LiveWest Homes Limited (202453254)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since 31 July 2023. The resident has learning difficulties, ADHD, and dyslexia. On 13 August 2024, the resident reported that his neighbour assaulted him after a dispute.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB).
   2. Poor staff conduct.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
5. There was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
6. There was no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

7. The landlord applied its ASB policy effectively and responded proactively to the residents reports of ASB. It liaised with third party representatives and provided appropriate support to the resident.
8. The landlord carried out a proportionate investigation into the reports of poor staff conduct and advised the resident of its findings.
9. The landlord’s complaint handling was in line with its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code.

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at and why

10. The resident advised us that he continued to suffer from ASB after the complaint response. We have not received any further evidence of reports of ASB from the resident to the landlord after the final complaint response in January 2025. In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s recent concerns. The resident will need to contact the landlord about these additional concerns and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way the landlord responds.

What we have looked at

11. It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord regarding whether the landlord responded appropriately to his reports of ASB. Our role is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
12. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, a resident must not act or behave in a way which causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress. It says residents must not cause a nuisance to anyone, cause harassment, commit any act that disrupts another person’s right to live peacefully, commit any act which results in physical or psychological harm. It also states that the landlord will investigate reports of nuisance, harassment and ASB and if appropriate it will take firm action against those responsible.
13. The landlord’s ASB policy says that its response to allegations of ASB will be robust and proportionate. It aims to resolve most incidents through early intervention by using a range of tools such as warnings, acceptable behaviour contracts, referrals to other statutory and voluntary agencies, community resolution, and mediation services.
14. The policy says that where the behaviour is of a criminal nature, it is likely that the police will be the lead agency in the investigation. In these cases, the landlord will support and work with them and its actions may be guided by their findings and outcomes. In circumstances where there is an immediate threat and unmanageable danger to life it will consider whether it can offer suitable alternative accommodation.
15. On 13 August 2024, the resident reported that 3 or 4 days previously his next-doorneighbour threw a stone at his cat and assaulted him. He said that he retaliated in self defence, and police attended. The resident reported that he did not feel safe and requested a move. He said he did not want to move to another property managed by the landlord due to issues with a previous move.
16. On the same day, the landlord opened an ASB case, provided advice to the resident about a property move through the council, advised that its tenancy sustainment services could assist with immediate issues, established that the resident had contacted support for his mental health, contacted his neighbour for their version of events, and contacted the police for an update, advising that it had received conflicting versions of events. These were all reasonable steps for the landlord to take in response to the report of an assault.
17. On 14 August 2024, the resident reported that another neighbour threatened him with a shovel. The landlord noted that the resident had a camera on his property which did not capture the incident. It advised the resident to report the incident to the police and provide the police with its housing officers mobile number.
18. On 16 August 2024, the landlord contacted the police and on 19 August 2024, arranged a joint visit with the resident and the police on 4 September 2024 to discuss the incident. The evidence shows that the landlord liaised with victim support and the councils ASB officer and invited these parties to the joint meeting. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take to ensure a thorough investigation into the incident incorporating multiple external contributions and to support the resident.
19. On 4 September 2024, the landlord, the police, and an ASB officer for the council met the resident at his home. The council explained that it could not move him without any evidence of risk. The police provided advice to the resident about obtaining a camera for his garden to assist in gathering evidence. The landlord advised the resident to contact its tenancy sustainment team to provide guidance and provided advice on registering with the council for a property move. The landlord spoke with the resident’s neighbours who stated they would not approach the resident. These were appropriate steps for the landlord to take to assist the resident in gathering evidence and assist him with a property move if and when it established if there was evidence of an elevated risk to his safety.
20. On 11 September 2024, the landlord obtained consent from the resident to discuss his case with a mental health charity with whom he was receiving treatment. It intended to offer therapy sessions for the resident but found that he was already receiving support through therapy and was referred for counselling and a befriender. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take to ensure the resident was receiving support.
21. On 4 October 2024, the resident reported that his neighbours CCTV camera was pointed toward his garden. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says that it will offer mediation and advice if there is a dispute regarding CCTV. The resident said that he could not contact his neighbour directly because of the recent ASB allegations and mediation was refused. As a resolution, the landlord agreed to speak with his neighbour about the CCTV. The landlord called the resident’s neighbour who said that the CCTV did not cover the resident’s garden. While this was a positive approach by the landlord, it is unclear if the landlord explained to the resident what his neighbour said. This was a shortcoming by the landlord.
22. On 16 October 2024, the resident told the landlord that his neighbour had not yet moved the CCTV, he said that he would remove it himself and threatened to assault his neighbour. On the same day, the landlord notified the police of the threat and said that it had been assured that his neighbour was not recording his garden. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
23. On 23 October 2024, the landlord visited the resident’s neighbour with the police and evidenced that their CCTV camera was not directed towards the resident’s garden. It called the resident and confirmed that the camera was not covering his garden. It advised the resident not to contact his neighbour. These were appropriate steps in the circumstances.
24. Based on the evidence, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The situation was reportedly distressing for the resident who indicated that he felt unsafe in his property. However, the landlord appropriately applied its ASB policy to investigate the resident’s reports. It gathered evidence from his neighbours and liaised with police and the council. When it found no evidence of elevated risk to the resident, it nonetheless provided support in gathering evidence and signposted the landlord to its tenancy sustainment team. It provided advice on registering with the council for a property transfer and liaised with his mental health support services to ensure he was receiving support.

25. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the housing officer’s conduct. Part of his complaint was that the housing officer investigating the ASB reports said that she would not help him in any way with a property move. We will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate or indeed took place. Instead, it is our role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. For example, the landlord would generally conduct interviews and gather evidence from all parties, then making an informed decision based on its findings.
26. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a proportionate investigation to the report of poor staff conduct by contacting the police officer who attended the meeting. The police officer confirmed that there was a discussion about a property move but the police had no evidence suggesting the resident was unsafe in his home. The police officer noted that the housing officer and council ASB officer suggested to try and resolve the issues before considering a house move.
27. The landlord provided the findings of its investigation through its complaint responses. It found no service with the staff members conduct. This was a proportionate and reasonable investigation into the report of poor staff conduct.

28. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
29. There was a delay of 7 working days in providing its stage 2 complaint response due to an administrative error. The landlord identified this error and agreed an extension to the complaint response with the resident. This was reasonable in the circumstances and the evidence indicates no impact on the resident as a result of the error.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The investigation found no issues with the landlord’s record keeping.