We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Livv Housing Group (202502090)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202502090

Livv Housing Group

12 September 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 concerns about mobility scooter storage, and her request for reasonable adjustments.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord since 2000. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat within a block. The landlord said that it was informed of the resident’s disability during her complaint. However, records we have seen show she also told it in August 2022 that she used a mobility scooter following a stroke.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 29 May 2024 about its request that she move items, including her mobility scooter, from the rear communal garden. She said:
    1. she relied on her mobility scooter after a stroke had left her “semi paralysed”.
    2. leaving the mobility scooter at the front of the property could result in it being stolen.
    3. she wanted the landlord to make reasonable adjustments around where she could store the mobility scooter.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 18 June 2024. It acknowledged the impact of the stroke on the resident. However, it said its policies were in place to ensure a consistent approach and the safety of residents.
  4. The landlord said it had requested the mobility scooter not be stored in communal areas based on advice from its fire risk assessor. It also said it could offer the resident advice on housing options and “accommodate [her] needs”, including storage solutions for her mobility scooter. However, it requested that she store this within her home (rather than in the communal space) with immediate effect.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 22 July 2024. Among other things, she said it had not contacted her during its investigation to understand her needs. She said it was “logistically unfeasible” for her to store the mobility scooter in her property.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 24 September 2024. It said:
    1. it apologised that it had not visited or contacted her during its stage 1 investigation of her complaint. It said it had since visited her and arranged a survey of the property.
    2. it believed she would benefit from some adaptions to her home including suitable mobility scooter storage. It said this needed to be requested by the resident making a referral to the local authority.
    3. it accepted it could have handled the resident’s stage 1 complaint better and awarded the resident £200 in respect of this.
  7. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of storage for her mobility scooter. She said she was still waiting for it to arrange this. The resident told us that she was not seeking further financial compensation from the landlord. Instead, she said she wanted it to complete work to arrange outdoor storage. Further, she said she wanted it to allow her to store a mobility scooter in the communal hallway until outdoor storage was completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident expressed concerns that she had not heard from the local authority following her OT referral for her mobility scooter storage. We acknowledge the resident’s concern about this. However, we do not have jurisdiction to consider the actions of the local authority. If the resident has any outstanding concerns about this, then it would be appropriate for her to refer these to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about mobility scooter storage, and her request for reasonable adjustments.

  1. The landlord’s fire safety standards set out its obligations as the ‘Responsible Person’ under the Fire Safety Act 2021. It says that it will comply with a number of fire safety obligations. It outlines that:
    1. it will ensure all communal areas are safe and free from hazards.
    2. storage and charging of mobility scooters in communal areas “creates a “significant fire hazard and is not permitted”.
    3. where a designated mobility scooter store is not available, scooters must be stored in a resident’s flat or house.
  2. The landlord completed a fire risk assessment (FRA) of the resident’s block of flats on 12 April 2024. This was in line with its fire safety standard. Among other things, the FRA identified items, including a mobility scooter, needed to be removed from the rear communal garden due to fire risk. In line with its policies and obligations, it was appropriate for the landlord to act to request that the resident move her mobility scooter.
  3. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord said that it could not make a reasonable adjustment to allow her to keep the mobility scooter in the rear communal garden. The landlord said this was due to associated risks and its responsibilities to keep residents and buildings safe. That was reasonable. While the landlord had an obligation to consider reasonable adjustments, it was also appropriate for it take account of other obligations and any associated risks.
  4. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it could offer advice and support to the resident, including storage solutions for her mobility scooter. Further, it said it could consider any recommendations made by an OT. While that was reasonable, there was more the landlord could have done at this stage to understand the resident’s position. In line with its complaints policy, it should have contacted her to discuss the complaint and “agree an effective solution”. Given the issues and concerns the resident had raised it should have been apparent that contact and/or a visit to inspect issues would have helped it to ensure it was doing all it could to support her in finding a solution.
  5. It was positive that the landlord identified further steps it could take during its stage 2 investigation. It arranged to complete a surveyor of the property in August 2024 to identify a suitable location for external mobility scooter storage at the front of the property. Further, it arranged to visit the resident on 10 September 2024 to discuss her concerns and potential solutions. These actions were appropriate and reasonable. It was also appropriate that the landlord apologised to the resident for not visiting or liaising with her earlier.
  6. Further, the landlord provided an additional explanation in its stage 2 response of why it could not allow mobility scooter storage in the rear communal garden. It said the rear communal garden did not allow for the scooter storage to be sited at least 6 metres from the building, in line with National Fire Chiefs Council guidance. The survey the landlord conducted in August 2024 noted that there was also no area at the front of the property that achieved 6 metre clearance from the building. However, it noted it had identified a position at the front it considered to provide the most “practical solution”.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response of 24 September 2024, the landlord directed the resident on how she could make a referral to the local authority for an OT assessment in respect of storage for her mobility scooter. It said the local authority could consider a disability facilities grant (DFG) for this. The landlord also said that, while the adaption needed to be requested through the local authority, it would “jointly fund the adaptions completed”. Further, it said it had allocated the case to a housing manager who would represent the landlord in discussions with the local authority. It provided the resident with an email address and telephone number for its housing manager. These actions by the landlord were appropriate.
  8. Records show that, following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the resident submitted a request to the local authority for an OT assessment, which she also sent to the landlord. At this time, she requested a DFG to fund mobility scooter storage and adaptions to her front door. While the landlord later received contact from the OT in October 2024 about work needed to the front door, this made no reference to mobility scooter storage. Despite this, there is no evidence the landlord took any steps to establish whether action to address mobility scooter storage was progressing. It did not do so until the Ombudsman made contact on 10 July 2025. Following this, the OT told the landlord on 17 July 2024 that the resident had advised, during its visit in October 2024, that the landlord was building the mobility scooter storage. The OT said that, as such, it had completed no further action in respect of this storage.
  9. The resident also told us that she believed the landlord had agreed to build the storage. The correspondence we have seen does not show the landlord had agreed this action. It undertook a survey to identify a suitable location for the storage. However, its stage 2 response directed the resident to approach the local authority for an OT assessment and funding in respect of this, and she did so in early October 2024. We have seen no evidence of subsequent communication between the landlord and the resident to show there was any change in the position set out in its stage 2 response.
  10. However, as outlined above, the landlord was aware the resident had no suitable storage for her mobility scooter. Given this, and what it knew of her reliance on her mobility scooter, it should reasonably have taken steps to maintain oversight following the resident’s request to the local authority. That it did not do so meant it missed the opportunity to ensure appropriate work was progressed. Further, it could then have corrected the resident’s misunderstanding about what had been agreed. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about mobility scooter storage, and her request for reasonable adjustments.
  11. In its contact with the landlord in July 2025 the OT said that a DFG does not fund storage for a mobility scooter. The landlord told us that it will now contact the OT to find a solution to the problem for the resident. We have ordered that it contact the resident to outline the steps it is taking in respect of this. Further it should provide her with a point of contact and agree a way of keeping her regularly updated through to conclusion of the required work.
  12. Given the landlord’s fire safety standard state that mobility scooters must not be stored in communal areas, we cannot direct it to allow the resident to store a mobility scooter in the communal hallway. However, we have ordered that it arrange a further survey of the property to consider whether there are any practical temporary storage solutions it can implement. With consideration to the remedies guidance, and what the resident told us about the outcome she is seeking, we have also ordered that the landlord apologise to her for the failings we have identified.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and response within 10 working days of this. Its response to the resident on 18 June 2024 met those timescales. As noted above, it did not contact the resident during its stage 1 investigation, contrary to its policy. It said this was due to a miscommunication on its part. However, it appropriately acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response and the £200 it awarded in respect of this was reasonable.
  2. Its stage 2 complaint response was outside the 20-working day timescale set out in its policy. It did not do so until 24 September 2024. However, it communicated with the resident in advance to explain the delay. Further, it took appropriate steps to survey the property and meet with her during this time. Overall, we have found reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about mobility scooter storage, and her request for reasonable adjustments.
  2. In accordance with paraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings we have identified in this report.
    2. contact the resident to outline the steps it is now taking in respect of mobility scooter storage. Further, it should provide her with a point of contact and agree a way of keeping her regularly updated through to conclusion of any required work.
    3. arrange a further survey of the property to consider whether it can implement any practical temporary mobility scooter storage solutions. It should communicate the findings of this to the resident within the same timescale.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, we recommend that within 4 weeks of this report the landlord pay the resident the £200 it previously awarded.
  2. We recommend that within 4 weeks of this report the landlord review whether work completed to the resident’s front door closing mechanism now meets her needs, in line with the recommendations of the OT assessment of October 2024.