Livv Housing Group (202315932)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315932

Livv Housing Group

29 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about a contact arrangement for repairs.
   2. Requests and queries about who attends repair appointments.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, and lives in a two-bedroom house. She has limited mobility and post-traumatic stress disorder. At the time of the complaint, the resident had an arrangement to be called 20-minute before its repairs operatives attended.
3. In August 2023, in response to a request the resident had made the landlord apologised for being unable to provide female operatives, explaining it did not have any in employment. For safety, it arranged for two operatives to attend repairs. It also offered pre-arranged appointments so the resident could arrange to have someone present.
4. On 23 and 24 August 2023, repair visits failed because the landlord could not gain access. On 24 August 2023, the resident complained that the landlord ignored her request for 20-minute notice before two male operatives arrived, leaving her unable to arrange support. She said this caused severe anxiety and that her contact arrangement request was missing from the contractor’s notes.
5. On 1 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said staff tried to call 20 minutes before arrival but the resident’s phone was switched off. A new appointment on 29 August 2023 was later cancelled by the resident, who chose to pay for the repair herself. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, saying it had followed the agreed contact arrangement.
6. On 14 March 2024, the Service asked the landlord to escalate the complaint at the resident’s request. She disputed receiving any 20-minute call and said the visit triggered a panic attack. She also questioned why two male operatives were always sent for repairs.
7. On 15 April 2024, the landlord issued its final stage 2 response. It said call logs from the operatives’ phones were no longer available but its system records and emails showed calls were made. It apologised for not addressing how unsettling the presence of two male operatives was. It repeated that it could not provide female staff and, due to past allegations made by the resident about landlord operatives, would continue to send two operatives. It recognised that the current arrangement was not working, as its logs showed calls were made but her phone was off or messages not received, and invited her to discuss her repair contact arrangements.
8. In the resident’s complaint to us, she felt 2 male operatives were not needed for some repairs and made her uncomfortable. She objected to the landlord suggesting removal of the 20-minute notice, arguing this breached the Equality Act 2010. She wanted the 20-minute notification to remain as a reasonable adjustment.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

9. The resident said the landlord discriminated against her by removing a reasonable adjustment and requiring contact methods she cannot use due to her disability. We cannot decide if the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010, as only the courts can make that ruling, but we will consider whether the landlord acted fairly within the scope of the complaint.

Concerns about a contact arrangement for repairs

10. The landlord’s fairness and respect policy says it will consider each resident’s needs, abilities and circumstances when delivering services and communicating. The policy also covers reasonable adjustments, such as allowing extra time for residents to answer the door. If an adjustment cannot be made because of cost or resources, the landlord will work with the resident to find the best alternative.
11. On 23 and 24 August 2023, repair appointments failed because the landlord’s operatives could not gain access. The resident later complained on 24 August 2023, saying she was not given the agreed 20-minute notice and could not arrange for someone to be present.
12. The landlord acted in line with the agreed contact arrangement by calling 20 minutes ahead. Although the resident disputed this, the landlord explained it could not show the operative’s phone logs 8 months later. That was understandable, given the amount of time that had passed. However, internal records and an email show calls were made on 23 and 24 August 2023. The resident has not disputed that her phone was switched off on those occasions.
13. The landlord recognised that the agreed arrangements were not working, and explained it was open to alternative arrangements. It is not clear from the evidence if the resident suggested anything. Nonetheless, this was a reasonable step, relevant to the situation and in line with its policy.
14. The evidence therefore shows that the landlord complied with its policy and its contact arrangement at the time. The landlord also continued to assist and ask the resident how she wished to communicate and offered to make further adjustments where possible. Its actions, and its response to the complaint are supported by the evidence and were reasonable.
15. The landlord has given us conflicting information about whether the arrangement to call the resident 20-minutes before an appointment is still currently in place. A recommendation has been made below for it to update its records accordingly.

Requests and queries about who attends repair appointments

16. In 2023, the resident requested only female operatives attend her repairs, as she felt uncomfortable with two male operatives in her home. On 3 August 2023, the landlord explained it had no female operatives. For safety reasons, it arranged for two operatives to attend each appointment. As all visits were prearranged, the landlord advised she could invite a friend or family member for support. This was reasonable.
17. Following the complaint, the landlord apologised for not acknowledging sooner that two male operatives could be distressing. Its final response repeated that it could not meet the request for female operatives because it did not have sufficient staff to do so. It also explained that, due to previous allegations made by the resident about staff conduct, sending two operatives to every visit remained necessary. Nonetheless, it explained that the resident had the option to have support present because appointments were scheduled in advance.
18. The landlord’s responses addressed the resident’s requests and concerns, explained its decision and reasons, and suggested an option for the resident. No evidence has been seen which contradicts what it said, or suggests it overlooked or ignored any specifically relevant information or policy. Accordingly, it handled the issue reasonably.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about a contact arrangement for repairs.
    2. Requests and queries about who attends repair appointments.

Recommendation

20. The landlord should ensure the resident’s profile is updated to reflect the current contact arrangement, if it has not done so already.