Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202313381)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313381

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 March 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB);
    2. Associated concerns regarding video recording equipment.

Background

  1. The resident’s assured tenancy began in 2007. The property is a second floor flat where she lives with her children. Her reports of ASB to the landlord concerned another of its tenants. For the purposes of this report the other tenant is referred to as ‘the neighbour’.
  2. The resident made a report of ASB concerning the neighbour to the landlord in August 2022. Its associated ASB case was closed the same month. She made a further report of ASB concerning the neighbour to the landlord in December 2022. It closed its second ASB case, and told her that it would provide her a further update regarding her request for a video doorbell, in March 2023.
  3. On 17 May 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that her older child had been assaulted by the neighbour. The landlord opened an ASB case and installed closed circuit television (CCTV). The police attended but took no further action. The landlord closed the case on 19 June 2023.
  4. On 15 June 2023, the resident made her complaint to the landlord. She said that she had first asked it about a video doorbell in December 2022. She highlighted its lack of response, despite her chasing the matter. She expressed her unhappiness with its handling and investigation of her ASB report.
  5. On 19 July 2023, the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it would not install a video doorbell for privacy reasons but that the setup of the CCTV would be completed by the end of the month. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and offered her £20 compensation for this.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process the same day. She said that she was still being harassed by the neighbour. She stated that the landlord had not explained why it had taken so long to respond to her video doorbell enquiry. She said that it had previously led her to believe that the CCTV was working and questioned what was left to complete with it. The landlord issued her its stage 2 complaint response on 21 August 2023. The key points were as follows:
    1. It stated that it would complete the setup of the CCTV on 29 August 2023, and would further interview the neighbour.
    2. It apologised that it was unable to agree to the video doorbell installation “due to data protection and privacy within the communal areas”.
    3. It apologised for failing to respond to the resident’s recent emails and for delays in its complaint handling. It offered her £75 compensation for this broken down as follows:
      1. £10 for the delay at stage 1.
      2. £25 for the delay at stage 2.
      3. “Complaint handling £40 for the time taken to provide a response to the CCTV”.
  7. On 23 August 2023, the neighbour was cautioned by the police following an assault on the resident and her child. On 29 August 2023, the landlord made an unsuccessful attempt to set up the CCTV. Over the following months, the resident continued to report the neighbour’s ASB to the landlord and chase updates for the CCTV. In May 2024, the landlord explained to the resident why it had removed the CCTV the previous month but that it was happy for her to install a video doorbell. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the landlord’s handling of all these matters.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident provided us with comprehensive information regarding her ongoing reports to the landlord of ASB and related matters from after the conclusion of her complaint on 21 August 2023. She has made further related complaints to the landlord since that time. Her most recent complaints appear to have not yet completed the landlord’s procedure. She has a separate case that was brought to us in March 2025 which also concerns ASB.
  2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider issues which in our opinion “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.
  3. The assault suffered by the resident and her child on 23 August 2023, and her subsequent ASB concerns, occurred after the conclusion of her complaint. As such, they were not investigated or responded to by the landlord as part of the complaint that was brought to us. This report is therefore focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB up to 21 August 2023, in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response to the resident included resolutions regarding its forthcoming video recording equipment intentions. This report does therefore consider the landlord’s handling of those matters up to June 2024, when it confirmed its position on them.

ASB handling

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy stated that all reported ASB incidents were assessed based on risk and priority. It said that standard priority cases were logged and assessed within 3 working days, and high-priority cases within 1 working day.
  2. The policy said that, in response to ASB reports, it would agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated throughout the case. It said that it would take a multi-agency approach to tackle ASB and that it may use tools such as warning letters and enforcement action.
  3. On 17 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that the neighbour had assaulted her child that day. The landlord’s record stated that the police had attended and that there had been a witness. It stated that the police had taken no further action because the witness had been unwilling to give a statement and both parties had blamed each other. Its record further stated that the same day it had:
    1. Opened an ASB case, completed an assessment, and passed it to a manager to review.
    2. Separately spoken with the neighbour and the resident to further discuss the case.
    3. Asked for CCTV and related signage to be erected in the communal area between the resident and neighbour’s properties.
    4. Raised a task to write to the resident and her neighbour to “remind them of their tenancy conditions”.
  4. It was unclear from the landlord’s record what priority it had assigned the resident’s ASB case. However, its actions on the day that she reported the ASB were appropriate, timely, and in line with its policy regarding high priority cases. The following day, the landlord set up a meeting with the local council to discuss the resident’s ASB case. This was in line with its policy regarding a multi-agency approach.
  5. On 19 May 2023, the resident called the landlord to speak to its ASB case worker. The case worker was unavailable and so a task was raised for them to call her back “ASAP”. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord’s record stated that it was a further month before it actioned the task. It was aware of how distressed the resident had been by her ASB report. This was further evident in the letter that it received from her MP, on 28 May 2023, which emphasised that she “no longer feels safe in her home”.
  6. On 15 June 2023, the landlord summarised its actions to the MP including those agreed with the local council at their meeting, on 24 May 2023. The same day the resident made her complaint to the landlord, which she sent in response to an ASB satisfaction survey that she had received from it.
  7. It was not until 19 June 2023, that the landlord returned the resident’s call from 19 May 2023. It was therefore understandable that her complaint, made 4 days earlier, stated that she was “very disappointed in the way you have dealt with this” and that she had been “left not feeling safe and supported”. The landlord’s lack of timely contact would have added to her already significant distress. Furthermore, it failed to act in line with its policy to keep the resident “updated throughout the case”.
  8. The landlord’s record of its call to the resident stated that there had been no further incidents with the neighbour. It said that it had advised her that her ASB case would be closed. It noted that she had expressed her unhappiness that it would be sending a ‘tenancy conditions reminder letter’ to her, as well as the neighbour. The landlord sent the letters the same day.
  9. On 21 June 2023, the landlord passed the resident’s response to its satisfaction survey to its complaint team. A formal acknowledgment was sent to the resident the following day. On 24 June 2023, the resident emailed the landlord regarding its response to her MP. She raised video doorbell and CCTV concerns that are considered in the assessment below. She questioned how it had investigated her ASB report. As the landlord later acknowledged in its complaint responses, it again failed to respond to her in a timely manner.
  10. On 19 July 2023, the landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response, which was reasonably empathetic. It offered her assurance that the neighbour was “aware that there will be consequences” if they breached the terms of their tenancy.  The resident asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2 the same day. Her reasons largely concerned the CCTV matters considered below. However, she did also refer to continuing harassment and recent behaviour by the neighbour, which she said that she found intimidating.
  11. It was therefore again unreasonable that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s further reports, until it issued her its stage 2 response on 21 August 2023. Its stage 2 response committed to further interviewing the neighbour. However, 2 days later and before the landlord did this, the incident occurred that led to the neighbour’s police caution.
  12. While the landlord’s immediate response to the resident’s May 2023 report of ASB was appropriate, it then failed to act in a timely manner or in line with its policy. This left the resident feeling unsafe, unsupported, and fearful for her children. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  13. The landlord is ordered to issue a further apology to the resident and pay her £250 compensation for the time, trouble, and distress caused to her by the ASB handling failures identified in this report. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. It is in addition to the £95 (£20 at stage 1 and £75 at stage 2) it awarded her for its complaint handling delays, which it is recommended to pay her if it has not already done so.
  14. As above, the resident continued to report ASB to the landlord. She made further related complaints to it after the conclusion of the complaint that we have considered, and up to the present day. She told us that she was awaiting updates from the landlord and expressed her uncertainty regarding the status of her more recent complaints.
  15. The landlord is therefore further ordered to meet with the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns. It must then write to her and the Ombudsman to summarise the outcome of their meeting and confirm the status and stage of any formal complaints that she has made to it in the prior 6 months.

Video recording equipment concerns

  1. On 27 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord’s staff member who had dealt with her December 2022 report of ASB. She referred to the police being unable to take further action “because there was no evidence i.e. CCTV”. She said that she had “asked if I could install” a video doorbell, as she “felt it would be a deterrent” to the neighbour’s behaviour. She stated that “you said that you would find out and get back to me, but I still haven’t had anything”.
  2. On 22 March 2023, the landlord’s letter to the resident referred to its discussion with her that day, and its advice that her December 2022 ASB case would be closed. The letter further advised that it would make enquiries regarding her video doorbell query and provide her an update of this.
  3. The resident later told the landlord, including in her complaint to it, that she had first asked it about the video doorbell in December 2022. She said that she had chased it for a response several times. She explained that it was not until March 2023 that she became aware that the staff member that she had asked and chased, was no longer employed by it. She said that the staff member that she had spoken to on 22 March 2023 had been unaware of her request.
  4. It is acknowledged that the landlord will experience a turnover of staff. Nonetheless, it was a failing that it did not have the processes in place to action the resident’s contacts with the staff member, after they had left. As the resident later stated, at a time when she was already experiencing significant anxiety, she felt that the landlord was just ignoring her.
  5. It was further unreasonable that, even after having been made aware of its previous failure, the landlord still failed to respond to the resident’s video doorbell query in a timely manner. Its ongoing lack of contact, up to her report of ASB on 17 May 2023, would have added to her time, trouble, and distress.
  6. On 18 May 2023, the landlord’s record confirmed that it had fitted CCTV near to the resident’s property. Its response to the MP the following month, which the MP passed to the resident, stated that the CCTV was “to capture evidence of any further incidents”. It was therefore understandable that the resident believed the CCTV to be functional.
  7. As above, the resident’s complaint to the landlord, on 15 June 2023, expressed her intense frustration that it had ignored her video doorbell requests over the previous 6 months. She highlighted her repeated “attempts to put something in place I believed would be a deterrent” and her willingness to pay for it herself. Her emails over the following days stated her belief that “we would not be having this discussion if my request was not ignored”.
  8. It cannot be conclusively known whether a video doorbell would have prevented the May 2023 ASB incident. Nonetheless, the resident had been referring to her request as a ‘deterrent’ for several months. It was therefore entirely understandable that she felt as she did.
  9. As the resident’s stage 2 request highlighted, the landlord’s stage 1 response to her wholly failed to address its 6 months of video doorbell communication failings. It only explained the privacy reasons that it would not install one itself, even though she had been seeking its permission to install her own. It further stated that it would complete the CCTV set up by 28 July 2023. It was again understandable that she expressed her frustration to it that she had repeatedly been led to believe that the CCTV was already recording.
  10. The landlord failed to meet its commitment to the resident to complete the CCTV set up in July 2023. Its stage 2 response to her the following month said that it would now complete the set up on 29 August 2023. It attended that day but was unable to do it. We have seen no evidence of what it advised to the resident. However, several of her further contacts referred to its commitment to return the following day and her distress at its failure to do so.
  11. On 1 September 2023, the resident chased the landlord for a CCTV update. It replied to her the same day and advised that it was working “to get the CCTV active”. It was unreasonable that she found it necessary to continue chasing it for updates over the following 2 months, and to request the support of the local council.
  12. On 9 November 2023, the landlord asked the resident to “let me know if the CCTV installed has been activated”. She replied that she was “very disappointed in the way the situation has been dealt with and it’s quite shocking that you are asking me if the CCTV is working”. By this time, she had been chasing it for CCTV updates for several months without response. The landlord’s seeming lack of awareness of the situation was wholly unreasonable and would have added to her distress.
  13. The resident continued to chase the matter with the landlord through the remainder of November 2023 and into the early part 2024. In February 2024, she highlighted to it that she had asked again about a video doorbell but that it had not got back to her, despite its promise to do so. The landlord’s continued communications failings would have been very frustrating for the resident.
  14. During March and April 2024, the MP and local council both sought updates from the landlord regarding the resident’s concerns. The council asked it to deal with the matter “promptly as this is now affecting her mental state”. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange to visit the resident. However, on 19 April 2024, her letter to its chief executive referred to her ignored requests for a video doorbell, and to the CCTV, which “to this day has not been activated”. Her view that “no one seemed to take my complaints and request for the camera seriously” was again understandable.
  15. During May 2024, the resident expressed her distress to the landlord that it had removed the CCTV the previous month without any communication to her. The landlord corresponded with her in a timelier manner and explained the technical difficulties it had had with the CCTV. Nevertheless, it was fully aware of her ongoing ASB concerns and distress. It was therefore unreasonable for it to remove the CCTV without making any effort to offer her assurance of its intentions, nor otherwise discuss the matter with her.
  16. On 14 May 2024, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it did “not object to residents installing CCTV” or video doorbells. It provided her a document with guidance for this. On 5 June 2024, it advised her of its own considerations for installing video equipment. It stated that the installation of video doorbells “can significantly enhance security and contribute to a greater sense of safety within our community”. The resident’s entirely understandable response a few days later said that “this was my thoughts when I asked over and over again if I could install one”.
  17. The resident had spent around 18 months making queries to, and chasing, the landlord regarding video recording equipment. The landlord was aware throughout this period of her severe anxiety and safety concerns for her family. Its repeated failures to respond to her in a timely manner, or often at all, and its conflicting advice, would have significantly added to her time, trouble, and distress.
  18. The Ombudsman has therefore made a further finding of maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding video recording equipment. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure over a prolonged period, which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord must consider the resident’s current video recording equipment concerns as part of the meeting that has been ordered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of ASB.
    2. Associated concerns regarding video recording equipment.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that, within 4 weeks, the landlord:
    1. Writes to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
    2. Arranges to meet with the resident to discuss her ongoing concerns and, within 10 days of the meeting, writes to her and the Ombudsman to:
      1. Provide a summary of the outcome of the meeting;
      2. Confirm the status and stage of any complaints that she has made to it in the prior 6 months.
    3. Pays the resident £850 total compensation made up of:
      1. £250 for the time, trouble, distress caused by the failings identified in its handling of ASB reports.
      2. £600 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of video recording equipment concerns.
    4. The landlord should also pay the compensation it previously offered the resident of £95 (£20 at stage 1 and £75 at stage 2).
    5. Compensation awarded by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against arrears where they exist.