LiveWest Homes Limited (202344536)

Background

1. The resident reported several issues to the landlord. These included long-standing antisocial behaviour (ASB) and staff conduct concerns. The resident also raised outstanding repair issues, including damp and mould in the bathroom and a broken window.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. ASB, staff bias and discrimination.
   2. Delayed outstanding repairs including damp and mould in the bathroom and a broken window.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We made findings of reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
   1. ASB, staff bias and discrimination.
   2. Delayed outstanding repairs including damp and mould in the bathroom and a broken window.
   3. The associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB. While it may have been beneficial to complete an action plan, the landlord attempted to engage, investigate concerns and offer appropriate support. In relation to staff conduct, the landlord investigated this issue and found no evidence of bias or discrimination. It acknowledged a communication failing between June and September 2024 and appropriately addressed this in its stage 2 complaint response.
5. The landlord acknowledged its failure to follow its damp and mould policy and to consider the resident’s need for reasonable adjustments at an earlier stage. In its complaint response the landlord recognised the impact of these failings, suggested appropriate reasonable adjustments and offered proportionate compensation to reflect the impact this had on the resident.
6. Before issuing the stage 1 response, the landlord tried to engage with the resident about his complaint and gave clear advice about the complaints process. However, when the resident reported ongoing issues, the landlord failed to follow up promptly to confirm whether the resident wished to escalate the complaint. The landlord acknowledged this failing and allowed the resident to escalate the complaint over a year later. It offered appropriate compensation to reflect any inconvenience caused to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. The landlord’s ASB policy outlined actions the landlord should take when it receives a report of ASB. This included providing the resident with a case number and completing an action plan. In its complaint response, the landlord explained that it did not log every incident because the resident often included ASB reports in emails sent to over 30 recipients, or concerned historic ASB which did not relate to other residents.
8. While we recognise that this may have been challenging for the landlord to monitor, an action plan could have supported a structured approach. For example, agreed contact intervals or a single point of contact. In addition, while the policy in place at the time did not require the landlord to complete a risk assessment on every case, we would expect an effective ASB response to include this. We recognise that the landlord’s policy has since been updated to reflect this expectation.
9. It is, however, evident that the landlord tried to engage with the resident when he reported ASB. For example, when the resident reported general ASB in February 2024, the landlord attempted a home visit the next day. It offered other forms of support in 2023 and 2024, such as installing CCTV cameras and offering therapy, mediation and tenancy sustainment help. The landlord also engaged with the resident’s support worker, which included it giving advice for the resident about what would constitute an ASB report. This approach aligned with the landlord’s ASB policy which says that it will consider appropriate support offers for residents. We considered this to be a proportionate and appropriate response.
10. In its final complaint response, the landlord advised that the resident was not specific about the ASB the complaint related to. The landlord engaged with the resident about the complaint in April 2025 to understand his concerns. The landlord learned from the resident that he felt targeted after previous personal experiences, which did not relate to ASB from other residents. The landlord said it wanted the resident to feel safe in the property and offered to support him with a transfer. This was an appropriate response which addressed the resident’s reported safety concern.
11. The resident included staff bias and discrimination when he reported ASB in the complaint. The landlord said it also discussed this with the resident in April 2025. In its stage 2 response, the landlord signposted the resident to appropriate medical support for the health issues he raised. The landlord reviewed the support it had provided through the course of the resident’s ASB reports and found no evidence of bias or discrimination. It found that it could have communicated with the resident more effectively between June and September 2024 and apologised for the impact of this. The landlord distinguished this from discrimination.
12. Our finding of reasonable redress was made because the landlord appropriately acknowledged a communication issue, addressed the resident’s concerns and offered £700 compensation. The landlord said that the compensation reflected the impact of failing to consider further reasonable adjustments and for the inconvenience caused. This amount was also proportionate when including the landlord’s failure to consider a risk assessment or complete an action plan.

13. The resident reported a broken window in January 2024 which the landlord repaired in July 2024. He also reported a bathroom leak causing damp and mould in March 2024, which remained unresolved at the end of the complaints process in April 2025. The resident told the landlord in January 2024 that the window had been made secure, so it was reasonable that the landlord did not treat it as an urgent repair. However, in both cases the landlord exceeded its 28-day routine repair timescale. It also failed to follow its damp and mould policy, which required it to provide a single point of contact and consider alternative action when it could not gain access to the property.
14. It is not disputed that the landlord made reasonable attempts to engage with the resident and progress the repairs promptly. The landlord engaged with the resident’s support worker and in April 2024 it offered temporary accommodation while repairs took place, as the resident said he could not cope with the stress of the repairs. This was reasonable and showed consideration of the resident’s circumstances.
15. However, throughout 2024 and into 2025, there was a cycle of the resident cancelling appointments or refusing access to the property. The landlord knew that the resident received support from other agencies and in June 2024 the resident told the landlord that he did not like unplanned visits or unplanned phone calls. Landlord team members and contractors were trying to contact the resident during this period without warning. The landlord’s failure to further adapt its approach to the repairs likely caused the resident distress.
16. On 2 April 2025 the landlord engaged with the resident and identified the need for reasonable adjustments. It took steps to address this by providing a single point of contact, adding a system alert to ask team members to consider how they can adapt their approach when attending the resident’s property, offering temporary hotel accommodation while bathroom works were undertaken and seeking to minimise disruption by coordinating visits for different issues.
17. In addition to offering reasonable adjustments, the landlord acknowledged its failings in its complaint response and offered £550 compensation. The compensation reflected its failure to follow its damp and mould policy, the impact of failing to identify the resident’s additional needs sooner and for the distress and inconvenience caused. These actions demonstrated recognition of the impact on the resident and was a proportionate remedy. The evidence suggests that the compensation has since been paid to the resident.
18. Part of the resident’s complaint concerned other delayed and outstanding repairs at the property. The landlord did not have any record of other outstanding repairs. In its complaint response, the landlord offered to complete a home visit to assess if any work was needed. This was a reasonable response which addressed the issue and focused on a resolution for the resident.

19. On 29 February 2024 the resident asked the landlord to reopen the last stage 2 complaint, which it had completed in 2020. The landlord responded on the same day to advise the resident that, in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), the next course of action would be to contact us. Due to the time passed since the previous complaint and following our advice, the landlord opened a new stage 1 complaint for the resident, which was appropriate.
20. The Code requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord delayed by one day in sending its stage 1 and stage 2 responses respectively. This was unlikely to have had a significant impact on the resident. We did not find that this amounted to any service failure.
21. Specific aspects of the complaint were not clear from the resident’s correspondence. The landlord made multiple attempts to speak with the resident after the stage 1 complaint was opened. In his escalation request the resident reported new issues. The landlord said that, as these issues were separate and not included in the stage 1 complaint, they could not be considered at stage 2. The landlord appropriately advised the resident to make a new complaint about the new aspects if he would like them to be considered through the complaints process. The landlord made reasonable attempts to engage with the resident about his concerns and gave prompt and accurate advice about the complaints process.
22. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that the resident had copied the landlord into various emails describing ongoing issues at the property after the stage 1 response was issued. The landlord acknowledged that it should have contacted the resident sooner to check if he wanted to escalate the complaint. It was reasonable that the landlord then allowed the resident to escalate the complaint over a year later. The landlord offered a total of £225 compensation for its complaint handling. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its error and offered proportionate compensation. The evidence indicates that this amount has since been paid to the resident.

Learning

23. The landlord considered alternative methods of supporting the resident when he was reporting ASB. It took a multi-agency approach and held a case review, which helped to guide a supportive response.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

25. The landlord recognised that its communication with the resident, including keeping an updated single point of contact, had fallen below expected standards. It appropriately addressed this in its complaint response.