LiveWest Homes Limited (202229671)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229671

LiveWest Homes Limited

22 April 2024

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 is about how the landlord handled the resident’s request for its support with a neighbour dispute about access to her property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 3-bed house, which began on 3 August 2020. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident lives in the property with her daughter. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
There was an on-going dispute between the resident and her neighbour. The neighbour wanted access to the resident’s garden to clean and maintain a window. The neighbour privately owns their property.

Scope of the investigation

Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s telling the resident’s neighbour they could access her garden had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
In the resident’s submissions to the Ombudsman, she stated she wanted the member of staff responsible to be held accountable for their actions and reprimanded accordingly. This Service, when investigating a complaint about a landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with any identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.

Summary of events

On 8 and 9 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord asking for its support with an on-going access dispute with her neighbour.
The landlord responded to the resident on 13 January 2023 and said:
1. It understood the situation was having a significant impact on the resident’s health and suggested she talked to her GP about how she was feeling. It offered to make a referral for therapy to help her to know how to deal with the situation.
2. It had exhausted what it could do with the dispute about the window opening in the resident’s garden. All it could do as a landlord was ask that all parties are respectful to each other.
3. The neighbours privately own their homes so it cannot enforce them to do anything. It said one solution it considered was to reduce the size of the resident’s garden to create access for the neighbours, but it said it felt this was not reasonable and would not pursue this.
4. Having reviewed all the information that had been provided, it could not see evidence of harassment from either party involved.
5. It recommended that the mediation process should start again, which it would fund. It asked the resident to confirm if she was willing to go ahead with this.
6. It would allow the private neighbours access 3 times per year for window cleaning, property maintenance, and checks. This would be on pre-agreed dates and times with the resident.
The resident responded on 13, 14 and 15 January 2023 and said the police had told the neighbour they could not access her garden. She said the landlord did not have the right to grant her neighbours access to her property or garden.
On 16 January 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She was unhappy the landlord said it would give the neighbours access to her property 3 times a year. She had not refused access for repairs previously and this was not a decision the landlord could make.
2. Her mental and physical health was being ignored by the landlord.
3. She would like another member of staff to deal with the situation, the email to be retracted and for the landlord to remind the neighbours that it was a civil issue.
On 17 January 2023 the landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss the complaint. It acknowledged the complaint in writing and said it would respond by 23 January 2023.
The complaints team contacted the resident on 18 January 2023 to discuss the complaint. It confirmed what was discussed in writing and asked for further information about the neighbour dispute.
On 20 and 27 January 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and asked for the complaint timescale to be extended by a week. The landlord stated this was because it needed more time to investigate the issues and was seeking legal advice from a solicitor. The resident agreed to both extensions.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 February 2023. It upheld the complaint and said it:
1. Agreed it could not grant the neighbour access to the resident’s garden without her consent. It confirmed if the neighbour contacted it for access, it would contact the resident.
2. Apologised for the distress it had caused and offered her £200 compensation.
3. Would continue to investigate the access issue with its solicitors. Once it had obtained legal advice it would write to the resident and her neighbours.
4. Would like to offer mediation again.
5. Had explored further issues the resident raised on 18 January 2023, the resident had said she was unhappy that:
  1. The landlord mentioned therapy and said she could speak to her GP. It said it would expect staff to offer support to residents in these kind of circumstances. It said it was correct to offer these options.
  2. Mediation was mentioned again. It acknowledged it could have worded this better, however, it was not wrong to offer mediation.
  3. The landlord said there was no ‘independent evidence of harassment from either party’. It acknowledged this made the resident feel her concerns had been ignored or dismissed. It agreed it could have worded this differently.
  4. The landlord had a meeting with neighbours, and some issues raised had not been discussed with her. It said it appreciated why she felt this was unfair and unsupportive. It said it believed some of the issues were not discussed with her as it did not want to keep telling her about reports which it was not prepared, or had the power, to take any action on.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 7 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 8 February 2023 and said it would contact her within 7 working days. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 and 16 February 2023 to discuss the complaint and said it would issue its response by 23 February 2023.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord sent the resident a draft letter it wanted to send to her neighbours and asked for her input. The landlord wrote to the resident’s direct neighbours on 21 February 2023 and said the resident had exclusive rights to her home and that any request for access needed to be requested directly from the resident.
On 21 February 2023 the landlord obtained legal advice from its solicitors.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 23 February 2023. It said:
1. Regarding the resident’s request to have no further contact from the staff member who sent the email, although it did not believe it had acted in an inappropriate way, the way the resident felt regarding these situations was very personal and valid. It confirmed that there should be no requirement for further contact with this staff member and the resident should contact her housing officer instead.
2. It had written to the 3 surrounding neighbours to clarify they could not access the resident’s property without her consent. It provided the resident’s contact details as agreed.
3. In the letter to the neighbour (that the resident had an on-going access dispute with) it confirmed its position in relation to its ASB policy.
4. It apologised for trying to resolve the situation when ultimately the legal position should be that the neighbour contacted the resident directly.
5. It apologised that the resident had not felt supported in the situation. It said it had limited powers in taking action against a private owner, it had tried to manage the situation by speaking to both parties and trying to come to a solution. It offered to arrange mediation and would encourage mediation as a tool to resolve any further disputes. It could not find any evidence that it had acted outside of its processes in investigating concerns raised by the resident or her neighbours.
6. It was unable to stop the neighbour from opening their window as its solicitor had advised they may have a prescriptive right based on how long the window had been there.
7. Whilst it genuinely believed that there were good intentions in attempting to resolve the situation and that actions were taken in good faith, it appreciated that the approach taken had negatively affected the resident and for this it apologised.
8. As a result of this complaint, it would ensure that lessons are learned in dealing with access requests.
9. It felt the offer of £200 compensation in its stage 1 response was reasonable.
The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman as she felt the £200 compensation was not sufficient. She also wanted the landlord to put in writing that a particular staff member would not be involved with her property again.

Events after the expiry of the landlord’s complaints procedure

On 21 March and 14 July 2023, the staff member the resident had asked to not contact her, sent her correspondence saying the neighbours had contacted it to request access for maintenance works. It asked her if she would like any support and offered to attend the property on the dates the neighbours had requested access.
The resident told the landlord she was not happy these emails had been sent by this staff member and she wanted no further correspondence from them. It responded immediately both times apologising and contacted the resident to discuss her concerns.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s obligations

The landlord’s anti social behaviour (ASB) and hate crime policy states that neighbour disputes and boundary disputes will be dealt with under tenancy management, rather than ASB.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint’s policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours, and it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and stage 2 complaints within 7 working days.
The landlord’s complaints guidance states it will pay discretionary compensation of £25 for low level impact, up to £200 for moderate level impact and up to £500 for high level impact. It defines a moderate level of impact as the resident has suffered moderate level of inconvenience, either through service failure or length of time to resolve an issue. A high-level impact is defined as a serious failure in service standards, either due to severity of issue or persistent failure over a protracted time.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for its support with a neighbour dispute about access to her property.

The resident contacted the landlord in January 2023 and asked for its support with the on-going access dispute with her neighbour. There is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident to discuss the situation before it sent its response on 13 January 2023. As it was aware there was an on-going dispute between the resident and her neighbour, this Service would have expected the landlord to contact the resident to fully understand the situation and her desired outcome before it decided on what action it was going to take. This was not resident focused.
The resident’s vulnerabilities were relevant factors to inform the nature, tone, and communication of the landlord’s handling of the situation. The landlord should have reviewed its response in terms of the level of detriment being caused to the resident and agreed a clear communication strategy and action plan with the resident to seek to understand the extent of the issue and what action was required. Although the landlord did not do this before responding to the resident’s initial request for support, the evidence provided shows it recognised this failing and showed learning. The landlord made regular contact with the resident and discussed options such as speaking to her GP, a referral for therapy and offered to pay for mediation. It acted appropriately by considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and offering all options available to it to support the resident.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged it had made a mistake by involving itself in the access dispute and that it was wrong for saying it could give permission to the neighbour to access the resident’s property without her consent. The landlord’s complaint response was thorough, it acknowledged and apologised for its mistakes, showed learning, and set out what action it was going to take to put things right. The landlord acted appropriately by exploring all options available to it and clearly explained these options to the resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to seek legal advice from its solicitor to establish the resident’s rights regarding the neighbour seeking access to her property. The landlord acted appropriately by sharing the legal advice it obtained with both the resident and her direct neighbours. The landlord showed it had listened to the resident’s concerns that it had previously contacted her neighbours without consulting her, and asked for her input and whether she was happy with the letters it intended to send to her neighbours.
The landlord acted appropriately by considering all parties concerns with the access dispute, and being clear with the neighbour what action it could and could not take under its ASB policy.
After the resident had raised her complaint, the landlord communicated with the resident effectively and in a reasonable manner. The landlord was proactive and contacted the resident regularly to ensure it fully understood the issues she had raised and kept her updated on the actions it was taking. It always confirmed what had been discussed in writing and the tone used in its communication was empathetic to the resident’s situation.
The landlord’s records were clear and provided an easily accessible audit trail. Maintaining a robust record of contacts and actions is important as it enhances a landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise, enabling it to provide a better service to residents.
After the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure the member of staff the resident had raised a complaint about contacted her. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said the resident should not need any direct contact with this staff member and she should raise any further issues with her housing officer. In the evidence provided to this Service the landlord said it would try to accommodate the resident’s preference as much as possible. Although it may not be something that it could always guarantee, for example, if no other staff were available. The landlord should have made this clearer in its communication with the resident, so her expectations were managed effectively.
In summary although the landlord inaccurately said it would allow the resident’s neighbour access to her garden, it acknowledged and apologised for its failings. There was evidence of effective communication, it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered her on-going support with the dispute. Its record keeping provided a clear audit trail. While this Service recognises the distress caused to the resident, the landlord did take steps to put things right, showed learning from the complaint and offered suitable redress. The £200 compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
The Ombudsman has therefore concluded there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for support with a neighbour dispute about access to her property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for its support with a neighbour dispute about access to her property.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings, it showed it learnt from its mistakes and took action to put things right. There was evidence of effective communication and record keeping, it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and offered her on-going support with the dispute. The redress it offered was in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.

Recommendations

If it has not yet been paid, the landlord is strongly recommended to pay the resident the £200 compensation offered in its stage 1 complaint response.