From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202311309)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311309

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 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:
    1. Resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Associated complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. When she raised her complaint, she lived in a ground floor flat. The resident terminated the tenancy in February 2024 and moved to a different property managed by the landlord. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, albeit the resident told the landlord that her mental health was suffering due to the reported ASB.
  2. On 4 January 2023, the resident reported that her neighbour’s children in the upstairs flat were causing a nuisance by running, playing and shouting late into the evening. She said that it was “not normal living” and had been ongoing for over 8 weeks. The landlord responded on 9 January 2023. It assured the resident that it had spoken to her neighbour and asked that they “keep the noise down if possible”. It explained that it did not consider children playing as ASB. However, if she felt that the noise was excessive, she should contact the local authority. It asked that the resident record the noise via the noise monitoring app to evidence that it was a nuisance.
  3. On 16 March 2023, the resident raised a complaint due to her dissatisfaction at how the landlord had handled her reports of ASB. Following her complaint, the resident emailed the landlord several times to report noise from her neighbours children. The resident said the noise from her neighbours spring doorstop caused her considerable distress due to the noise.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 April 2023. It said:
    1. It had reviewed the resident’s diary sheets documenting the noise she experienced.
    2. It had conducted an out of hours visit to the resident’s and neighbour’s property to investigate the noise. The only notable noise was a spring doorstop and loose radiator. It had since changed the doorstop and refixed the radiator to the wall. It also confirmed that the neighbour had carpets.
    3. It had spoken to the resident’s neighbour, who was “doing everything they could” to prevent disturbance.
    4. Landlord staff had taken it in turns to “run, jump and stomp” in the neighbour’s property to assess the noise transference to the resident’s property. It determined that it was minimal.
  5. It explained that based on the evidence, the noise that the resident was experiencing was not ASB. It was household noise. It had reached this conclusion following a thorough investigation. However, it encouraged the resident to utilise the noise monitoring app, albeit she had reported that she could not use it. 
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 24 April 2023. She said:
    1. The noise app did not work therefore she could not use it.
    2. The landlord’s visit was at 5pm, therefore not ‘out of hours’. The noise occurred later in the evening.
    3. Refixing the radiator did not stop the neighbours children from banging toys against it.
    4. Her neighbour had changed the doorstop back to a ‘spring’ one’ therefore the noise had continued.
    5. Landlord staff had not jumped off furniture or thrown objects during its investigation about noise transference, so it wasn’t an accurate reflection of the noise that she experienced.
    6. The ASB was causing her significant distress and impacting her mental health.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2023. It reiterated its stage 1 response and explained that it had fully investigated the reported noise issue. It said that it had closed the case as the noise experienced was household, day to day living noise.
  8. The resident remains dissatisfied because she says her mental health has suffered severely due to the ASB. She said she has been unable to work and now suffers with depression and anxiety. The resident said she feels let down by the landlord and does not believe it took sufficient action against her neighbour.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident made multiple complaints to her landlord that she has since referred to this Service. This investigation is focussed on how the landlord handled her reports of ASB, as set out in her complaint raised on 16 March 2023. The resident’s complaint about staff conduct is subject to a separate investigation under case reference 202323749. Her complaint about how the landlord handling her request to move will be considered under case reference 202323748.
  2. The resident said that the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB affected the health and wellbeing of the household. It is outside our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice regarding this aspect of her complaint. The resident may also be able to make a claim via the landlord’s liability insurance. If this is something she wishes to do, she should make enquiries with the landlord accordingly. We will, however, consider whether the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB caused any distress to the resident.

ASB

  1. We acknowledge that the incidents the resident has reported have had a significant impact on her and affected her enjoyment of her home. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether ASB has occurred. Instead, our role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This report will therefore assess whether the landlord has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures and acted in a manner that is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
  2. The Housing Act 1996, as amended by the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014, defines ASB as:
    1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person.
    2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that ASB can include noise where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted. However, it would not consider daily life noise or noise from children playing as ASB.
  4. When ASB is reported by a resident, a landlord has a duty to undertake a proportionate investigation to establish whether ASB is occurring, and if so the nature and extent of the ASB. To undertake a thorough investigation, the landlord is expected to engage with the resident. Likewise, a landlord has a duty to engage with the alleged perpetrator, in an effort to resolve the issues.
  5. Overall, the landlord:
    1. Responded to the resident in a timely manner following her reports.
    2. Conducted a home visit to the resident and her neighbour to investigate the noise transference.
    3. Arranged for minor repairs and changes in the neighbours property to try and improve some noise transference issues.
    4. Satisfied itself that the neighbour had appropriate flooring to minimise noise transference.
    5. Asked the resident to keep diary sheets.
    6. Encouraged the resident to utilise the ‘Noise App’ to log incidents that evidenced unreasonable noise.
    7. Explained what it did and did not consider to be ASB, in accordance with its policy.
    8. Advised the resident to contact the local authority noise team if she felt that the noise was excessive.
  6. The resident referred to the landlord’s terms of tenancy where it states that children must not cause nuisance or annoyance to other residents. This Service recognises the difficulties that landlord’s face when determining whether behaviour is antisocial, while considering different individuals’ tolerance levels and personal circumstances. In this case, there is no dispute that the reported noise is a result of children playing. As per its ASB policy, this is not considered as ASB. However, this does not mean that the reported noise does not cause the resident annoyance or nuisance. In this case, it is for landlord to base its decision making and any action thereafter on reasonableness.
  7. We do not dispute that the resident may well be experiencing noise at unsociable hours. However, for the landlord to take action in accordance with its ASB policy, it would need definitive evidence to substantiate the reports and prove that the neighbour was in breach of their tenancy agreement. In the absence of such evidence, the Ombudsman cannot find the landlord at fault.
  8. While the resident may disagree with the landlord’s findings, this Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to address the resident’s ASB reports and acted in accordance with its ASB policy. It managed the resident’s expectations appropriately, and clearly outlined what evidence it required to evidence a nuisance and ASB.
  9. However, it is of particular concern that the resident expressed that the ongoing situation was having a detrimental impact on her mental health in her complaint escalation, and in several emails. The landlord failed to address this in its complaint responses. This was inappropriate. The landlord should have acknowledged that element of the complaint and signposted the resident to the appropriate support available to her.
  10. Overall, it is evident that the landlord took appropriate action when dealing with the resident’s reports of ASB. However, there is no evidence that the landlord reasonably considered the impact that the ASB was having on the resident, nor did it satisfy itself that she was adequately supported.
  11. We have therefore found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
  2. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the Code.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 27 working days after the resident raised her complaint. This is a departure from the timescales outlined within its complaint policy and the Code. The landlord did not apologise for the delay or provide an explanation as to why it had not responded in line with the timescales. This was inappropriate and caused the resident frustration and disappointment.
  4. The Code states that landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when a stage 2 response would be issued, if it could not adhere to the 20 working day timeframe. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
  5. The landlord advised the resident that it had a “slight backlog” of stage 2 responses; therefore, its response “may” be delayed. This was inappropriate and caused the resident frustration. The landlord failed to provide definitive timescales and was ambiguous in its commitment for when a response would be issued. Landlords should be clear and transparent with residents, particularly when communicating about potential delays.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 59 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This is significantly beyond the timescales expected and was therefore inappropriate. This delay caused the resident considerable distress, frustration and inconvenience. It is inappropriate that the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay and offer an appropriate remedy in recognition of the delay.
  7. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy, significantly prolonging the complaints process for the resident, and did not offer an appropriate remedy in recognition of its failures. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and as such, we have concluded that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter.

Record keeping

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management states that “good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission…If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.” It further states that a landlord’s failings to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
  3. The landlord has failed to provide evidence about;
    1. A visit it made to the resident on 13 February 2023 to investigate the ASB.
    2. Any communication it had with its internal ASB team.
    3. Any communication it had with the resident about her ASB reports, prior to her raising her complaint.
    4. Any communication it had with the resident’s neighbour about the ASB reports.
  4. The resident supplied email correspondence that it had with the landlord, which proved pivotal to our investigation. This Service expects that landlords should be able to provide evidence of all its correspondence with resident’s with regards to ASB. Its failure to provide such is inappropriate and highlights flaws in its record keeping surrounding ASB. The onus should not be on resident’s to provide relevant information for our investigations.
  5. Overall, the landlord has failed to provide relevant evidence to enable the Ombudsman to conduct an effective and through investigation. We have therefore concluded that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s associated complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident £300 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £100 for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused by the identified failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. £200 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble endured due to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must remind its staff of the importance of maintaining accurate records. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring it keeps an accurate audit trail of communications with regards to ASB to prevent any future failings identified by this investigation.
  3. Evidence of compliance with the above order must be provided to this Service.