We are aware of a third-party IT security incident that has impacted our case management system.

While we investigate this and get our systems back online, you will be unable to submit a new complaint, view an existing complaint, or use our web chat, webform, Learning Hub, or landlord portal.

If you need to raise a new complaint, please email info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk or call us on 0300 111 3000.

We’re working to restore our services as quickly as possible and will share updates when we can.

Thank you for your patience. We apologise for the inconvenience.

Livv Housing Group (202537087)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202537087

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Livv Housing Group

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Shorthold Tenancy

Date

24 June 2026

Background

  1. The resident reported that her neighbours and their visitors continued to engage in anti-social behaviour (ASB) towards her and her family. The landlord received counter allegations about the resident and her partner.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of ASB.
    2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
  2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

  1. Some of the landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with its ASB policy and procedure. However, it repeatedly failed to follow its policy and procedure when dealing with the resident both as someone reporting ASB and as the subject of counter allegations.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint acknowledgement and response were on time. There was a short delay in the landlord acknowledging the resident’s stage 2 complaint. While the responses themselves clearly set out the issues the landlord failed to define the complaint in both acknowledgements.

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 provided by a manager.
  • 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

23 July 2026

2

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not set off against any debt owed. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

23 July 2026

3

Specific action order

The landlord must share the learning and recommendations identified in its September 2025 internal review with the resident by the due date.

It must set out which recommendations it has already implemented and which it is still considering.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence that it has shared this information by the due date.

No later than

23 July 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

The landlord should consider updating its ASB policy and procedure to include timescales for when it will complete actions. This would provide greater clarity for both staff and residents about how the landlord will respond to and manage ASB cases.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

1 August 2025

The resident complained to the landlord about several issues relating to its handling of reports of ASB. This included case management, CCTV, mediation, communication, support and Community Protection Warnings (CPWs).

21 August 2025

The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It explained that it had not investigated all the resident’s concerns because it had addressed some in previous complaints. It also said it was unable to investigate the CPWs, as the police had issued these. The landlord partially upheld the complaint, stating that it had delivered its services appropriately in some respects. As an outcome, it confirmed that it had referred the resident’s new reports of ASB to its community safety team for investigation. It said it would continue to work with the local council’s community safety team and the police regarding future incidents. It apologised for communication failures and confirmed it would conduct a full review of the resident’s ASB case. It also reminded the resident that it could refer her to mental health services if she felt this would be helpful.

20 November 2025

The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It did not identify any additional failures beyond those acknowledged at stage 1. It confirmed that it had completed an internal review, which identified service improvements that it was implementing. It said it would not share further details as this was an internal process. The landlord confirmed it would continue to work with other agencies in relation to any ongoing concerns.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident told us that neighbour A had moved out and the situation had improved. However, she felt the landlord had managed the ASB case poorly and should have done more to safeguard her and her family. She said the ongoing problems had affected hers and her partner’s mental health. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience she had been caused. She also wanted it to share the findings of its internal review.

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

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

Finding

Maladministration

What we have not investigated

  1. The resident raised previous complaints about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB involving the same neighbours. We determined those complaints in May 2025 and December 2025. Our investigations in those cases covered the period up to April 2025. We will not investigate matters which we have investigated before. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of ASB reports after April 2025.
  2. However, the resident complained about the landlord’s mediator and about the landlord providing her with a link for her to submit evidence. Although these issues occurred before April 2025, they were not included in the previous complaints. We have therefore considered the landlord’s response to these 2 points as part of this investigation.

What we have investigated

  1. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to decide if ASB occurred. We consider how a landlord has dealt with the reports it received, and if it followed its policies and good practice.
  2. The resident complained that a mediator arranged by the landlord arrived late in February 2025 and used the wrong name in a message. We did not assess the mediator’s actions, as the landlord did not carry out this work. We considered the landlord’s response. The landlord explained the delay resulted from the mediator having to deal with an urgent case and the naming error occurred due to predictive text. The mediator apologised at the time. Evidence supports this. The landlord offered to rearrange the meeting, but the resident declined. It also offered mediation again as part of the ASB case review (formerly community trigger) in August 2025. The landlord’s response was reasonable.
  3. The resident also said the landlord failed to provide a CCTV upload link. Evidence shows the landlord set up a temporary link in January 2025, which the resident used. The landlord said it explained this arrangement to the resident verbally and apologised for any lack of clarity. This response was reasonable. However, the absence of a file note of its discussion with the resident shows poor record keeping.
  4. On 13 May 2025 the resident reported incidents involving neighbours A and B. The landlord logged these incorrectly under an existing case where the resident was recorded as the perpetrator. It did not open new cases, triage the reports, agree an action plan or consider the resident’s support needs. The landlord therefore failed to follow its procedure.
  5. The policy and procedure do not give any timescales for when the landlord will respond to reports of ASB. However, it says it aims to tackle it quickly and efficiently. It is not clear what this means. The landlord promptly contacted the police about the incident involving neighbour A and became aware that officers had issued CPWs to the resident and her partner. However, the landlord did not conduct its own investigation or follow its procedures. It relied on police action. It delayed investigating the incident involving neighbour B for 3 months and again failed to follow procedure.
  6. Between May 2025 and July 2025 several neighbours reported concerns about the resident. The landlord contacted the neighbours but did not interview the resident, record discussions, or agree an action plan. This meant the landlord did not give the resident an opportunity to respond to the reports. It also failed to consider any support needs, which its procedure says it will do for perpetrators of ASB. This demonstrates poor case handling and record keeping.
  7. The resident reported further incidents in May 2025. The landlord again logged them incorrectly and relied on police updates instead of following its procedures. The landlord spoke to the police on 6 June 2025 about the ongoing issues on the street. There is no record of what was discussed which shows poor record keeping.
  8. On 6 June 2025 the landlord informed the resident it had asked its solicitors to review the file. But it did not explain that it had received counter-allegations about the resident and its solicitor would be considering her behaviour as well as neighbour A’s. This lack of clarity misled the resident and raised her expectations.
  9. On 12 June 2025 the landlord’s solicitors confirmed that the reported behaviour, from both parties, did not meet the threshold for legal action at that time. The solicitors advised the landlord to issue warning letters to both parties.
  10. The landlord reviewed its ASB policy in July 2025. The new policy introduced the use of risk assessments to prioritise urgent cases and tailor the landlord’s response. The previous policy did not include this. Due to the escalation of incidents, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to complete risk assessments with all parties at this point. This was a missed opportunity to consider the impact and support needs of all parties.
  11. On 21 July 2025 the landlord’s solicitors sent a behaviour warning letter to the resident on behalf of the landlord. It explained the reason for the letter was because of the incident on 13 May 2025 for which the police had served the resident and her partner with CPWs. The resident was not happy that the landlord had sent the letter. The policy says the landlord take proportionate action and will use warning letters as a preventative tool to stop behaviour escalating. However, due to the landlord’s failure to fully investigate the report, we cannot say this was a proportionate step at this time.
  12. Additionally, the letter referred to other reported behaviour but failed to set out the specifics of these incidents and instead used general terms to describe them. This, as well as the landlord’s failure to discuss the counter allegations with the resident, meant it was likely she would not understand what incidents the landlord was referring to.
  13. The landlord completed a home visit on 22 July 2025, identified the impact on the resident’s mental health, and offered support. This was appropriate but should have occurred earlier.
  14. In August 2025 an ASB case review concluded there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the resident’s reports of ASB. It recommended appointing a single point of contact for the resident, offered support and mediation, which the resident declined. The community safety partnership wrote to the resident on 3 September 2025 to confirm the outcome of the ASB case review. The letter outlined that agencies would not investigate any historical incidents. It also confirmed agencies would only investigate new reports if supported by independent corroborating evidence.
  15. In September 2025 the landlord appointed a new case handler who visited the resident to obtain an update. At this meeting the resident and her partner explained how dealing with the ASB issues had affected their mental health. The landlord took appropriate steps and made a support referral.
  16. In September 2025 the resident reported concerns that a neighbour involved with the ASB was working at her daughter’s school. The landlord advised the resident to speak to the school about her concerns. This was in line with its policy because the resident was not reporting ASB. The landlord did not have any responsibilities for the school.
  17. In September 2025 the landlord completed an internal review of the ASB case and identified failures in its case handling. This included not separating counter allegations and not using risk assessments. It proposed improvements for future case handling. Although it refused to share the full review, it would have been reasonable of it to share the recommendations with the resident. We have made an order that it does this.
  18. The resident reported further incidents to the police and the landlord in October 2025. Whilst the landlord consulted with the police to obtain further information, it failed to consistently record the reported incidents or complete its own investigations. This demonstrated poor case management and record keeping.
  19. In November 2025, whilst liaising with the landlord’s complaint team, the resident said the issues with the neighbours were ongoing. The landlord should have looked into these matters as it was aware of the longstanding ASB between the resident and her neighbours. The resident told the complaint handler she would email the community safety team but there is no record that this happened.
  20. In line with its procedure, the landlord wrote to the resident on 23 December 2025 informing her it was closing the case. It said this was due to it not receiving any new reports from the resident since October 2025. The resident responded to say she had reported an incident the week before. However, the new incident related to a different neighbour and therefore this was not a reason for the landlord to leave the case open. Despite this it took the landlord a further 3 months to close the file. This demonstrated poor case management.
  21. When considering the complaint, we assessed whether the landlord failed, whether this caused detriment, and whether it took reasonable steps to put matters right. We do this by considering our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  22. In summary, the landlord consulted with the police, offered mediation, conducted home visits and offered and made support referrals. It also engaged with the ASB case review process. However, it repeatedly failed to follow its ASB procedures. It failed to open and manage new cases, did not conduct its own investigations and relied too heavily on police involvement. It failed to interview the resident, both as a complainant and perpetrator, agree action plans, or consider support at the appropriate stage. The landlord also communicated poorly, particularly by failing to explain counter-allegations to the resident.
  23. The landlord’s failings caused detriment to the resident. She was caused distress and inconvenience by the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to her concerns about ASB. Further distress and inconvenience was caused by the delay in it speaking to the resident about hers and her family’s support needs. Although the landlord said it had offered support in the past, it should have considered this again after the reports in May 2025.
  24. The landlord attempted to put things right by apologising for its communication failures and the confusion over evidence gathering. It did not acknowledge the other failures outlined in this report.
  25. Based on the evidence we have seen and the failings identified, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay £500 in compensation. This is within the range of awards under our Compensation Guidance where there were failures which adversely affected a resident. It also reflects circumstances where the landlord has failed to acknowledge all its failures or address the detriment to the resident.

Complaint

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Finding

Service failure
  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. It requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
  2. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales.
  3. At stage 1, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint by 8 August 2025 and sent its response by no later than 22 August 2025. In line with its policy, its stage 1 acknowledgement and response were both on time.
  4. At stage 2, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation by 23 October 2025 and sent its response by no later than 20 November 2025. It’s acknowledgement was 1 working day late, but its response was on time.
  5. The landlord failed to define the resident’s complaint in both acknowledgements. This was not compliant with the Code.
  6. Both complaint responses appropriately defined and responded to the issues raised by the resident. The content of the responses was adequate to meet the requirements of the Code. The responses were expressed in clear, plain language.
  7. Due to the failures identified there was service failure. However, the failures did not affect the overall outcome for the resident. Our Compensation Guidance says that an apology and learning would be sufficient to remedy failures where there was minimal impact to the resident.

Learning

  1. The purpose of logging and acknowledging a complaint is so the landlord can confirm with the resident what the complaint is about. It also gives the resident the chance to confirm the landlord’s understanding of the issues complained about. The landlord’s failure to set out its understanding of the complaint in its acknowledgements meant the resident was unable to do this.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. It logged all the allegations and counter allegations involving the resident and her neighbours on one file. It should have opened separate cases for each. We have also highlighted multiple record keeping failures in its handling of the ASB cases. This included not recording discussions with the resident or other agencies.

Communication

  1. There were periods in the case where the landlord proactively contacted the resident to discuss the case, even when it did not have any update to give her. The landlord accepted there were delays in it responding to some of the resident’s contacts, which it apologised for in its complaint responses.