LiveWest Homes Limited (202102292)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102292

LiveWest Homes Limited

7 January 2022

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

The complaint concerns:
1. How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns relating to the conduct of its staff.
2. The level of support offered to the resident by the landlord with managing his tenancy.
3. The landlord’s decision to increase the resident’s rent.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

The landlord’s decision to increase the resident’s rent

During his request to escalate the complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints policy, the resident had disputed a recent increase in the level of the rent of the property. Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. Should the resident wish to pursue the matter of the increase of the rent and/or service charge amount, he has the option of making an application to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chambers) (“FTT”).
The FTT can make determinations on all aspects of the liability to pay a service charge, including by whom, to who, how much and when a service charge is payable. In order to decide liability a tribunal also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and if so whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable. The FTT can also determine cases where the complainant has alleged that there has been a failure of statutory requirements and where the determination of the complaint would be reliant on determination of a contested legal issue.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a supported housing scheme for tenants with severe and enduring mental health conditions. Schedule 4 of the tenancy agreements states that tenants are allowed up to two visitors at any one time within their property.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within five working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within seven working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint. If it’s not possible to provide a response within the timescales, the landlord will write to the complainant with the revised date.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it will consider offering a goodwill gesture in recognition of the impact its service failure has had on a resident. The guidance classifies its compensation awards as low impact (small cash awards or vouchers), medium impact (up to a maximum payment of £200) and high impact (up to a maximum payment of £500).
High impact is defined in the guidance as “a serious failure in service standards – either around the severity of the event or persistent failure over a protracted time or an unacceptable number of attempts to resolve and address the complaint”.

Summary of events

On 18 June 2021 the landlord wrote to all residents of the scheme about restrictions on visitors due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The letter explained that there would be a temporary ban on residents meeting visitors in the building from 21 June 2021. The letter also gave advice on best practice on how to meet visitors before the ban commenced and explained that the ban would be reviewed on 28 June 2021.
The resident called the landlord to discuss the letter on 21 June 2021. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident did not believe that the landlord could implement its own rules different to government advice, which had not changed, and that he was also unhappy with the short notice given by the letter of the rule change as he was currently spending a lot of time off-site.
An internal landlord email sent on 21 June 2021 stated that a staff member had contacted the resident that day to arrange a support visit. The email stated that the resident informed the staff member that he was currently staying off-site and would not need a visit at that time but would contact the landlord if he needed support time in the future.
On 25 June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. He described the elements of his complaint as:
1. He had received poor service from the staff at the building for the previous 12 months.
2. A security officer had informed him that he was not allowed visitors to his property and this advice was against the law.
3. He had not received adequate support from the landlord, which has had an adverse effect on his mental health.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 June 2021. It confirmed that it had opened a complaint and that it would provide a response by 2 July 2021.
The landlord called the resident to discuss the complaint and the stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 1 July 2021. The landlord explained that due to the increase in number of Covid-19 cases in the local area, it had made the decision to request that its residents not have visitors to their properties. It further explained that this was done to reduce the risk of transmission and apologised to the resident that its staff gave the impression that this advice was a legal requirement and that its security staff had asked his visitors to leave the scheme.
The landlord had confirmed that it had discussed this aspect of the complaint with the resident during its telephone call and explained what its advice was relating to visitors and that the resident had agreed that any visitors to his property would wear masks while in communal areas.
The landlord then informed the resident that it had spoken to its staff at the scheme, who assured it that they had not intentionally been disrespectful or dismissive towards him. The landlord apologised to the resident for leaving him with the impression that the staff had been disrespectful and dismissive, and informed him that it had spoken to the staff members to ensure that the correct information was passed onto him and other residents.
The landlord concluded the response by offering the resident a £50 goodwill gesture in recognition of the stress and anxiety caused to him by its staff members asking his visitors to leave.
On 9 July 2021 the resident called the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the complaint response and said he was considering requesting an escalation. The resident called again on 13 July 2021 and requested an escalation of the complaint. During a further telephone call on 19 July 2021 the resident explained that his outstanding issue was the level of compensation offered by the landlord. The resident requested it be increased to £1,000 and explained that he had been given advice that this would be the expected level of redress he would receive if he took the landlord to court over the matter.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 July 2021 to confirm that the complaint had been escalated and that it aimed to provide the response by 2 August 2021.
The landlord called the resident on 29 July 2021 to discuss the complaint and then sent the stage two complaint response on 2 August 2021. It advised:
1. It had found no evidence that its staff had been inadequately trained or that the quality of its staff was below its expectations. The landlord then described its training process to the resident and explained that during the Covid-19 pandemic that parts of the training had been conducted remotely.
2. Its staff review had shown evidence that the quality of some of its temporary staff members was not up to its expected level and their employment had been terminated as a result.
3. It had implemented a new procedure where letters were first checked by a manager before being sent to residents to ensure that the were worded appropriately.
4. It apologised to the resident for the distress and embarrassment caused by its security staff asking his visitors to leave and the confusion caused by staff members stating that the ban on visitors was mandatory.
5. The resident had been budgeted three hours per week for support time, but this had been suspended due to the lack of time that the resident was spending at the scheme. It further informed the resident that its support staff were on-site six days per week and were available to meet with the resident should he request it.
6. The service charge had increased to cover the costs of security and tenancy sustainment staff, and it had previously provided information to the resident with further detail explaining the costs.
7. It had reviewed the compensation award and agreed that the goodwill gesture offered at stage one was inadequate in light of the distress caused to the resident when his visitors were asked to leave and that its staff review had resulted in some temporary staff members being removed. The landlord offered the resident a goodwill gesture of £300 in recognition of the issues it had described.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns relating to the conduct of its staff.

In its stage two complaint response, the landlord had acknowledged that its staff had not properly followed its advice and incorrectly requested that the resident’s visitors leave the scheme. It also explained that following a staff review, it had found some of its temporary staff were not up to the required standard and their employment was terminated as a result. The landlord apologised, explained what steps it had taken internally to improve its procedures and offered £300 compensation for its service failures.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and explaining what it did wrong in each of the incidents. It put things right by apologising to the resident, awarding appropriate compensation and removed some of its staff members following a review it conducted in response to the resident’s concerns. It looked to learn from its errors by making changes to how letters were sent to residents to ensure that the text was first approved by a manager.
The compensation payment was made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). The remedies guidance suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests:
1. Misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about a complainant’s rights.
2. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant
In this case, the landlord accepted that the letter sent to residents on 18 June 2021 had indicated that visitors would be blocked from visiting the scheme, when this was actually only advice that residents should not have visitors, rather than a strict requirement. It also accepted that its security staff members should not have told the resident’s visitors to leave. It is accepted that this incident would have caused significant distress and embarrassment to the resident. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident a compensation award at the high impact level of its payment guidance for the confusion caused by its letter and the anxiety and distress caused by the actions of its security staff.
The resident had described the effect on his mental health that the situation had caused him and requested that the landlord consider this element when calculating its compensation offer.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts as a personal injury claim. A personal injury claim isa legal process and the resident may wish to take independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint.
This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.
During the escalation process and when bringing the case to this Service, the resident had requested to receive £1,000 compensation and explained that he was advised that this level of redress would be equivalent to what he would be expected to receive if he took the matter to court.
The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The level of support offered to the resident by the landlord in managing his tenancy.

Schedule 4 of the tenancy agreement describes the rules and special terms for the scheme. This states that a support plan must be signed within two weeks of moving in and that the resident is expected to attend regular support meetings with the landlord’s staff.
The landlord has provided internal system logs which state that following an assessment undertaken in October 2019, the resident was allocated three hours per week of support time.
In his request to escalate the complaint, the resident stated that the landlord had not provided this support. This was disputed by the landlord in its stage two complaint response. It explained that it had experienced difficulty in booking support sessions due to the time the resident had spent away from the scheme and advised the resident on how he could contact its support staff to arrange an appointment if he wanted to.
The landlord also provided evidence that it had called the resident on 21 June 2021 to book a support session, but it was not possible that the resident was not staying at the scheme at that time. The landlord’s notes of the call and internal emails sent that day noted that it informed the resident that he could book an appointment when he returned.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure from the landlord as it had informed the resident that he would be able to arrange an appointment directly with its support staff and a day and time that suited his schedule.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it handled the resident’s concerns relating to the conduct of its staff which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the level of support offered to the resident by the landlord.

Reasons

The landlord recognised the poor wording of the 21 June 2021 letter to residents and the actions of its security staff had caused stress and anxiety to the resident. It apologised and awarded compensation proportionate to the distress these failures caused the resident.
There is no evidence that the landlord has provided inadequate support to the resident as per the terms of the tenancy agreement and that it has looked to work with the resident to arrange appointments at a day and time when he would be available for a support meeting.