London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202319292)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319292

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

28 June 2024

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and hate incidents.
2. The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. The property is a three bedroom maisonette.
The resident reported to the landlord on 6 October 2021 that her neighbour was causing noise nuisance and garden nuisance including cultivation of cannabis plants, a build up of items in the garden, erecting screens with exposed nails butting into her garden, constructing an outhouse that was used as an additional living space with a sound system and butted onto two boundaries. The resident made further reports during November 2021 and December 2021. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 21 January 2022 regarding the anti social behaviour which included the requirement to cease the behaviour and clear the garden.
In May 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that the noise and other anti social behaviour had increased and she was also suffering hate crimes and asked the landlord to take action.
The resident made further reports of anti social behaviour and through her MP during June 2022, July 2022, August 2022 and September 2022. In February 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord stating she had not heard from it since November 2022 and asked for an update and that noise levels had increased since January 2023, a new shed was being built, she was afraid to use her garden and the rubbish from her garden wall had not been removed. The resident updated her anti social behaviour record sheets and provided them to the landlord. The resident stated she was suffering with anxiety and under medical supervision.
The resident made complaints to the landlord regarding its handling of her anti social behaviour reports from June 2022 including correspondence sent by herself, her MP and through its online complaints form stating the landlord had not taken sufficient action with the garden structures still in place and the anti social behaviour continuing.
Following a request by this Service on 21 November 2023, the landlord issued a stage one response on 5 December 2023. The response did not state if it had upheld the resident’s complaint but provided the resident with a summary of the actions the landlord had taken in response to her reports of anti social behaviour.
The resident was dissatisfied with the response and escalated her complaint on 31 December 2023.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 14 March 2024. It acknowledged that the case had been going on for some time and was still ongoing. It acknowledged its staff had changed over time causing further delays and apologised for any inconvenience that had caused. It did not uphold the complaint as it had followed its process and anti social behaviour handling guidelines. As there had been a delay in getting a resolution however it awarded £450 in compensation consisting of £200 for complaint handling delays, £100 distress, £100 inconvenience and £50 time and effort.
The resident in bringing her complaint to this Service has stated the anti social behaviour has continued including the noise has not stopped, rubbish on one side of the garden has not been removed, rubbish on her garden wall has not been removed, the size of the outhouses has not been reduced and her neighbour continues to verbally abuse her and threaten damage to her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The resident said the lack of action taken by the landlord in resolving the anti social behaviour affected her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her comments. However, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
It is acknowledged that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of anti social behaviour. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to anti social behaviour, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably
This Service is unable to establish whether a party is responsible for anti social behaviour. On that basis, we cannot tell the landlord to take action against the neighbour.
It is noted that the resident has reported to the landlord and this Service that the anti social behaviour is continuing after the stage 2 complaint response had been issued. However, this investigation cannot consider issues which have arisen after the date of the landlord’s Stage 2 response. This is because the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to any complaint which may be raised by the resident in respect of those events. Any such issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and hate incidents.

The landlord’s anti social behaviour policy states that it will assign a priority for a case based on the type of anti social behaviour reported and assess the reports using the evidence available, the harm or potential harm to the reporting party, victims and witnesses, other residents and the local community, and the apparent motivation. Two priorities are listed in the policy – high priority cases of anti social behaviour will be logged and assessed by a Case Manager within one working day and subsequent incidents of the same anti social behaviour case will also be assessed within one working day. Standard Priority cases will be logged as anti social behaviour and assessed by a Housing Officer within 3 working days. Subsequent incidents will only be assessed where the substance of the report justifies the need for a further assessment.
The landlord was initially informed of anti social behaviour by the resident on 6 October 2021 however, there is no evidence that prompt discussions took place with the resident following her reports which was unreasonable. There was also no evidence of the landlord’s assessment of the priority of the anti social behaviour reports.
Following no response from the landlord the resident chased it in November 2021 with the landlord responding to the resident on 18 November 2021 regarding her anti social behaviour reports. At this point the landlord provided log sheets to the resident which the resident confirmed she received and would complete. This was over one month after the initial reports had been made.
Although there was some evidence provided of the landlord discussing the case internally, it took until 11 January 2022 for the landlord to formally write to the resident to confirm who would be managing the case and what steps the landlord would be taking. It took the landlord 67 working days to reach this point.
The landlord provided the resident an update of what it would be doing, who she should inform if further anti social behaviour incidents took place and how to complete diary sheets and download its noise app. These were positive steps taken by the landlord. The landlord took further positive steps when it wrote to the police asking for any information it could provide.
The resident informed the landlord on 17 January 2022 that the noise levels from the neighbour had improved but she wanted her reports of the state of the neighbours garden to be addressed and provided a list of significant events that occurred since July 2021
The landlord did write to the neighbour regarding the anti social behaviour on 21 January 2022 which included the requirement to cease the behaviour displayed towards other residents and have no further involvement or contact with them or their property. The neighbour was also asked to remove a shed structure in the rear garden and fencing erected along the boundary wall of the property. The landlord stated it would take further action if its requests were not complied with by 26 February 2022.
The letter also provided the neighbour with the terms of the tenancy which clearly stated what would be considered a breach of the tenancy due to anti social behaviour. This included but was not limited to anything which caused a nuisance to anyone living in the area, use of the property for criminal activity, harassment or threatening violence to anyone in the local area, and the use of loudspeakers in a way that would annoy people.
This demonstrates that the landlord was aware that there were concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour and it was therefore important that it monitored the situation closely and gave consideration as to whether it should escalate the matter to a tenancy enforcement stage if there was non compliance.
The resident was informed the case was being closed on 8 February 2022 by the landlord. In closing the case the landlord stated it was closing the case as it had sent a warning letter to the neighbour outlining what actions needed addressing. The landlord also stated to the resident a risk assessment had taken place however there was no evidence of a risk assessment provided to this Service.
The landlord did state internally that the details of what was stated in the warning letter would be passed to a property manager so that if the structure was not removed then a new case would be opened for legal proceedings to take place.
However, when the landlord closed the anti social behaviour case at this time in February 2022 there were outstanding issues with regards to the neighbour complying with the requests made in the letter issued by the landlord on 21 January 2022.
From the landlord’s records provided there was no evidence of it monitoring the neighbours compliance with the requests made for removal of the items in the garden and there is no evidence these were removed within the requested timescales. This Service is therefore unable to determine that the landlord acted in accordance with it’s anti social behavioural policy and followed up on the orders it had made and it is unclear why the landlord felt it could close the case with the request to clear the garden still outstanding.
Further reports were made by the resident from May 2022 with the landlords records stating the situation was still the same but a hate crime had also been reported to the police. In her correspondence with the landlord the resident had informed it of an increase in the anti social behaviour including threats and verbal abuse which she said had made her feel scared and caused her anxiety. Her correspondence made it clear she wanted to speak to someone from the landlord. Evidence provided by the resident showed the landlord instructed her to call or use its online form to raise a new case. It was not appropriate of the landlord to instruct the resident to do this rather than it raising a new case itself based on the information that was being provided and that it already had.
Although the resident did raise a new case and was told by the landlord her new complaint would be linked to the existing one and she would be contacted, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident. Following no response from the landlord the resident contacted her MP in June 2022 who wrote to the landlord on 13 June 2022, 13 July 2022, 12 August 2022 and 13 September 2022. During this time period there is no evidence the landlord responded to the MP or to the resident to any of those enquiries. This would have caused further distress to the resident as the issues were clearly continuing and the resident was stating the incidents were increasing in severity.
From the evidence provided by the landlord there were some references to the landlord taking legal proceedings however due to the lack of substantive evidence this Service cannot determine the extent of the action the landlord took or attempted to take in response to the ongoing reports. There was also no evidence of it keeping in regular contact with the resident during that time contrary to its anti social behavioural policy and this represents a failure by the landlord.
It is clear the landlord provided log sheets to the resident to complete and it is clear those log sheets were returned to the landlord by the resident. The landlord however has not provided any evidence of the investigations it took with regards to those logs or what considerations of any stated incidents it took. This Service therefore cannot determine that the landlord appropriately investigated the residents reports.
The resident’s MP also wrote to the landlord on 27 February 2023 detailing steps the resident would like the landlord to take including a visit to the property to view the boundary, and all rubbish to be removed, the landlord to fence the neighbours garden to meet the neighbours needs and resolve the boundary issues, a risk assessment of the hazards from the neighbours garden and a warning letter to be sent to the neighbour regarding the hate incidents. The landlord was asked to respond.
It did so on 21 April 2023 and stated it had been requested that the neighbour removed items that were attached to the fence of the resident’s boundary but replacement of the boundary fence was the responsibility of the resident so it would not be looking to replace the fence. The landlord also stated that in relation to hate incidents that they were addressed at that time by the investigating officer and letters were sent to the other party by the investigating officer. The landlord has not provided any further evidence of the actions it took following the letter it issued to the neighbour in January 2022 so this Service cannot determine the adequacy of the actions taken by the landlord.
Further reports of anti social behaviour were made to the landlord in June 2023 and July 2023 including noise nuisance and the structure to her fence remaining in place. This indicated the landlord had not fulfilled its commitments to resolve the situation regarding those issues. This was almost two years since the resident’s first evidenced report to the landlord. It is acknowledged that during this time the resident had informed the landlord the noise reports had subsided at times but from the evidence provided the garden reports were continuous.
The resident then informed the landlord of a further incident that took place on 29 July 2023 and provided a transcript of a verbal incident with the neighbour witnessed by another neighbour that ended with the resident and the other neighbour both calling the police. The landlord was provided with a crime reference number. The resident informed the landlord two days later that she was extremely unhappy about how it was handling her anti social behaviour complaint.
When the resident made a complaint on 31 July 2023 the resident stated that the anti social behaviour including noise, racist hate incidents and build up of rubbish had continued and had worsened since the landlord had conducted a visit the previous month. The resident also informed the landlord the outbuildings had not been removed and an additional one had been constructed. The resident made it clear she was suffering from anxiety and was afraid to use her garden and cautious of opening her front door or walking down the street. There is no evidence the landlord conducted a revaluation of her anti social behaviour case including a risk assessment.
There is evidence the landlord offered mediation to the resident and it appears that this was proposed around July 2023 and agreed by all parties in September 2023. This was offered however almost two years after her first reports of anti social behaviour to the landlord. The landlord had not evidenced if it had offered this before and if it did, why it took this length of time for the mediation to be offered. This Service considers the length of time for the landlord to take this action to be significantly outside what would be considered an appropriate timescales. This is a failing by the landlord.
In determining this case this Service found there were issues with the landlords record keeping. The landlord records through internal communications show the landlord reviewed the situation after speaking to the resident in November 2023 and it established the garden clearance had begun but more work could be done, and the Council was also involved. It also noted the verbal abuse had stopped as nothing further had been reported.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Although this Service was still able to determine this case using the information that was available. This Service has not been provided with a comprehensive record of communication between the landlord and the resident or the actions it took following receipt of the resident’s anti social behaviour reports or log sheets. The records were therefore difficult to follow without cross referencing with other information, such as the resident’s own records.
It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail as this helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decision making at the time. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. It is therefore recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints, which provides details of specifically when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were
The landlord however has not provided any evidence of any of these findings. There were no records provided of steps it took regarding clearance of the neighbour’s garden, dates involved or correspondence with the Council. There was also no evidence that the landlord made contact with the resident regarding her reports of threats and harassment or that it took any steps as per its anti social behavioural policy including creating and updating an action plan. The landlords consideration of the noise levels and if sound monitoring equipment or referrals to the Environmental Health service was required.
When it was investigating the resident’s complaint at stage two the landlord noted it had records of a phone call from June 2022 but no further notes of events until 19 Feb 2023. Given the length of time and frequency of the resident’s reports this is concerning for the landlord to state it had such a gap in its records.
Although the landlord has stated what actions it took, its records do not reflect those actions. There is no evidence of the landlord establishing the resident’s priority under its anti social behavioural policy. There was no evidence of it under section 4.7 of it’s anti social behavioural policy of the landlord being in regular contact, action plans being created, monitoring the resident’s case or following up on actions either during open cases or closed cases. Although the landlord may well have completed some of the actions it stated it did, the lack of evidence provided means this Service cannot determine that those actions took place. .
The anti social behaviour reports have been ongoing since October 2021 and from the evidence provided are still continuing. From the evidence available, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that the landlord pro-actively engaged with the resident up to the date of the stage 2 response. The landlord during this time has failed to evidence it had dealt with the issues reported to it within an appropriate timescale, that it monitored events, responded to the resident or her MP’s emails, provided updates to the resident or took further action if there was non compliance by the neighbour required. This is maladministration by the landlord.
In its stage two response, although it did not uphold the complaint the landlord offered £250 compensation for distress, inconvenience and time and effort to the resident for delays in getting a resolution to the matter. Given the failings identified in this investigation the offer of compensation is not considered appropriate and the landlord should pay the resident £650 inclusive of the amount previously offered.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

When receiving a complaint that references anti social behaviour or noise, it is important that the landlord distinguish whether the resident is complaining about the issue itself, or the landlord’s handling of the anti social behaviour. The danger of not recognising the difference can lead to a delay of formally investigating the matter as a complaint.
In this case, the evidence provided shows the resident initially was complaining about the anti social behaviour of her neighbour. The resident however made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her anti social behaviour reports in an email forwarded by her MP on 13 June 2022 and on three further occasions until September 2022, via the landlords online complaint form on 19 February 2023 and in a letter dated 31 July 2023. There was no formal response by the landlord and as a result, the Ombudsman had to intervene and reiterate the resident’s concerns on her behalf on 20 November 2023.
Section 1.2 of the Ombudsman code states a complaint is ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.’ Section 1.3 states A resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint.
The landlord therefore should have considered during those correspondences if the resident wished to make a formal complaint about it’s handling of her anti social behaviour reports. There is no evidence it did so. Although it is acknowledged there was considerable correspondence between the resident’s MP and the landlord. The landlord should still be able to identify when the resident is making a formal complaint and therefore respond accordingly in line with its complaints policy. The landlord failed to do this. It failed to recognise the resident was making a formal complaint.
Following contact from this Service to the landlord in November 2023 the landlord did open a formal complaint which it acknowledged on 21 November 2023. Under the landlord’s complaint policy the landlord would be required to issue the stage one response within 10 working days. The landlord issued the response on 5 December 2023. This was 11 working days later.
The stage one response was issued however 91 working days after the resident’s email on 31 July 2023 and 201 working days after her complaint on 19 February 2023 that both stated she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the anti social behaviour. Based on the first evidenced formal complaint on 13 June 2022 the response was issued 376 working days later.
The stage one response failed to acknowledge the resident had made previous complaints indicating the landlord had not considered her previous correspondences to be a formal complaint. This was a failing by the landlord.
The stage one response provided the resident with an update of the actions it had taken in relation to her anti social behaviour reports and the stage one response made a commitment for it to remove items from the garden and reduce the size of the shed by 29 November 2023.
The stage one response however did not state if the resident’s complaint had been upheld and if it had been upheld the landlord did not offer any form of redress to the resident. There was also no apology to the resident for the delays that she had incurred in pursuit of her anti social behaviour reports or complaints she had made.
In the resident’s escalation request the resident said she stated the landlord had not addressed her complaint points including it’s lack of actions over the previous 26 months and had failed to follow up on actions it stated it would take.
The stage two response did state that the resident had made her complaint on 6 July 2022, indicating it had established the complaint had been made much earlier. Although this Service had not seen evidence of a complaint being made on this date, the date stated was much closer to the date of 13 June 2022 when the resident’s MP forwarded an email from the resident about the landlord’s handling of her anti social behaviour reports.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response, however failed to address the resident’s escalation concerns. The landlord made it clear in the stage two response it was responding to the resident’s complaint about it’s handling of her reports of anti social behaviour and not the anti social behaviour itself. However, the landlord then proceeded to give the resident an update about the status of one of the anti social behaviour issues (garden clearance) and although it acknowledged that the anti social behaviour was still ongoing and there had been a delay in finding a resolution, it failed to offer any assessment or explanations to the resident regarding her reasons for escalation.
The landlord failed to provide appropriate responses to the resident which did not demonstrate that it had fully considered her complaint, the reason for escalation and the actions it had taken.
The landlord stated it had followed its processes and anti social behaviour handling guidelines, but it failed to evidence or explain to the resident in the stage two response what it had done. This was in contrast to the stage one response which had explained what steps it was taking or was going to take. The stage two response would not have given the resident any reassurance of the steps the landlord had taken or what future steps it would take. The landlord did not uphold the residents complaint.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord offered compensation for the delay in issuing the stage two response of £200. Although the evidence provided shows the resident made the complaint approximately three weeks earlier on 13 June 2022, the amount offered would be considered reasonable for the delays stated by the landlord in its stage two response. However, for the further failings identified in the stage two response a further payment of £150 should be paid to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the residents reports of anti social behaviour
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. A senior anti social behaviour officer to contact the resident, by phone or in writing, to understand her recent concerns and to explain the available next steps. They should confirm the landlord’s expectations in terms of evidence, along with the evidence gathering resources available to the resident. This is to ensure the resident has full clarity about the options available to her. When doing so, it should complete a risk assessment and action plan as appropriate. It should follow up the discussion in writing and take any action where required under it’s anti social behaviour policy.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1000 in compensation. The amount is comprised of:
1. £450 it offered the resident in its stage two response if not already paid.
2. An additional £400 the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of her anti social behaviour reports.
3. An additional £150 for the time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of failures in the landlords complaint handling.
Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord:
1. Considers its record keeping practices against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management ensuring that evidence of requests and responses are held and monitored on its systems appropriately including recording actions, outcomes and case closure decisions.
2. Considers its staff guidance, to assist with identifying the difference between a report of anti social behaviour or noise, and a complaint about the landlord’s handling of an anti social behaviour or noise case.