LiveWest Homes Limited (202511250)

Background

1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord between September 2023 and 16 December 2024 when it placed her in temporary accommodation following her relocating due to domestic abuse. The landlord has a support service that provides support to individuals and families. They assisted the resident. For ease of reading we will refer to the support team as the landlord in this report. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident said she felt the landlord had forced her to move to an unsuitable property. She complained to the landlord because she felt that she had been discriminated against and the landlord had treated her unfairly.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its staff member’s conduct and level of support it had provided when moving to a new property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its staff member’s conduct and level of support it had provided when moving to a new property.
5. There was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. The landlord had acted appropriately in investigating the reports of its staff member’s conduct and apologised to the resident.
   2. The landlord apologised for poor communication to the resident.
   3. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policies and procedures.

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.

7. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s staff. Our role is to determine whether the landlord investigated and responded to the complaint adequately and took proportionate action based on the information available. For complaints about staff conduct, landlords are expected to carry out a thorough investigation, which typically includes interviewing relevant parties and reviewing evidence before reaching an informed decision.
8. On 5 December 2024 the resident asked the landlord for support in moving to a property managed by a different landlord. She asked the landlord to attend a property viewing on 10 December 2024 before signing the tenancy agreement. The landlord responded on 7 December 2024, explaining that it could not assist with the physical move but would help arrange removal quotes and provide administrative support. This was a reasonable response given the landlord’s role as a support provider. Records confirm that the landlord attended the viewing on 10 December 2024 as agreed, and the resident signed the tenancy agreement with her new landlord.
9. Evidence shows the landlord maintained contact with the resident throughout the move. When the resident raised concerns about the lack of furniture in the new property, the landlord contacted the local council to explore available support. The landlord continued assisting the resident after her tenancy with it ended on 16 December 2024. This support included:
   1. Regular contact with the resident.
   2. Communicating with the local council about the resident’s concerns and accessibility needs.
   3. Submitting a formal complaint to the local council on her behalf.

This was reasonable, as the landlord recognised the resident’s vulnerability and agreed to continue support for three months after the end of its formal relationship with her.

10. In her initial complaint, the resident said she felt bullied and forced into signing the tenancy agreement at the new property by a staff member. She stated that the staff member dismissed her concerns about the property’s suitability and told her that not signing would risk losing her banding. She claimed this amounted to discrimination based on her ethnicity and disability. We cannot determine whether discrimination occurred in a legal sense. A ruling on whether discrimination breached the Equality Act 2010 is for a court to decide. However, we can consider whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s complaint.
11. In its stage 1 investigation the landlord considered allegations that its staff member used threatening language and referred to notes of conversations. It concluded, based on the evidence available, that the staff member remained professional and did not force the resident to accept the property. In her review request, the resident asked whether the landlord had spoken to another witness present at the time. The landlord interviewed this person during its review of the initial complaint response. This was appropriate and in line with its complaint policy, ensuring a thorough investigation and consideration of all relevant evidence. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this in its initial investigation and asked about potential witnesses at the beginning of the process.
12. In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it was inappropriate for the property viewing on 10 December 2024 to have continued once it had identified that the property did not meet the resident’s needs. It explained that, once it became clear the property was inaccessible due to stairs, the viewing should have been suspended. This would have allowed the landlord to refer back to the local council and explain the accessibility issues. It apologised that this resulted in the resident being unable to access the property without support and said it would work with the local council to resolve the issue by providing a ramp.
13. The landlord explained that its investigation found no evidence of discrimination. However, it suggested the resident contact a charity that provides confidential support to anyone targeted because of race, faith, disability, or other reasons. It offered, with her permission, to ask the charity to independently assess the behaviours and support it had provided. This was a reasonable offer, signposting the resident to relevant help to explore whether its actions were influenced by conscious or unconscious bias.
14. Following further evidence obtained during its review, the landlord recognised that its staff member gave incorrect advice and did not support the resident in challenging the property’s suitability. However, it did not find evidence that the staff member was intentionally threatening. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to make further enquiries during its review based on new information, the landlord should have done this in its initial investigation rather than wait for new information.
15. The landlord awarded the resident £500 compensation for miscommunication and inappropriate service. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and reflected a moderate level of inconvenience caused by its service failure. The compensation aligns with our guidance on remedies for failures that affected the resident where there was no permanent impact. The landlord identified the failures and advised that it would review its processes to ensure staff understand the moving-on procedure. This is consistent with our dispute resolution principles to learn from outcomes. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

16. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will:
    1. Respond at stage 1 within 10 working days.
    2. Acknowledge a review request within 5 working days.
    3. Respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
    4. Agree any extensions with the resident if it is unable to respond within its timescales.
17. The resident raised her complaint on 25 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged her complaint on 27 December 2024 which was 1 working day after it was submitted. On 6 January 2025, the landlord noted that the resident requested a female caseworker deal with her complaint which it arranged. This caused a delay in responding at stage 1 which the landlord appropriately told the resident about on 13 January 2025 as per its policy. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 January 2025 which was 16 working days after the complaint was submitted. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy.
18. The resident requested a review of her complaint on 1 February 2025. The landlord formally acknowledged the request on 10 February 2025 which was in line with its policy of 5 working days. The landlord contacted the resident on 7 March 2025 advising that it would not respond within 20 working days. It appropriately agreed to respond to her complaint by 19 March 2025. It responded on 19 March 2025 which was 27 working days after the acknowledgement.
19. The landlord communicated with the resident throughout the complaint procedure. It followed its policy by agreeing extensions with the resident and was reasonable in changing caseworkers following the resident’s request for a change. Therefore, we found that there were no service failures in its complaint handling.

Learning

20. The landlord confirmed that it has provided additional training to its teams on supporting customers moving to new properties.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. Record keeping was good throughout and the landlord has demonstrated good records of notes from conversations held with the resident.

Communication

22. The landlord acknowledged that there was miscommunication with the resident.