LiveWest Homes Limited (202514341)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202514341 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
LiveWest Homes Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
16 January 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 1-bedroom flat. She has mental health vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord. The evidence shows that between 2023 and 2025 there had been an ongoing antisocial behaviour (ASB) dispute between the resident and her neighbour. In May 2025, the resident informed the landlord via email that her neighbour had restricted her access to her garden shed.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and discrimination.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found:
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and discrimination.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- We have found that:
- Despite taking some appropriate steps to address the resident’s concerns about staff conduct, the landlord did not evidence its decision making when investigating her concerns about discrimination.
- The landlord failed to effectively log and progress the full scope of the resident’s complaint. It also failed to recognise and escalate her dissatisfaction as a complaint on several occasions.
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:
|
No later than 16 February 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows:
The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 16 February 2026 |
|
3 |
Complaint handling order The landlord must contact the resident to ask if she would like it to open a formal complaint about its handling of her reports of ASB. If so, it must respond to this in line with its complaints process. |
No later than 16 February 2026 |
|
4 |
Complaint handling order The landlord must arrange training for relevant staff involved in complaint handling via our dispute resolution e-learning. This should be done with the aim of ensuring:
|
No later than 02 March 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
9 May 2025 |
The landlord contacted the resident to discuss an ongoing ASB case. During the call, the resident said she wanted to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the case, and some recent emails that she had received from a staff member. |
|
12 May 2025 |
The landlord informed its complaints team that the resident’s complaint concerned recent “discriminatory” emails she had received from a staff member and her dissatisfaction at being told when she could use her shed. |
|
23 May 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised to the resident for the “abrupt tone” of some of the emails it had sent. However, it did not uphold the complaint because it said it had found no evidence of discrimination and no record of it telling the resident she could not use her shed at certain times of the day. |
|
9 June 2025 |
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said this was because she was unhappy with the way the complaint had been handled. |
|
9 July 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that for the reasons already outlined in its stage 1 response, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. However, as it recognised that the relationship between the resident and the staff member had “broken down”, it had allocated her a new housing officer. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident told us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response as she felt it had failed to take her concerns seriously. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to learn from her complaint and provide an apology. |
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 |
Concerns about staff conduct and discrimination |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
What we did not investigate
- It is not within our remit to determine if the conduct of a landlord’s staff member did or did not happen as described in a complaint. Instead, it is our role to determine how the landlord responded to the allegations.
- The resident reported issues of discrimination in relation to the emails she received from the landlord. We may not consider complaints which concern matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. If the resident believes she has been unlawfully discriminated against, she may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on her options. Our investigation is limited to how the landlord responded to the concerns expressed.
What we did investigate
- The landlord’s code of conduct states that it’s staff “must not act in a way that discriminates against, or unjustifiably favours individuals, groups or interests, including on the basis of any protected characteristics they may have”. If further states that it expects staff to “treat everyone with equal respect, care and consideration”.
Concerns about emails
- To assist with the complaint investigation, the resident provided the landlord with copies of several emails, dated between 6 June 2024 and 8 May 2025. These emails showed her conversations with a staff member about an ongoing ASB dispute with her neighbour.
- Within the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, it confirmed it had reviewed the emails. It also said it had spoken directly with both the resident and the staff member involved. These actions were appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord took a fair and balanced approach to investigating the resident’s concerns.
- Within both complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the “abrupt tone” of the emails it had sent the resident in May 2025. It appropriately apologised to her and advised that the matter had been raised directly with the staff member involved. It also informed her that it had made the decision to allocate her a new housing officer. This showed that the landlord was aiming to address the root cause of the resident’s dissatisfaction to prevent future recurrence. However, as the landlord had acknowledged it had failed to maintain the expected service standards, we find it confusing that it did not uphold this element of the resident’s complaint.
- Within the resident’s request to make a complaint, she had also alleged that within the emails, the landlord had instructed her to only use her shed at certain times of the day. We find the landlord’s response in relation to this matter reasonable and based on the evidence available to it at the time. Nothing seen in this investigation suggests that the landlord reached unreasonable conclusions.
Concerns about discrimination
- Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights (published in January 2024) explains why it is important for landlords to consider allegations of bias and investigate them accordingly. It says failure to do this can compound a resident’s existing view that they are being treated unfavourably. It also says that investigating this type of allegation will help landlords ensure they are providing a fair, equitable and lawful service. Ultimately, we expect landlords to investigate this type of allegation through their formal complaints procedure.
- The resident first made the landlord aware of her discrimination concerns in her initial complaint on 9 May 2025. These were significant concerns that warranted a proper response from the landlord.
- Within both complaint responses, the landlord concluded that there was no evidence of discrimination within the emails it had sent her.
- As part of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint investigation, its complaint handler appropriately contacted the resident on 16 May 2025. However, we have seen no evidence that it discussed her specific concerns about discrimination. As such, while we do not dispute the assessment of its qualified staff, the landlord has failed to appropriately evidence its decision making in its handling of the resident’s concerns at stage 1 of its complaint process.
- During a call on 26 June 2025, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint handler asked the resident to explain how she felt the staff member had discriminated against her. This was a positive step, showing the landlord was trying to understand her concerns. However, as the landlord has a duty under the Equality Act 2010 not to unlawfully discriminate against a person based on their protected characteristics, it could have gone further by specifically discussing the resident’s relevant protected characteristic(s) and asking how its actions had affected her in relation to this. It also would have been appropriate for it to provide the resident with appropriate advice on services available to her if she wished to pursue the legal matter further.
Conclusion
- For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of service failure. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an appropriate amount of compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation guidance and our own remedies guidance.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’).
- The landlord failed to properly log and progress the full scope of the resident’s complaint. Its internal records from 9 May 2025 show that the resident raised a complaint about both the handling of her ASB case and the emails she had received. However, only the email‑related concerns were passed to the complaints team. There is no evidence or recorded rationale explaining why the ASB element was omitted. This indicates shortcomings in the landlord’s complaint handling process and record keeping. The failure to capture and escalate the full complaint prevented a complete investigation and fell below the standards set out in the Code, which requires landlords to record complaints accurately and ensure all issues raised are considered.
- The landlord appropriately adhered to its complaint timescales at stage 1 of its complaints process.
- The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 9 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged her request on 18 June 2025. This was a response time of 7 working days against a target 5. Although not considered an excessive delay and likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, the landlord failed to acknowledge the failing or apologise to the resident in its final response.
- The landlord appropriately issued its stage 2 response within 15 working days, against a target of 20 working days.
- The evidence shows that the resident repeatedly (before, during and after the complaints process) told the landlord she was unhappy with its handling of her ASB reports, saying she felt unsupported and that it had shown a “lack of care” and failed to take “proper action”. On several occasions the landlord clarified that the investigation related only to the emails and not the ongoing ASB issues. However, despite knowing she was dissatisfied with its ASB handling, the landlord did not open a separate complaint. This was inconsistent with its complaints and feedback policy, which defines a complaint as “any expression of dissatisfaction” and requires that residents be given the option to raise one.
- For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation guidance and our own remedies guidance.
Learning
Knowledge and information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s record keeping was satisfactory overall.
Communication
- The landlord’s communication showed some positive elements, such as keeping the resident updated with the complaint process, reviewing the emails, apologising for its tone, and engaging with both the resident and staff member involved. However, it failed to fully address the resident’s discrimination concerns or log the full scope of her complaint, leading to gaps in clarity, investigation, and follow through.