a tenant of the landlord.
3. On 4 July 2023, the landlord informed the resident she was the top bidder for a newly built house and gave her 24 hours to confirm her interest. Unable to view the property in person due to the distance, the resident relied on a virtual viewing and accepted the property. The tenancy agreement started on 12 July 2023.
4. On 24 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had viewed the property and realised it did not have an internet connection, which was crucial for her work. She therefore, decided to terminate her tenancy with immediate effect, and she did not think it was fair for her to pay the contractual 4 weeks’ notice, as the landlord failed to inform her of this before signing her contract. The landlord responded on 26 July 2023, saying some internet providers offer temporary connections as an interim measure. However, it said internet was the residents’ responsibility and it would make this clear in future property information packs. It explained it would not waive the notice period.
5. The resident complained in August 2023. She said that just like water and electricity, an internet connection was also a necessity for her as a remote worker. She said that the landlord pressured her to accept or lose the property, which could have been avoided if she had been able to view the property in person. She said that as the landlord had agreed to include this information to prospective tenants, it validated her complaint, therefore she should have to pay rent during the notice period. She had not moved in, and the keys were in the key safe.
6. Throughout the complaint process, including in its August 2023 final response letter, the landlord said that it was unaware that the property did not have an internet connection until the resident had informed it on 24 July 2023. It said it acted on this the same day, and the telecommunication infrastructure company attended the site on 31 July 2023. It would not waive the 4 weeks’ notice period. 
7. The resident asked the Service to investigate her complaint on 19 September 2023. She said she was pressured to accept the property. There was no information from the landlord, and she had to go by what workers on site had told her that it might take several weeks to connect the property to the internet. To resolve the complaint, she would like to be reimbursed for the 4 weeks of rent she had to pay.

Assessment and findings

8. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
9. The choice-based letting system used by the landlord explains that viewings are offered to all applicants before they sign a tenancy agreement. In some cases, it may only be able to offer a virtual viewing, for example, if prospective tenants are unable to attend or live away.
10. The landlord offered the property to the resident on 4 July 2023. She had a virtual viewing on 11 July and signed the tenancy agreement a week later, on 12 July 2023. There is no evidence that the resident asked the landlord to view the property during the week before signing the contract, and no evidence she queried whether the property already had an internet connection.
11. The landlord’s ‘notice-to-quit’ form reflects basic practice and the terms of the tenancy agreement, which says that residents must give 4 weeks’ notice in writing to end the tenancy.. Accordingly, the resident was entitled to end her tenancy, but nothing in the agreement obliges the landlord to waive the notice period.
12. The resident asked the landlord to waive the notice period because she had not yet moved in, and because the property did not have the internet connection she required. The landlord appropriately considered her request, and then explained why it would not agree to the waiver. Its decision and explanation reflected the terms of the tenancy.
13. The landlord explained it would make clearer the internet situation to future prospective tenants, and the resident argued that was an admission it had not made this clear to her. However, landlords are expected to learn from complaints and use opportunities to improve their services. That applies even when there has been no failure in the service it already provides. Because of that, the landlord’s decision to improve its service does not mean it provided poor service to the resident.
14. The resident complained that an internet connection was a necessity, like water and electricity. However, there is a significant distinction, especially as there is no evidence the property could not have an internet connection. A landlord would not usually allow a tenant to move into a property with no water or electricity connections as it would be unliveable. The same cannot reasonably be said of an internet connection, even given the importance of such a connection to everyday life.  
15. Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint. It provided a reasonable explanation in its complaint responses and was open to receiving feedback to improve its services in the future. Its explanation and decision were appropriately based on both the terms of the tenancy and its consideration of the resident’s circumstances.  

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its landlord’s handling of resident’s reports about internet connectivity.