LiveWest Homes Limited (202507494)

Decision
Case ID	202507494
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	LiveWest Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. She lives in a terraced house with her son. The resident and her son have vulnerabilities relating to their mental health. The resident’s complaint relates to a long-term dispute with a next–door neighbour. She says their behaviour is intimidating. She has made numerous reports to the landlord and the police about them.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports and concerns about antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to the resident’s related concerns about support and welfare.
3. Decision to write to the resident about her level of contact.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports and concerns about ASB.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s related concerns about support and welfare.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in its decision to write to the resident about her level of contact.
4. Maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and concerns about ASB

The landlord’s handling was largely consistent with its ASB policy during the period in question. However, it delayed exploring an informal agreement between the resident and the neighbour. The evidence points to a limited adverse impact to the resident. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay or impact during its complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s related concerns about support and welfare

The landlord took several steps to support the resident in line with its ASB policy. It also addressed her concerns in line with its complaints policy. However, it did not explain its position clearly. This caused some confusion and/or distress for the resident.

The landlord’s decision to write to the resident about her level of contact

The contents of the landlord’s letter were clear and consistent with its unacceptable behaviour policy. Its tone was also reasonable. There is no indication the landlord took further action subsequently. Its approach was reasonable and proportionate.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord was responsible for complaint handling failures which adversely impacted the resident. It did not recognise the full extent of these or do enough to put things right for her.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a relevant senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her reports and concerns about ASB. £150 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its complaint handling. £250 which the landlord awarded the resident during its internal complaints process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid (from the £250 that it awarded during its complaints process).	No later than 15 January 2026
3	Update order The landlord must update the resident about its position on the neighbour dispute and any ASB cases it has open for the resident. It must share a copy of its update with us.	No later than 15 January 2026
4	New complaint order If the resident requests this and it has not done so already, the landlord must raise a new complaint to address any issues that it overlooked during its complaints process. It is not obliged to address historical issues. It is not obliged to reinvestigate the same issues it has responded to previously. It must evidence its actions to us.	No later than 15 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 December 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that the neighbour’s ASB was ongoing, and it was affecting her family’s mental health. She said that she felt unheard and unsupported by the landlord. By this point, the landlord had already completed a detailed review of its related ASB case handling. Its review was prompted by a request from the resident.
Between 13 December 2024 and 20 December 2024	The resident sent further correspondence to the landlord. Among other issues, she was unhappy with the position of the neighbour’s CCTV camera. The landlord logged a complaint for her. The resident declined a phone call with its complaint handler. Subsequently, the landlord’s complaint investigation focused on her comments about the CCTV.
19 February 2025	The resident emailed the landlord about a recent stage 1 response. We have not seen a copy of this. The resident requested a “full breakdown” of the landlord’s ASB handling. She said that she had felt unsafe for years due to the neighbour’s actions. Her other key points were: The landlord should have tackled the neighbour’s ASB. This included threats, aggression, and false complaints. The landlord had warned the resident about her level of contact. The resident was distressed by its warning letter.
26 February 2025	The landlord called the resident to discuss her concerns. It subsequently apologised to her in an email. It said it should have addressed her wider ASB concerns in its previous complaint investigation. It confirmed that it would log a new complaint. It said the parties had agreed not to escalate its previous complaint as the neighbour’s camera had been moved.
12 March 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. In summary, it addressed the duration of the ASB, the number of its staff members that were involved, the resident and her son’s mental health, and the landlord’s letter about contact. It did not uphold the complaint. The landlord’s key points were: It was unable to consider historical events. It had intervened and taken action where necessary. The number of staff members had not hindered its ASB handling. It was unable to assess health impacts as part of its complaints process. It had received a significant amount of contact from the resident.
20 March 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She referenced ongoing harassment from the neighbour. She felt she had evidenced ASB and the landlord should have acted. She said it had issued her a warning instead of helping. She cited a lack of consistency in its case handling.
25 April 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It largely reiterated its previous points from stage 1. However, it accepted that the number of staff involved with her ASB cases may have caused some confusion for the resident. To address this, it awarded her £250 as a goodwill gesture.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In her complaint form, the resident told us she was unable to enjoy her home. She said the landlord should adhere to its policies and take action against the neighbour. She also said that it should compensate her. She subsequently told us that the neighbour’s ASB was still ongoing.

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	Response to reports and concerns about ASB
Finding	Service failure

In summary, the resident says that the landlord has allowed the neighbour’s ASB to continue since 2019. During its complaints process, the landlord applied a time limit to its investigation. It said that under its complaints policy, it could only consider events that happened in the last 12 months. Time restrictions can also apply to our investigations.
We have seen evidence of the landlord’s ASB handling from around November 2023 onwards. This is about 12 months before the resident complained to the landlord. We have also seen the landlord’s review of its ASB case handling. In summary, the landlord made the following key points in its review document:
1. There was some evidence of unacceptable conduct from the neighbour.
2. It had taken proportionate action in line with its policies and procedures.
3. It lacked sufficient evidence to escalate its response against the neighbour.
4. It could have explored the option of an informal conduct agreement earlier.
There is some evidence that the landlord could have been more proactive. Its ASB policy says informal agreements can be effective in cases which involve multiple problem behaviours. In this case, a third-party asked the landlord to consider an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA) in July 2024. It is reasonable to conclude that this request should not have been necessary.
The landlord eventually implemented a good neighbour agreement (GNA) in late October 2024. Based on the period between November 2023 and late October 2024, the evidence points to an unreasonable delay of about 12 months. The landlord may have missed an opportunity to improve the resident’s situation during the interim period. It did not acknowledge this in its complaint responses. This was unreasonable.
In mitigation, the police had already taken steps to deter the ASB. These included arranging mediation and issuing a warning to both parties in the dispute. There is evidence that the landlord had also issued a warning to the neighbour. This information indicates that the above identified delay had a limited adverse impact on the resident.
The landlord did not identify any ASB handling failures during its complaints process. Overall, it believed that it had responded to the resident’s reports and concerns correctly. It said its actions were proportionate to the evidence it had received. The information we have seen is largely consistent with the landlord’s assertions.
For example, in February 2025 the resident reported an alleged verbal abuse incident. The landlord’s ASB policy says, to take enforcement action, it “must prove on the balance of probabilities” that ASB has occurred. In this case, the landlord’s ASB records show it promptly obtained footage from the resident and the neighbour. This was appropriate.
About 1 week after the resident’s report, the landlord reviewed the video evidence with the police and local council. Its notes show the attending agencies all agreed that the alleged abuse was not shown in the footage it had gathered. It was reasonable for the landlord to obtain a multi-agency view of the video evidence.
Ultimately, the landlord decided that it was unable to escalate the alleged abuse incident. This was a reasonable decision in line with its ASB policy. Subsequently, it detailed its actions and decision to the resident. The wording of its related correspondence was clear. It was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident about the incident.
Around the same time, the landlord tried to escalate the neighbour to an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC). Its approach was prompted by various reports from the resident. However, records show the resident did not allow it to provide supporting footage to the neighbour. Records also show the landlord was unable to persuade the neighbour to enter a more formal agreement. For clarity, ABC’s are voluntary.
The above information shows the landlord made reasonable attempts to evidence and deter ASB following its case review. It subsequently closed the resident’s ASB case because “no further actionable incidents” had been reported. We note that the landlord’s ASB policy says the landlord can close cases which it cannot progress further. This includes cases where it lacks evidence to support a reporting resident’s claims.
During its complaints process, the landlord did acknowledge that the resident had liaised with multiple members of its staff over time. Though it disputed any related handling failures, it accepted that the situation had caused confusion for the resident. On that basis, it offered her £250 as a goodwill gesture. We find this was a reasonable approach.
In summary, the landlord’s handling was largely consistent with its ASB policy during the period in question. There is no indication that it missed any clear opportunities to escalate its response against the neighbour. Overall, there is a lack of compelling evidence to show that it could have reasonably taken more robust action against them.
However, the landlord overlooked an important finding from its ASB review. We have identified a related delay which adversely impacted the resident. The landlord has not attempted to put things right for her. In contrast, it also offered her a £250 goodwill gesture when it was not obliged to do this. Overall, we find there was service failure by the landlord.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the case evidence and our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	Response to related concerns about support and welfare
Finding	Service failure

In her complaint to the landlord, the resident said she felt that it had not done enough to support her. She did not specifically say why she felt this way. In contrast, there is evidence that the landlord took a number of steps to support the resident in line with its ASB policy. For example, its policy refers to the following support measures:
1. Referral to external agencies such as Stand Against Racism and Inequality (SARI).
2. Referral to a specialist therapy service.
3. Referral to the landlord’s own tenancy sustainment team.
In this case, there is evidence that the landlord referred the resident to SARI in late 2023. Its correspondence shows that its tenancy sustainment team were involved in her cases at various points. Significantly, the landlord referred the resident and her son to a therapy service and funded multiple sessions for them. These were reasonable actions.
The landlord took the above actions before the resident had complained. Ultimately, it showed a proactive approach and was suitably mindful of the resident’s welfare. This was appropriate. The evidence we have seen is not consistent with a lack of support.
During her complaint to the landlord, the resident said that the neighbour’s conduct had caused her family’s mental health to decline. The landlord addressed this issue in its responses. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. It did signpost the resident to its insurer. This was so she could pursue a claim against the landlord if she wanted to.
The landlord’s approach was reasonable and consistent with its complaints policy. Its policy excludes liability or personal injury claims. It says these should be assessed by its insurer instead. For clarity, insurers specialise in liability matters. Following its stage 2 response, the resident replied that she was “very concerned” about the landlord’s approach. Her comments indicate that she may have been distressed by this.
The resident felt the landlord had disputed her comments about her family’s health. In summary, the landlord did not dispute a corresponding decline. However, it did not accept that it was responsible for this. If it had, it may have invalidated any claim on its insurance policy. Insurers often stipulate that policyholders must not accept liability.
Ultimately, the landlord did not clearly explain its position. If it had, it may have avoided any related confusion and/or distress for the resident. Its lack of clarity was unreasonable. As a result, we find that the landlord was responsible for a communication failure which adversely impacted the resident. We have ordered it to apologise for this.
In summary, the landlord took several steps to support the resident in line with its ASB policy. It also addressed her comments about health and welfare impacts in line with its complaints policy. However, it did not explain its position clearly and this caused some confusion and/or distress for the resident. This was unreasonable. Overall, we find there was service failure by the landlord.

Complaint	Decision to write to the resident about her level of contact
Finding	No maladministration

On 12 February 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had received 66 communications from her in a period of about 25 days. It also said this level of contact was having an adverse impact on its operations. It said that if the situation continued, it may take action in line with its unacceptable behaviour policy. It said the resident should:
1. Not duplicate her case correspondence.
2. Direct this to its correct members of staff.
3. Give the landlord a reasonable amount of time to respond.
In this case, the resident sent the landlord a significant amount of correspondence during the period in question. The landlord had previously told her that this was hindering its ability to provide services. For example, on 2 October 2024 it said she had sent 44 emails over the past month. There is some duplication in the emails we have seen.
The landlord is a social housing provider with limited resources. It rightly has an unacceptable behaviour policy to help it manage these. Its policy says that excessive contact and unreasonable demands can be considered unacceptable behaviour. It shows the landlord has tools to address this type of conduct. These include contact restrictions.
The evidence shows the landlord’s approach was reasonable and proportionate. For example, its letter was polite and sympathetic. It did not mention a risk to the resident’s tenancy. To date, there is no indication the landlord has taken action against the resident under its unacceptable behaviour policy. It is not obliged to withdraw its previous letter.
In summary, we find that the landlord made a reasonable and proportionate decision to write to the resident about her level of contact. The contents of its letter were clear and consistent with the landlord’s policy. The tone of the letter was reasonable. Given the above, we also find that there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). The landlord has supplied a complaints policy that says it complies with the Code.
The landlord initially overlooked key aspects of the resident’s complaint. Its policy says it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. This is broadly consistent with the Code. Based on the period between 13 December 2024 and 12 March 2025, there was a delay of about 2 months. This was contrary to the landlord’s policy and the Code. It is likely that the resident’s overlooked concerns were important to her.
The landlord rightly apologised to the resident for its error. However, it did not do this in its complaint responses. It missed an opportunity to formalise its apology. Significantly, given the duration of the delay and its related adverse impact, it could have reasonably awarded the resident some compensation to put things right. The landlord did not do this.
The landlord also overlooked at least one complaint point at stage 2. In her escalation request on 20 March 2025, the resident said that she was named in another ASB case on its system. She said she was not involved and had highlighted this to the landlord previously. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 25 April 2025 did not mention this matter.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response within 25 working days in line with the Code. However, it showed an unreasonable lack of thoroughness at this stage. From the resident’s perspective, it had overlooked issues before. Its additional error may have undermined her confidence in its complaint handling. In general, overlooked issues are likely to reduce a landlord’s chances of resolving matters through its internal complaints process.
In December 2025, the resident told us that the landlord had recently resolved matters in relation to the other ASB case where she was named. She did not say what actions it had taken. Ultimately, the evidence points to an unreasonable delay that lasted for several months. Again, it is likely that the resident’s related concerns were important to her.
In summary, the landlord was responsible for complaint handling failures which adversely impacted the resident. It did not recognise the full extent of these or do enough to put things right for her. Given the above, we find that there was maladministration on its part. We have ordered the landlord to pay a proportionate amount of compensation.

Learning

General learning

The landlord identified delays relating to its ASB and complaint handling. On both occasions, it did not take sufficient steps to redress the resident. The landlord could have improved its performance by considering matters from the resident’s perspective.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord was able to supply key case evidence. Our investigation did not highlight any issues with its record keeping.

Communication

The landlord gave the resident an impression that it disputed her comments about an adverse impact to her family’s health/welfare. With clearer communication, it may have avoided any related confusion or distress.