LiveWest Homes Limited (202407649)

Decision
Case ID	202407649
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	LiveWest Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	5 November 2025

Background

The resident has lived at the property for many years. She has reported her neighbour (the neighbour) for noise-related antisocial behaviour (ASB) for nearly a decade. In mid-2022, the neighbour and the resident took part in mediation and the neighbour agreed to try to lessen the noise. In late 2023, the relationship between them deteriorated and the resident began to report ASB to the landlord again. It tried to intervene, but the resident was not satisfied with its actions. She complained to the landlord on 28 May 2024.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Associated complaint.

Our decisions (determinations)

The landlord made offers of compensation which provided reasonable redress for:
1. Failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Failures of complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

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

The landlord failed to explain that the resident could apply to have her case considered under the “community trigger” process and offered her £300 compensation. This was sufficient to recompense her for any failure in its service.

The associated complaint.

The landlord failed to inform the resident of the scope of its investigation in its stage 1 acknowledgment. It offered her £100 in compensation which was sufficient to recompense her for any failure in its service.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendation
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £400 it offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so. This payment, comprising £300 for its handling of ASB and £100 for its complaint handling, recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress findings are made on that basis.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2017 to 2022	The resident says she made numerous reports of ASB against the neighbour.
August 2022	The resident and the neighbour went through mediation and signed an agreement.
8 November 2023	The resident began to report ASB on a regular basis.
3 April 2024	The landlord asked a mediator to attempt to find agreement between the neighbour and the resident.
28 May 2024	The resident asked us to complain on her behalf, and we did so on this date. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB.
11 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It considered its response to the resident’s reports of ASB between 2022 and 2024. It said: It had handled the resident’s reports of ASB appropriately. It had investigated her reports, spoken to the neighbour and sent a warning letter. It would continue to investigate and hold weekly phone calls with the resident. It was also looking into installing soundproofing.
25 June 2024	At the resident’s request, we asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She said: The landlord had not considered its response to the resident’s reports of ASB as far back as 2017. The landlord had not considered all the recordings she had provided for its complaint response. The landlord had failed to resolve the matter in its response. It had failed to inform the resident in the stage 1 acknowledgment that it would only investigate events occurring less than a year before the complaint.
17 July 2024	The landlord’s mediator reported that the neighbour would not engage in mediation. They said that the parties were “miles apart” and that, therefore, mediation would be pointless. It then decided that it would need to consider changing its approach.
26 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said: Period under investigation: The resident had not previously complained about its handling of reports of ASB. It acknowledged that the resident had had concerns over many years. However, its complaints policy limited complaints to investigating the 12 months prior to a complaint. Recordings: Officers of the landlord had listened to every recording the resident had submitted. Lack of resolution: The landlord had followed its procedures and taken appropriate steps to resolve the dispute, but it failed to consider the “cumulative impact on you and your family”. It therefore “partially upheld” the complaint element and offered her £300 in compensation. Complaint handling: While it had provided its complaint response in time and largely provided an appropriate complaint response, it had failed to explain that it would not look at her concerns back to 2017. It “partially upheld” the complaint and offered her £100.
30 July 2024	The landlord began a case review. It made these recommendations: It would engage an ASB expert to assist with case management. It would provide training to the resident on sending in recordings and witness statements. If there was no improvement, it would prepare witness statements and take more stringent enforcement action. It would monitor the case and keep it constantly under review. It also spoke to the resident who said that they were “pleased” with the recommendations and accepted the compensation offered.
15 August 2024 to 6 January 2025	The landlord continued to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB and to consider its options. The resident made few reports of ASB.
6 January 2025	The landlord closed its ASB case.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 24 May 2024 the resident said that the problems with the neighbour continue and the problem has not been resolved. She asked for our help.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

The resident stated in her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, that she believed that the landlord should have investigated her historical complaints about ASB going back to 2017. She has asked us to do the same.
However, the landlord was entitled to limit its investigation to the 12-month period prior to her initial complaint to the landlord. The purpose of a complaints procedure is generally to deal with current and pressing issues. There had been a 2 year pause in the resident’s reporting prior to her beginning to report ASB again in November 2023. The landlord did not need to go back beyond then and our rules say that we do not ordinarily do so either.
Our investigation, therefore, begins in November 2023. However, we have provided some details of events occurring before that to provide context for the events set out in this report.

What we have investigated

We recognise that residents are understandably upset when confronted by ASB. However, we also recognise that landlords are not responsible for any ASB themselves. It is also not our role to determine whether ASB occurred. Our role is to assess how a landlord dealt with reports of ASB. We decide whether it followed its policies and good practice and whether it behaved reasonably in all the circumstances.
In this case, the resident’s adult child who lives with her at the property, is acting as her representative. While each of them has had dealings with the landlord about this matter, we have referred to them jointly as the “resident” for the sake of simplicity. They live in a semi-detached house. The neighbour and their family live in the other half of the building.
The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour and Hate Crime Policy sets out a framework for the way it deals with ASB. It says that some disputes are the result of lifestyle differences. Where this is the case, residents should show “a degree of tolerance”. It says it generally “expects residents to raise their concerns directly with their neighbour”. It says that, where it receives a report of ASB, its response will be “robust and proportionate”.
The policy says it will take an escalating approach to enforcement, seeking agreement and cooperation first. It says it will progress towards more forceful interventions such as legal action only if these less severe measures fail. It also says that it will take additional measures to support vulnerable residents reporting ASB.
The landlord arranged mediation between the resident and the neighbour in mid-2023. This resulted in both of them signing an agreement in August 2022 to attempt to settle their dispute. This seems to have worked well as the resident made no further reports of ASB for a year. There was one report in August 2023 but, when the landlord tried to follow up on this, the resident did not respond to its messages.
It was only in November 2023, that the resident began to report ASB more frequently. She also began to report aggressive and threatening behaviour by the neighbour. Even then, however, the reports were intermittent. There was 1 report at New Year and 2 in February 2023.
The landlord’s records show that it investigated these reports appropriately and found that the resident had provided little evidence in support of them. It also spoke to the neighbour who made counter-allegations of unreasonable behaviour against the resident. It considered the evidence the resident had provided and decided that of the allegations the resident had made, many of them would not qualify as noise-related ASB.
To qualify as ASB, noise must generally be excessive or deliberate. The incidents the resident reported often took place during the day when more noise is permissible. The landlord considered that the resident had not provided sufficient evidence to show that ASB occurred.
After a further incident in early March 2024, the landlord reviewed the case and decided to offer mediation again. This was in line with its policy and an appropriate reaction to the renewed dispute. It also considered installing soundproofing between the 2 properties, which was another proactive step to assist in resolving relations between the neighbours.
In June 2024, the resident asked us to contact the landlord on her behalf. We sent a complaint to the landlord. It responded, saying it had not failed in its management of her ASB reports. It said that, of the approximately 40 reports she had made, only 4 were at times when making noise would be unreasonable.
The landlord also said the resident’s reports occurred regularly but not frequently. It said that the behaviour was not “persistent” as they would need to be to constitute ASB. Nonetheless, it said it had spoken to the neighbour and would call the resident once a week.
Overall, the landlord’s response was appropriate and sensitive. It took proper steps to investigate her concerns. However, its policy committed it to respecting the differences between lifestyles which lie at the heart of this dispute.
On receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident asked us to ask the landlord to review the case at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. We passed this on to the landlord.
In June 2024, the landlord’s mediator said that mediation would probably not succeed as the parties were “miles apart”. A contractor reported that soundproofing might have some impact but would probably not resolve the noise problem. While these options proved not to be appropriate in this case, the landlord showed commitment to resolving the dispute by investigating them. This was an example of good practice by the landlord.
In July 2024, the neighbour said they would not take part in mediation. The landlord then conducted a review of the case. They considered taking stronger action to resolve the situation as mediation had not been possible.
In the stage 2 complaint response of 26 July 2024, the landlord again said that it had investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately but said that it should have told her of her right to request a review under the “community trigger”. The community trigger, (now called the “antisocial behaviour case review” was a mechanism allowing those who suffered “persistent” ASB to request a review of the way in which the case was handled.
Landlords and other public sector bodies should inform those who rely on them of this mechanism, so the landlord was right to apologise for its failure to do so. Its offer of £300 was sufficient to make amends for this failure.
The landlord closes cases when it has received no new reports of ASB for some time, generally a month. The resident feels that this is not appropriate. However, the landlord’s actions are in line with its procedure and policy.
Overall, the landlord investigated the resident’s case appropriately, it closed its investigation in January 2025 because there was insufficient evidence to allow it to take action against the neighbour. The landlord considered all the evidence when making this decision. It says it will investigate any reports of ASB by the resident.

Complaint	Complaint handling.
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:
The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales which says that landlords should provide a complaint response within 10 working days of a complaint. It must provide a stage 2 response within working 20 days of a request for a stage 2 review. It can ask for a maximum of 20 extra working days to deal with complex complaints which require further investigation.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 10 working days after receiving the resident’s complaint. This was in line with its policy. It provided its stage 2 complaint response 23 working days after receiving the escalation request. While there is no evidence to suggest the landlord asked the resident for an extension, the delay was minimal and it caused the resident no significant harm. The stage 2 response was thorough and contained a further detailed review of the events of the case.
The resident had alleged in her escalation request that the investigating officer had not listened to every recording the resident had sent in. The landlord gave a reasonable explanation: every recording had been listened to by ASB officers. All evidence had, therefore, been properly evaluated.
The landlord apologised for its failure to explain in its complaint acknowledgment letter that it would not investigate the resident’s concerns back as far as 2017. It apologised and offered the resident £100 for this failure.
This was a minor failure. The landlord made it clear both in the stage 1 and stage 2 responses why it would not do that. It said that its policy said it would only investigate 12 months prior to the complaint. This is in line with our approach, and we find no fault with the landlord for taking this approach.
The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation for this omission was adequate compensation. We have found that the landlord provided a reasonable remedy for any failures it made.

Learning

The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns fully and appropriately.
The landlord provided detailed and fair complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We did not identify any information management issues.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communication was good. The resident was clearly frustrated and distressed by her situation. The landlord recognised this and took steps to address her concerns while explaining the limitations on its powers.