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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202330468)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330468

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 June 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:
    1. a request for CCTV footage.
    2. installation of external lighting.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The resident has mental health and mobility issues. She occupies a 3-bedroom property with her two children, one of whom has complex needs. The resident moved to the property in November 2022 following antisocial behaviour (ASB) at a previous landlord property.
  2. In July 2022 the resident’s car windows were smashed which she reported to the police and the landlord. On 26 July 2022 the police contacted the landlord asking if it could share any CCTV footage. On 8 November 2022 the landlord responded to an MP enquiry stating the resident had accepted a permanent offer of alternative accommodation. It added some reconstruction works were taking place to the new property and that it agreed to install security lighting at the front of this property. The resident moved into the new property later in November 2022.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 7 December 2022. She said the police had not received any CCTV footage from the landlord. She felt the landlord had not supported the police and had shown a lack of concern for her and her family’s safety. She also felt that, had the footage been provided to the police early on, further acts of vandalism could have been prevented. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 14 December 2022. In summary, it said:
    1. the neighbourhood lead instructed the landlord’s contractor to download CCTV recordings from the cameras covering the car park area. The footage was downloaded on 9 August 2022 and left on a USB stick at its caretaker’s office but the police had not collected the USB.
    2. having viewed the footage, the cameras were not facing the car park area at the time of the incident.
    3. the USB was recently disposed of in error which meant the footage was no longer accessible and it could not be redownloaded.
    4. it was sorry for this and suggested the resident provide recordings of the incident to the police from her dash camera.
    5. it would offer compensation of £150 made up of £50 for inconvenience, £50 for the distress and £50 for her time and effort.
  5. The resident asked to escalate the complaint the same day. She felt it was bizarre and corrupt that the landlord had disposed of the USB containing evidence that the police had requested. The resident said she had dash camera footage that showed the perpetrator coming from an exit which, according to the landlord, was where one of its cameras was directed. She therefore did not consider the landlord’s view regarding the footage as credible. She questioned why there had been a lack of communication between the landlord and police, and felt this showed that the landlord had no concern for tenants’ safety.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 16 October 2023. In summary, it said:
    1. there was a clear lack of communication between landlord staff members and the caretaker. This resulted in the disposal of the USB before an appointment could be made with the police to collect it, and it apologised for this service failure.
    2. streetlights were not installed near to the new property, nor had it fitted CCTV at the new property as promised. It said that it would not be able to add extra streetlights to the estate; however, it could add additional security lighting to her property. It added it would reimburse the resident for the installation of her own CCTV equipment.
    3. it would offer compensation of £1,320 made up of £630 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to recognise the impact on the household given its vulnerabilities, £50 for the time and effort in getting the complaint resolved, £100 for poor complaint handling, £180 for the stage 2 delayed response and £360 for the service failure loss of USB stick.
  7. In the resident’s referral to the Ombudsman in November 2023, she said she wanted the landlord to deal with the lighting issue, pay further compensation and recognise its failings in order to prevent a reoccurrence.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

  1. During the complaints process, the resident advised the landlord that its handling of these matters had a negative impact on the mental health of the household. In this case, we are unable to consider causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and well-being as this would be better suited to a court. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience this situation may have caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of a request for CCTV footage

  1. The landlord’s website states CCTV footage is kept for 31 days. On receiving a request for CCTV footage from a resident or another party such as the police, the landlord should obtain and provide any footage in a timely manner. 
  2. On 26 July 2022 the police emailed the landlord asking if it could look at the cameras and share any relevant footage. In this email the police provided a link for the landlord to use to share any evidence. The police chased the landlord again on 6 August 2022. The landlord appeared to download the CCTV footage onto a USB within its guideline timescales. However, there appeared to be confusion over exactly what happened and when.
  3. It recognised the resident had received two different accounts of events from the staff members involved with retrieving the USB footage. In any case, the salient point remains that the landlord disposed of or lost the USB without having provided any of the footage to the police. This caused distress to the resident who, given the historical context of ASB and the household’s circumstances, felt the landlord was not taking the situation seriously and likely diminished trust between her and the landlord.
  4. The landlord stated in its final response that its staff member did not hear back from the police, having chased on a number of occasions. However, we have not seen any evidence to confirm this. Nevertheless, the landlord should have been proactive in supplying the footage to the police; indeed, we have seen an email from the police to the landlord asking it to provide the CCTV footage via a link. Yet the landlord did not do this, and it is unclear why not. This was an oversight on the part of the landlord and the evidence shows the landlord was aware that a link had been provided since it asked the police to resend it on 7 August 2022.
  5. In the landlord’s formal responses, it said that the staff who retrieved the footage viewed it and noted the cameras were not pointing towards the car park area. This is where the resident’s car was parked when her windows were smashed in July 2022. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what the footage showed, but the landlord’s statement demonstrated that it had assessed the footage before downloading it to a USB, which was a fair approach.
  6. The Ombudsman does not underestimate the frustration and distress this situation would have caused the resident. The landlord acted fairly by recognising its errors and oversights and acknowledging that its lack of proactivity contributed to the resident’s distress.
  7. Additionally, it gave an explanation of what had happened to the USB, identified learning, and put measures in place to ensure the safe transfer of information in future. It also made an offer of compensation of £360 at stage 2 for losing the USB. This was in line with our remedies guidance which suggests awards from £100 where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. A recommendation has been made to reinforce learning from this case.
  8. Furthermore, we have seen the landlord has since implemented a number of measures for the resident’s safety that were fair and reasonable. This included agreeing to reimburse her for the installation of her own CCTV equipment. This demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to assist the resident and that it adequately considered her safety concerns and the household’s wellbeing. In view of this, we consider the landlord has made reasonable redress.
  9. On 29 November 2023 the landlord contacted the resident explaining that, as she had rent arrears, the compensation payment would be credited to her rent account. It apologised for not highlighting this at the time of its decision. In recognition of its error, it said it would add a further £50 to the compensation amount it had offered, and the total compensation, now £1,370, would be offset against her rent account. The resident was unhappy about this and felt the landlord had been deceitful and made a deliberate attempt not to provide her directly with the compensation. On 8 December 2023 the landlord offset £1,370 against the resident’s rent account which included the £360 loss of USB compensation.
  10. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will partly or fully offset a compensation payment against any debt owed by a resident including rent arrears, but this is not applicable for reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses. The compensation offered in the final response was not awarded in respect of financial loss or out-of-pocket expenses, so setting off the compensation against the resident’s arrears was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. However, landlords should be mindful that a resident may be unaware of its policy in this respect, and a recommendation has been made.

The landlord’s handling of installation of external lighting

  1. On 8 November 2022 the landlord replied to an MP enquiry and agreed to install security lighting at the front of the new property. On 14 December 2022 the landlord said a job had been raised and it was awaiting an installation date. However, the landlord did not progress this, nor did it update the resident about any anticipated timescales for the lighting works.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord about the matter on 18 September 2023 and said she was “going around in circles regarding the streetlights”. The landlord responded in October 2023. It explained that, due to the location of the existing columns on the estate, trenching works would be required to obtain an electricity supply and the work would be extensive and disruptive.
  3. It said it was therefore unable to progress an additional lamp post on the estate but could look to adding an additional light on the front of her property. It queried if the resident had a specific light that she wanted the landlord to consider. This was appropriate and demonstrated a customer-focused approach. On 12 October 2023, the resident confirmed that she wanted the extra security lighting on the front of her property.
  4. The landlord then acted fairly by arranging for its private contractor to install the security lighting. We have seen evidence of costs and a purchase order for a solar lantern in late November 2023. The resident chased the lighting works on 23 November 2023. The landlord acted fairly by providing an update the next day, stating that it had approved the quotation from its contractor who would now go ahead with the installation.
  5. Overall, the landlord caused avoidable and unreasonable delays and failed to communicate from December 2022 to September 2023, despite promising in November 2022 to install security lighting. While it did offer the resident an alternative and asked for her input on a specific light, its final response did not explicitly apologise for the delays.
  6. However, it acknowledged failing to adequately consider the impact on her vulnerable household (a point she frequently raised) and offered £630 in compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by this failure. This compensation, which we believe partly covers the lighting issues, is considered satisfactory in putting matters right.
  7. Moreover, the evidence shows that following the landlord’s final response, it took reasonable steps to carry out the lighting improvement works to the property paying due consideration to the resident’s safety. The lighting appeared to be completed in late 2023/early 2024 but it is unclear exactly when. We have also seen from the landlord’s submissions that it initially installed a solar powered lantern. However, the landlord said the resident felt this inadequate so replaced it with a security light connected to the mains supply.
  8. The landlord told us in May 2025 that it believed this addressed the issue as it had not received anything further from the resident about this. This demonstrated it learnt from its previous errors, listened to the resident’s concerns and took a customer-focused approach to resolving her concerns about security lighting. As such, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. If a resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, they may request to escalate to stage 2. The complaint will be reviewed by another member of staff and a final written response will be sent within 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay, then the landlord will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. Any new deadlines will be agreed with the resident.
  2. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 14 December 2022. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 28 December 2022 and also contacted the resident on 3 and 4 January 2023. We have also seen the landlord mentioned on 4 January 2023 that there would be delays due to its new approach to meet the new Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code which had resulted in a backlog in the cases requiring escalation.
  3. Although the landlord informed the resident on 4 January 2023 that the complaint was taking longer than anticipated, it failed to take any further meaningful action until September 2023. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord notified the resident of any delay as required by its policy, which would have been reasonable between January and September 2023
  4. Subsequently, the landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 16 October 2023. This was 211 working days after the initial escalation request and significantly outside its policy timescales, and the landlord failed to take ownership of the matter. The landlord missed opportunities to respond to the resident’s complaint earlier and these delays caused distress and frustration to the resident who may have felt ignored or that her complaint was not being taken seriously.
  5. While the landlord’s final response did not apologise for this delay, it offered £330 compensation made up of £50 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved, £100 for poor complaint handling and £180 for the stage 2 delayed response. This is in line with our remedies guidance and puts matters right for the resident. We consider the compensation offered as a financial remedy was fair and reasonable in recognition of its complaint handling failings and adequately reflected the detriment caused to the resident by the delays and poor communication. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a request for CCTV footage.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of installation of external lighting.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its processes for obtaining, handling and storing CCTV evidence, including ensuring that the common areas of the estate are adequately filmed at all times and that any relevant footage is backed up and easily retrievable.
  2. The landlord should ensure that, when a resident is offered compensation, the resident is alerted at the same time to its policy that a compensation payment will be partly or fully set against any debt owed by a resident, including rent arrears.