Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

LiveWest Homes Limited (202338049)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338049

LiveWest Homes Limited

30 September 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Staff conduct.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. She lived in a 2 bedroom bungalow. She has now moved from the property via a mutual exchange. The landlord is aware the resident has suffered a brain injury, has mental health and mobility issues.
  2. In November 2023 the resident’s neighbour moved into the adjoining bungalow next door. Shortly after, the resident started to report banging noises coming from her neighbour’s property. She began to send the landlord large volumes of emails documenting her neighbour causing noise and other antisocial behaviour such as stone throwing and verbal abuse.
  3. The resident started to include this Service in her email contact with the landlord from December 2023. As the resident had continued to expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports and staff misconduct, we asked the landlord to respond at stage 1. We contacted the landlord on the 20 March 2024.
  4. On 8 April 2024 the landlord’s stage 1 did not uphold her complaint. The response outlined the action it had taken in line with its ASB policy and procedure. It apologised the resident felt it had not managed her situation with her neighbour well and how its staff’s conduct had made her feel.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 9 April 2024.
  6. The landlord responded on 16 May 2024. It summarised the key points of the resident’s reports. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about staff conduct. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint about its handling of her ASB report and offered:
    1. £200 for its complaint handling failure due to the delay in acknowledging the stage 2 escalation
    2. £50 goodwill gesture to say sorry for not following process fully
    3. £50 goodwill gesture to say sorry for the delay in the fencing
  7. The resident continued to contact our Service following the stage 2 response as she was unhappy with the response from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told us that she had worsening health conditions because of the landlord’s inaction. We cannot say if the landlord’s action or inaction has directly caused a detrimental impact on health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can independently evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.
  2. The resident continued to make reports of ASB after 16 May 2024. This report considered matters from the date of the reports of ASB in December 2023 to the date of the landlord’s final response on 16 May 2024. This is in the interest of fairness. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the investigation of this Service. Any further issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. Our role is to look at whether the landlord dealt with the reports of ASB properly and fairly, and whether its response to the complaint was reasonable. We do not decide who was responsible for the antisocial behaviour. Instead, we look at how the landlord acted, whether it followed its own policies, and whether it was fair in the circumstances
  2. The landlord’s ASB and hate crime policy recognises that residents have to tolerate a degree of lifestyle noise and differences but that does not stop it from acting when this behaviour becomes persistent, preventable or escalates beyond reasonable bounds.
  3. When residents report persistent lifestyle noise or neighbour nuisance, the landlord commits to a gradual, evidence based response. It will:
    1. accept reports via multiple channels and assign a caseworker to assess risk
    2. provide early intervention and information engagement such as visits, advice and mediation
    3. investigate and gather evidence through noise diaries, recordings and logs
    4. issue formal warnings and unacceptable behaviour notices if behaviour continues
    5. undertake case reviews, risk assessments, and revisit strategy if earlier steps fail
    6. work with partner agencies where appropriate
    7. as a last resort pursue legal options if there is sufficient evidence and it is proportionate
  4. Its policy commits to also considering vulnerabilities and safeguarding. It will keep residents informed of its progress, while continuing to record and monitor the reports and evidence it receives.
  5. Between December 2023 and May 2024 the resident sent over 300 emails, along with phone calls, Noise App entries and social media posts, reporting noise and alleged antisocial behaviour incidents to the landlord. These included doors banging, neighbour throwing stones, verbal abuse from neighbour, dog barking, and vandalism. She was clear on how these were impacting her and having a negative effect on her mental health. She explained it was disrupting her sleep and due to her medical conditions sleep was very important for her overall wellbeing. There were times she said she had to stay away from the property so she could get rest. She said she was scared and had disclosed thoughts of self harm. She expressed she wanted the landlord to move her neighbour.
  6. The evidence provided shows the landlord attempted early intervention in line with its policy by:
    1. opening a lifestyle differences case after the resident had sent reports of her neighbour making banging noises like slamming cupboard doors
    2. speaking to the neighbour to make them aware of the noise reports to try and stop escalation
    3. asking the resident to document any noise as evidence including via its ASB app as the email reports she sent increased
    4. reviewing the large volumes of reports direct from the resident and through the ASB app to pick up any clear evidence of noise nuisance or ASB
    5. approving the resident’s request for CCTV for personal use as she expressed this would make her feel safe
    6. checking the neighbour’s property for potential sound sources and reporting back to the resident
    7. keeping the resident updated on visit outcomes and next steps via an action plan
    8. approving its funding for fencing for the front of the property to help reduce contact between the resident and neighbour
    9. providing mediation through a third party
    10. completing a vulnerability assessment
    11. referring to environmental health for a second opinion regarding the noise reports
    12. suggesting a referral to therapy
    13. liaising with the resident’s doctor
    14. holding multi-agency meetings along with the police and ASB team to ensure the correct actions and support could be provided to the resident
  7. The extensive evidence shows proportionate responses to the resident’s concerns. It shows the landlord had taken her reports seriously and it was committed to try and help resolve the issue between her and her neighbour.
  8. However, when this Service was copied into the resident’s reports and we saw her dissatisfaction with how the landlord was dealing with her reports of ASB, we asked the landlord to investigate at stage 1.
  9. In its response on 8 April 2024 it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise the resident felt it had not managed the situation well and showed empathy with the resident about how the experience was having an impact on her. The complaint was not upheld but it committed to:
    1. reviewing the contact management plan to ensure there was clear communication
    2. referring the resident to a third party for therapy should she feel it would help
    3. feedback about the multi-agency meeting which will take place on 16 April 2024
    4. fund the cost of the fence to the front of the property
  10. From the evidence provided it is clear that the resident was really affected by the issues she was reporting to the landlord, but the landlord was consistently communicating and trying to work with the resident to resolve the issue. However, the resident was still unhappy with its response, she wanted the landlord to move her neighbour and escalated the complaint to stage 2.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 16 May 2024 demonstrated an in depth understanding of the history and complexity of the case. It evidenced that it had followed its principles of its ASB policy. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint about how it had handled her reports of ASB, and apologised for not fully following policy and procedure. It highlighted the following failings:
    1. the issue was initially logged as a tenancy matter, but as reports continued it did not convert the case to an ASB case
    2. it should have sought quotes for a fence sooner following the mediation
    3. as the tenancy matter case was not converted to an ASB case the resident was not provided with an ASB case number
  12. The landlord apologised and offered £100 in recognition for these failings, in line with its compensation policy. This redress was fair and proportionate, because while these failings did not align with its ASB policy, they did not have an adverse impact on the resident. This is because these were administrative errors which did not impact the service delivered to the resident.
  13. Despite having a lack of substantive evidence of ASB the landlord recognised that the issues were ongoing. There is evidence that it continuously clarified with the resident what type of evidence it needed to support her reports of ASB. This would have helped manage expectations and reduce frustration for the resident as she wanted the neighbour to be moved.
  14. The landlord also showed flexibility on how the resident could report any ASB, and evidence shows it offered technical support where needed. It also offered help and engaged with environmental health to assist the resident with gathering evidence which could be used to progress any action against the neighbour.
  15. The visits which are documented show appropriate steps of investigation. The resident and neighbour completed mediation to help to resolve the issues. Although the details of this were confidential, both parties agreed dividing fencing would help. Therefore, the landlord acted outside its policy and offered to fund the fencing. The use of the tools available within its policy and the use of good practice were evident in the case. It is also clear from the approach that the landlord was sympathetic to the needs of the resident and the distress she was experiencing. It did this through offering therapy, addition support and speaking directly with her doctor.
  16. Due to the volume and format of the contact sent to the landlord it is difficult to assess the landlord’s timescales for responses. This also resulted in the resident’s complaint request being missed, but the landlord acknowledged, apologised, and offered £200 compensation for this in its responses. Overall, we have seen evidence of responses in line with its policy when the issue was first reported through to action plans and regular updates.
  17. When the contact from the resident began to increase, the landlord was proactive and worked within policy to apply a single point of contact for the resident. This was a specific email address she could sent her reports to. The resident expressed that due to her mental health she found that being able to send her reports as an when she needed to helped. Therefore, the landlord agreed outside its policy not to restrict the number of reports she could send it. It confirmed to the resident she would not receive a response to every email she sent but it would review the inbox periodically which helped set expectations. Evidence also shows that reports made by the ASB app were also monitored and actioned when needed. The landlord’s approach to the resident’s reports were reasonable and showed that the landlord was able to make adjustments to support the resident.
  18. It is acknowledged that the outcome may not have been what the resident was hoping for. However, the landlord was able to offer tenancy sustainment support via therapy and worked closely with other agencies such as the police to try and resolve any issues. The landlord recognised and recorded the resident’s vulnerabilities and worked within its policy to complete a vulnerability assessment to ensure it could provide the correct support.
  19. This Service recognises that coping with disputes between neighbours can be distressing and the impact upon the resident should not be undervalued. The resident was also facing a number of health conditions, and it should not be underestimated how distressing this may have been for her. This Service also understands that it will have been frustrating for the resident not to have seen the issues she was coping with resolved. It was positive that the landlord was able to review the case and highlight the areas it had failed and offer proportionate redress to put this right for the resident. We have also seen evidence the landlord installed the fencing in July 2024.
  20. Overall, the approach regarding the reports of ASB was proportionate and appropriate in the circumstances. The evidence provided demonstrated that the landlord considered the options available to it with the information it had. While disappointing for the resident, the actions taken were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  21. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy and wider obligations in relation to the resident’s vulnerabilities. It considered the reports the resident provided and actively worked with her when the reports did not provide the evidence it would need. It demonstrated empathy and willingness to bring a positive outcome for the resident. It acknowledged its failings, considered the impact of these on the resident, and put this right. This Service therefore concludes that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the residents ASB reports.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct

  1. The landlord’s code of conduct says its staff should conduct themselves professionally and treat others well. When working with residents it says staff must be professional, fair, and courteous.
  2. The resident raised concerns about staff misconduct during a visit to her property in January 2024. This visit was to discuss her ASB reports. When the housing officer and manager attended, she believed that the housing officer was rolling her eyes at her and mocking her. She later raised this as part of her formal complaint with the landlord.
  3. It was appropriate that the landlord responded to her concerns at the time of the visit, and the housing officer removed themselves from the property, so the situation did not escalate. As a result of this visit, it was reasonable that the landlord worked outside of its policy. It made an adjustment to the service by providing a new housing officer to review her reports alongside the current manager.
  4. The prompt action taken by the landlord showed it took the resident’s concerns seriously, and providing a new housing officer was a reasonable step to rebuild trust. The landlord’s complaint responses also formally apologised that she did not feel comfortable with the housing officer. It confirmed that the behaviour is not acceptable when dealing with residents and confirmed the steps already taken to prevent this from happening again.
  5. This Service recognises that the incident caused the resident distress, in a situation she was already experiencing upset. However, the landlord acted promptly and worked outside of policy to provide another housing officer to review the case. It later formally apologised through its complaint responses. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of staff misconduct.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord should pay the resident £100 previously offered in compensation at stage 2 if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.