LiveWest Homes Limited (202326721)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326721

LiveWest Homes Limited

8 August 2025

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

1. The complaint is about the:
   1. Landlord’s handling of the intended removal the resident’s vehicle.
   2. Landlord’s use of an alleged illegal contractor and the legality of its actions.
   3. Legality of the contractor’s actions in removing, storing, and charging for storage of vehicles.
   4. Landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3 bedroom property.
3. The landlord operates a scheme where it removes vehicles it considers unsafe or abandoned from its properties. It considers whether the vehicle has a valid tax, a valid MOT or Statutory Off Road Notice when deciding the status of vehicles. The resident owned 3 vehicles (car A, B, and C) she stored in the communal carpark.
4. The resident’s housing officer wrote to her on 5 April 2023 in relation to vehicle B and asked her to tax, MOT, or remove it by 3 May 2023. If she did not, it would arrange to remove the vehicle. It explained its contractor may then destroy the vehicle, and it would charge her the full costs of removal and storage. It sent a chaser letter on 5 May 2023.
5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 June 2023. She explained that on 1 June 2023 its contractor knocked on her neighbour’s door asking if she, (the resident) was home and what car she drove. They then opened the doors to car C while on their phone to the landlord asking which car they needed to take. It confirmed that the contractor needed to take vehicle B, but the person in the car park had opened car C. As such, they had no permission to do so. The contractor then left, and the landlord explained its reasoning to the resident the following day.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied and continued to email the landlord and her housing officer between 21 June 2023 and 21 July 2023. She raised several concerns, including the legality of her housing officer’s actions, and its contractor’s actions, its contractor not having proper licences, and queried the process it followed in trying to remove car B. The landlord then raised a complaint on her behalf on 27 July 2023 as she was unhappy with its response to her queries around the removal of her vehicles. It said it did not believe its contractor removed her car as she had moved it on 12 May 2023 prior to their visit. Its contractor had however opened a different car of her wrongly assuming it was the car in question.
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 10 August 2023. It explained what its policy said and the actions it had taken around the attempted vehicle removal. It explained:
   1. It had also written to the resident about car C as it was up on a jack and considered unsafe. It had given her 48 hours to remove car C, and this led to its contractor’s confusion and action.
   2. This was why it removed car C. It told her that her tenancy agreement said she should keep areas clear of obstructions and unroadworthy vehicles. Based on the fact it followed its policies, procedures, and the tenancy agreement it did not uphold this element of her complaint.
   3. It said in relation to her other concerns around its contractors, if she was unhappy with the services they provided, or was unsure of their licences, it advised that she contact them directly.
   4. Due to following its policy and this aspect of her complaint focusing on the contractor used, it did not uphold this element of her complaint.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 August 2023. She provided her reasons for escalation on 20 August 2023. She reiterated her concerns at stage 1 and said She had not abandoned her vehicles, nor were they causing an obstruction. She said it gave her contradictory information about the contract with the contractors, and she was unhappy with the conduct of its contractor when attending her property. She explained she felt they broke the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by speaking to her neighbour and did not have identification. She also raised further concerns. She also provided an annotated version of the stage 1 response on 8 September 2023.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 October 2023. It apologised she felt it was biased in its investigation, but the investigator acted in line with its procedure. It summarised and said:
   1. It provided incorrect information, as it had not removed car C.
   2. Taking everything into account it was clear she had persistently breached the terms of her tenancy by knowingly storing vehicles on its land in an unroadworthy and unsafe condition.
   3. Her housing officer had as part of their role followed the guidance within its policy. It was grateful that she had brought the matter to its attention for review and would like to offer her £300 as a goodwill gesture for spending time in doing so. This had enabled it to complete a comprehensive review of its processes and allow it to refine it services to residents.
   4. It would provide additional guidance to the neighbourhood management team on the range of tools available to them which included court proceedings for an injunction or issuing a notice of seeking possession in addition to the removal of vehicles.
   5. It would strongly encourage her to engage with it if she found herself in a similar situation needing consent to store an untaxed vehicle on its land for a limited time. If she did not do so she would be in breach of the terms of her tenancy. As a gesture of good will it offered £200 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and approached us on 4 November 2023. She explained the situation and said she wanted the landlord to review all contractors and subcontractors’ details, qualifications, and abilities to do the job it contracted them to undertake by the landlord. She wanted it to ensure they met, and it implemented all lawful requirements. She wanted an apology about the illegal methods it used, and an acknowledge that it was wrong. She also wanted it to show more respect to residents and approach them without threats of action.

Post complaint

11. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 January 2024. She said that there were discrepancies in its response, she explained some of the information provided did not match what her housing officer told her in responses to her emails in June and July 2023.
12. The landlord provided a further stage 2 response on 31 January 2024. It said she had asked for some further clarification on the information it provided her in relation to its involvement with its contractor as there was some confusion over the terminology used in the stage 2 reply. It said:
    1. It did not have a formal contract (other than purchase order) for vehicle recovery but had used a vendor registered on its vendor base. It got its goods, works, and services in several ways.
    2. To enable it to pay an organisation for services through its payment system, it must register them as a vendor on its procurement system. Therefore, the contractor went through a vendor setup process and was subject to further checks of things like qualifications and insurances and this was what it referred to within its stage 2 response.
    3. To be clear it had not entered any formal agreement on a formal tender process with the contractor. It hoped this clarified her query and explained why both its members of staff had explained to her that it did not have a contract with the contractor and why it confirmed that the housing officer had used the correct process and used a vendor/contractor that had been through its checks.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

13. What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is known as the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs the complaints which we can consider. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we will not investigate a complaint.
14. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.o. of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme the landlord’s use of an alleged illegal contractor and the legality of its actions, is outside of our jurisdiction.
15. Paragraph 42.o. of the scheme says that we may not consider issues which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matter where a resident is seeking an outcome which is not within our authority to provide. In this instance, we are unable to determine whether the landlord’s use of the contractor, and its actions in relation to the attempted removal of your vehicles was illegal. This is because we cannot make determinations about legality. The courts can make such decisions, and as such, the resident may wish to take independent advice.
16. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the legality of the contractor’s actions in removing, storing, and charging for storage of vehicles is outside of our jurisdiction.
17. Paragraph 41.b. of the Housing Ombudsman scheme says we cannot consider concerns which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. In this instance, the landlord’s contractor is not a member of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme. As the resident’s concerns relate directly to the legality of the contractor’s actions this is not something we are able to consider. The resident may wish to take independent advice on this matter. We can however consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.

Handling of its intentioned removal of the resident’s vehicle

18. The landlord’s neighbourhood management policy says it will conduct regular inspections of neighbourhoods to ensure it looked after and identified any problems that need addressing. It says it may appoint a reputable company to operate a parking scheme, or parking maintenance in its neighbourhoods to ensure the effective management/ control of parking spaces.
19. It will work with the Drivers and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) to identify owners of suspected abandoned vehicles and where this was on its land, arrange for vehicle removal, storage, and disposal (if the owner does not respond after it gave the required notice). It may recharge the costs for the removal, storage, and disposal of a vehicle where it identifies the owner.
20. The landlord’s abandoned and untaxed vehicles, managing parking and other related issues procedure says that it covers all vehicles parked on schemes, including car parking areas or other areas not intended for the parking of vehicles. It says that tenancies require all vehicles in its car parks to have vehicle tax and are roadworthy. It also says:
    1. if a resident fails to complete agreed actions on several occasions, then an option is that if the vehicle is untaxed or unroadworthy, then permission to park in its car park ceases.
    2. If the owner does not remove the vehicle, then it should advise them, they are trespassing on its land with their vehicle. When the DVLA check is that the vehicle is untaxed, it should place a sticker identifying that it is untaxed, giving 28 days for the owner to move the vehicle, tax it or make it roadworthy.
    3. If the vehicle remains, it should check with the DVLA to see if the owner has taxed the car. If not, it should send a further letter and place another sticker giving the resident 14 days to remove the vehicle.
    4. If it knows who the owner of the vehicle is, it should visit, phone, or text the resident to ask them to remove or tax the car by the date on the new sticker.
21. From the evidence provided by the landlord following an estate visit, in line with its policy, the landlord contacted the DVLA on 23 February 2023 and asked it to identify the registered owner of car B. The DVLA responded in March 2023, explained the car belonged to the resident, and the last registered licence was in 2021. The landlord then appropriately followed its abandoned and untaxed vehicles policy and wrote to the resident on 5 April 2023. It asked that she either taxed car B or removed it from the car park.
22. It gave the resident the required 28 days’ notice and wrote to her again on 5 May 2023. In its letter, it told her that she needed to either remove car B, or tax it by 11 May 2023 or its contractor would take her car, and it would charge her any costs associated. While its notice was in line with its policy, the timeframe provided was not.
23. The policy required that it gave the resident 14 days to follow either option it provided her. Further its policy also says it should contact the owner of the vehicle by telephone, a visit, or text message if their details were on its system to advise them that it had received approval to remove the vehicle.
24. Following the second letter to the resident, the landlord’s procedure within its policy says it should check if the vehicle remained parked at the location. Its policy also says it should check with the DVLA to see if the resident had taxed the vehicle, and if not at this point contact the removal company to take and store the vehicle.
25. From the evidence provided, although the landlord’s policy required 14 days’ notice, the letter sent to the resident on 5 May 2023 only allowed for 7 days. While the landlord placed stickers on the resident’s car, there is no evidence that it applied these in accordance with the correct timeframes. Also, the landlord has not shown that it checked whether the resident taxed the vehicle at any point between the first and second letter, or before the deadline it set for action. Its actions were inappropriate.
26. The landlord also did not contact the resident to inform her, that it had obtained approval to remove the car. It has not shown that it verified if the vehicle remained on site between 11 May 2023 and 20 May 2023, the day after the full 14 day notice period expired. Had it done so, at the appropriate time, it likely would have found the resident had moved the vehicle.
27. The resident explained that she had arranged for the removal of the vehicle on 10 May 2023. The landlord’s contractor then attended 22 days after she had removed the vehicle. Overall, its actions around the removal of the vehicle were not in line with its policy.
28. We understand that the landlord awarded the resident compensation of £300. It did not recognise all the failings in its approach as highlighted from paragraph 25 to 27, around its handling of the situation. We acknowledge that the landlord has since reviewed its policy, demonstrating some learning from the resident’s complaint and we consider this a positive approach.
29. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will offer financial compensation where it is unable to act to restore the situation. It says sometimes it may want to offer a goodwill gesture to recognise a level of inconvenience or to say sorry for a resident’s experience. The overall principle is about what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, considering the resident’s individual experience, its obligations as a social landlord. It should make any payments made under the guidance proportionate to any shortfalls in the service to address the severity of the mistake or failures made. The level of distress, worry and inconvenience caused, including the cumulative impact on the resident.
30. The policy also says it should consider the time taken to address the service failure and restore the situation. The landlord uses an impact assessment to determine its level of compensation. It provided the resident with a compensation amount of £300 as a good will gesture. This falls within the high level impact in its policy. The landlord pays a maximum of £500 for a high level impact. It makes such payments where it finds there has been a serious failure in service standard.
31. This is 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. It provides the example of not resolving service failures within weeks as a situation in which it makes such a payment. Based on the landlord’s compensation policy, the amount offered demonstrates it realised the impact of the situation on the resident, and we consider this reasonable. While we identified additional failings in the landlord’s approach, we believe the landlord’s offer appropriately redresses the situation.
32. This is because while there was some detriment in the landlord’s handling of the situation, there is no evidence of significant detriment. The amount offered also falls within findings of maladministration within our remedies guidance, and we would have likely found a service failure. As such its offer exceeds the amount suggested within our remedies guidance. Further the landlord has taken steps to review its policy around the removal of vehicles and dealing with untaxed vehicles in communal car parks.

Complaint handling

33. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy says that it defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, or those acting on its behalf affecting an individual or group of residents.
34. The resident expressed dissatisfaction on 21 June 2023 following the landlord’s contractor incorrectly entering car C when trying to recover car B. The resident however continued to raise questions about the landlord’s actions and their legality, as well as the legality of its contractor’s actions. However, its actions were not in line with its policy. This is because it did not recognise her expression of dissatisfaction promptly. While appropriate that it raised a complaint on her behalf on 27 July 2023, it delayed by over 1 month in doing so, and this was not in line with its policy.
35. The landlord acknowledged within its response that there were failings in its approach. It found that it did not respond to the resident’s complaint within the appropriate timeframe. To put things right, it offered the resident compensation of £200. While this was in relation to its stage 2 response, we find that the amount reasonably addresses the delay in it raising the resident’s stage 1 complaint discussed above. Based on this we find that there was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 42.o. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s use of an alleged illegal contractor and the legality of its actions is outside of our jurisdiction.
37. in accordance with paragraph 41.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the legality of the contractor’s actions in removing, storing, and charging for storage of vehicles is outside of our jurisdiction.
38. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress with the:
    1. Landlord’s handling of its intention to remove the resident’s vehicle.
    2. Landlord’s handling of the complaint.