LiveWest Homes Limited (202342113)

Decision
Case ID	202342113
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	LiveWest Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a property built in 2021 by developers. She felt the developers did not build the estate properly as she did not have a fence at the front of the property. She told her landlord about her dissatisfaction, issues with parking on the estate, and concerns about estate management. She also reported antisocial behaviour.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and concerns about estate management.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and concerns about estate management.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB and concerns about estate management

6. Although the landlord acknowledged some communication errors and attempted to put things right, this was not proportionate to the failings. Some issues were clearly outside its control. However, it failed to follow its ASB policy and communicate clearly to the resident which reports it did not consider as ASB. It also did not evidence it had numbered her parking bay after committing to do so. These failings caused her time, trouble and inconvenience.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policies and procedures.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150 in compensation (inclusive of the £50 it previously offered) to recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of ASB and concerns about estate management. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the resident’s parking bay is numbered and marked (as it committed to do so in its final response) and started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works (or has previously completed) and provide us with documentary evidence of this. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot complete this order.	No later than 23 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
In the landlord’s evidence submission to us in January 2025, it said it would discuss with the resident her concerns about drug misuse on the estate. It is recommended to do this (if it has not done so already) with consideration to its ASB policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 January 2024	The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord via its webform. She said: Since her previous contact she had been ignored so she was submitting this complaint. The condition of the estate was poor, it had not been cleaned. It had told her she would be provided with a front garden fence, which she believed would stop her from having to clear dog faeces. Other residents and visitors were parking in her allocated space or blocking her from parking in her bay. There were squatters living in an abandoned neighbouring property which it had told her it did not own, and she said there was fly tipping and pests. Someone on the estate had experienced alleged racism. There were drug users on the estate.
18 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would respond by 31 January 2024.
31 January 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response and said: The local council had said the fencing issue was in dispute between the council and the building developer. It would not be able to install a fence as this could be deemed a breach of planning conditions but acknowledged the developer failed to install railings to the required homes on the estate. It had been chasing the developer to act, but they had not responded. It only owned the parking bay itself and not the areas around it. The developers had a management company for these areas. Despite this, it organised a clean up in December 2023 for the areas it was responsible for. There was a delay (but it did not specify how long) with it following up with her about parking issues and the fence. It offered £25 in compensation.
1 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She told the landlord: It was not her fault the developer had not contacted it or finished the estate in accordance with the plans. She was experiencing detriment due to the developer’s liquidation. She still wanted a fence at the front of her property. She wanted her door number painted on the parking bay, which would be like her neighbour’s. To chase the management company. She wanted her service charge payments refunded. Cleaning the area once (in December 2023) was not sufficient as the squatters littered the area. It had not fully addressed her ASB concerns.
Between 2 February 2024 and 19 February 2024	On 2 February 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord and attached images of her parking space being occupied by someone else.   On 8 February 2024 the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2.   On 15 February 2024 the landlord undertook a whole estate maintenance visit at no cost to residents of the estate.   On 18 February 2024 the resident reported that unknown people in cars were speeding in the area. On the following day, the landlord’s Housing Officer told her this would need to be reported to the police as it involved a public road. It also advised that non-emergency reports could be made via 101 or anonymously via an independent charity.
20 February 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response and told her: The developer had no planning consent for fencing at her property, and it acknowledged its miscommunication in the stage 1 response. It awarded a further £25 as a gesture of goodwill for the “confusion” caused by this. The developer had been liquidated. It could not at that stage install fencing as it would breach planning permissions. It would however seek the new developer’s consent to install this, but could not guarantee a timeframe. The parking space was built to approved standard sizes, however it would arrange line markings and numbering to help her. The roads of the estate remained under the ownership of the developer. Until a new developer was appointed, no further work could be undertaken as the local council would not approve. There were squatters in a nearby property and this was reported to the police and local council. Both of them had chased the landowner. It advised her to continue to report concerns to the police. It was communicating with third parties and had sent letters to residents about the above issues. It had cleaned the area recently and as a goodwill gesture would clear out the bin stores as well.
Referral to the Ombudsman	By 1 August 2024 the resident referred her complaint to us. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted it to address the ASB, remove litter and install fencing.

 

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	Reports of ASB and concerns about estate management
Finding	Service failure

8. In this case, the property was built by a developer who was later liquidated. We cannot assess the actions of the developer or the management company it hired.
9. The evidence showed the landlord tried to communicate with the developer and its management company. It was reliant on responses from third parties, which is outside of its control. We have seen evidence it had contacted the local council prior to the resident’s complaint to help expedite estate management that it was not responsible for.
10. The landlord confirmed to the resident in its final response that the developer was liquidated. It also updated residents of the estate about the situation. While the resident wanted fencing, we have not seen evidence that the landlord guaranteed to do this by its final response. It was not obligated to do so, and it reasonably explained its position that doing so would breach planning permissions.
11. It was also reasonable the landlord confirmed to the resident that the parking area was built to standards and it only owns the bays itself. The evidence showed it was aware of the resident’s parking concerns and fence request from 30 October 2023, so 3 months had elapsed before it responded. Its communication was unreasonably delayed but it acknowledged this during its own investigation and attempted to put things right with £25 in compensation.
12. The landlord acknowledged it had provided miscommunication at stage 1 about planning permissions for fencing. It clarified the developer had no planning consent for fences. It attempted to manage the resident’s expectations and put things right with its further offer of £25 in compensation.
13. The landlord went above its obligations and committed to mark and number the parking bay for the resident. However, we have not been provided any evidence it has done so. Therefore, it had mismanaged her expectations and demonstrated poor record keeping.
14. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy says that it aims to take proportionate action to resolve ASB. The policy does not consider parking, pest nuisance, and fly tipping to be ASB. It does consider drug misuse as ASB. In receipt of any reports, it will communicate clearly what it considers ASB or a tenancy management issue.
15. Our investigation has assessed if the landlord’s response about ASB followed its policy and was fair, not whether ASB occurred. Additionally, any allegations of ASB (including racism) that the resident said was experienced by a neighbour are matters we have not considered. We can only consider the effect on her and her household, not matters raised on behalf of another without their authority.
16. There is no audit trail of the landlord clearly telling the resident that it considers parking, pests, and littering as tenancy management issues. This was a communication failing. It failed to manage her expectations at the outset of her reports, in line with its ASB policy.
17. Despite the above, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of squatters in a nearby area. However, as the property is not owned by the landlord it would not be expected to take any enforcement action. It evidenced it communicated with the police about the issue in October 2023. It also advised the resident to continue to report issues to the police and confirmed they and the local council were dealing with the matter.
18. We can see the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of fly tipping in its stage 1 response. It was reasonable it confirmed it had cleaned the communal area it was responsible for, to address fly tipping in December 2023. It appropriately completed another clean of the area on 15 February 2024. It reasonably advised the resident it had provided the services she was paying for via her service charges. If the resident disputes the fairness of the charge, she could potentially approach the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). 
19. Additionally, the landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for dealing with pests in communal areas, whereas residents are responsible for dealing with pests in their homes and garden. Given this was reported by the resident to be in the garden of a property not owned by the landlord, there was no service failure. As above, it clearly communicated to the resident that this property (occupied by squatters) was not part of its stock.
20. After the resident’s reports of vehicles speeding, the landlord promptly advised the resident to report issues to the police. This was in line with its ASB policy.
21. In contrast, the landlord failed to consider the resident’s reports of drug use on the estate. There was no evidence it had actioned this report in line with its ASB policy by her referral to us. It considers drug misuse an “amber priority”. It should have responded to the resident about this in 48 hours and began an investigation in 5 days.
22. Overall, the landlord’s total offer of £50 was not proportionate to the failings identified above. We have awarded additional compensation in line with our remedies guidance for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to her.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

23. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It provided acknowledgements and formal responses at both stages of the process within the timescales set out within its policy.

 

Learning

Communication and knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. Our spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents says that a landlord should:
    1. Ensure it understands the level of risk they are exposed to in fulfilling statutory and contractual obligations for properties where they are reliant on others, such as managing agents or freeholders to act.
    2. Review its operational response to service requests and repairs in buildings owned and managed by third parties to ensure they are effective. This includes interim support and maintaining accurate and robust records. Then ensure these plans are proactively communicated to the resident.
25. In this case the landlord was in a complex situation with little to no responses from the developers. Had it taken into consideration the recommendations above, it may have mitigated time and trouble caused to the resident. As above, its overall communication was poor, and it has not effectively monitored the numbering of the parking bay.