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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202226971)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226971

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

7 July 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in a flat under an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, since 10 June 2019.
  2. The resident started to report her neighbour was causing ASB issues from October 2022 onwards. Her reports included her neighbour and his visitors being disruptive in communal areas, being aggressive towards her, and trying to remove a camera doorbell that faced the entrance to his flat.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports by speaking with her neighbour, who denied the allegations and made counter allegations about the resident.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 9 January 2023. She said she felt it was not dealing with her ASB reports and its staff were ignoring her. She wanted it to rehouse her as she said the ASB was affecting both her, and her son’s, mental health.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 September 2023. It said it could not find fault with how it had handled the resident’s ASB reports and had followed its ASB policy. It said her doorbell camera appeared to be antagonising the situation and asked her to position it away from the neighbour’s door. It acknowledged a delay in its complaint response and offered £20 compensation for this.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 September 2023. She felt the landlord’s stage 1 response had multiple inaccuracies. She also felt the compensation offered was not appropriate. She wanted it to either rehouse her, or evict her neighbour.
  7. The landlord issued two different stage 2 responses both on 31 October 2023. It later confirmed the correct version in December 2023.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response maintained it could not find failings in its handling of the ASB. It asked her again to reposition her doorbell camera, but it also acknowledged the impact the ASB had had on her and offered a total of £550 compensation. The compensation was for delays in its complaint handling, the time and effort she had taken to report the ASB and the distress and inconvenience caused. It explained she could take her complaint to the Service if she remained unhappy.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to the Service in November 2023. She said the landlord had not dealt with her reports of ASB from her neighbour. She said it had told her it would not be rehousing her, and continued to question her about her camera doorbell instead. She said the ASB issues were still ongoing. She wanted it to either rehouse her, or for it to take necessary action against her neighbour to stop the ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. When the resident brought her complaint to the Service in November 2023 she said the ASB was still ongoing. While we understand the ongoing issues are related to the original complaint, in the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s more recent concerns. The resident will need to contact the landlord about these additional concerns and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if they are dissatisfied with the way the landlord responds’.
  2. Therefore, the Service will consider the landlord’s responses up until December 2023 when it clarified which of its stage 2 responses were correct.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will investigate any reports of ASB it receives. It says it will risk assess all reports, and treat them according to the risks identified. It says any new reports on a case will be assessed within 1 working day of receipt. It says it will investigate any counter complaints made during its investigation. When handling an ASB case its policy states it will agree an action plan with the complainant and keep in regular contact with them. It says it will work with external agencies, such as the police, where required.
  2. When considering legal action against a perpetrator, the policy says the landlord will ensure the case meets “legal conditions” before proceeding. The policy says “eligible” complainants have a right to request a review of persistent ASB through the local authority (formerly known as a ‘community trigger’).
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer a maximum of £200 for both distress and inconvenience and time and trouble. It says this amount should only be awarded in the cases where the issue has had a high impact on the resident involved.
  4. When the resident complained to the landlord she said she felt it had not dealt with the ASB issues correctly. She said its staff were often hard to contact, missed appointments and had made multiple mistakes. She felt it was pursuing action against her instead because of her camera doorbell and because her neighbour had made a counter complaint against her. She said she wanted it to either rehouse her or evict her neighbour.
  5. In both the landlord’s complaint responses it said it could not find fault with how it had handled her reports of ASB. It said the officer involved had kept in regular contact, had followed its ASB policy and had sought appropriate legal advice when necessary. It acknowledged that its case officer had needed to take an unexpected leave of absence during the investigation but that ultimately this had not affected the overall handling of her case. It highlighted that it had repeatedly asked her to reposition her camera doorbell so it did not face the entrance of her neighbour’s front door in an effort to defuse the situation.
  6. The landlord also said it had been waiting on information from the police to see if they would support a move for the resident, and once received it would present her case to its internal Priority Needs Panel. This panel would then either approve for her to be rehoused or not. It maintained it had always provided her with information on how to seek alternative accommodation, including temporary emergency accommodation via the local authority. It recognised the issue had caused her distress and inconvenience and offered her £200 compensation for this. It also offered her £200 for the time and trouble she had taken to report the ASB and chase for updates.
  7. Parts of the landlord’s complaint responses were appropriate. The evidence shows that when the resident first made a formal ASB report against her neighbour it responded in good time. It went on to assign staff to handle her case, who followed its ASB policy by reviewing the evidence, interviewing her neighbour and following up on the neighbour’s counter complaint. It followed up its investigations by issuing two warning letters to the neighbour. They also reached out to external agencies, including the police, to obtain information about any reports made by the resident, and their view of the situation. Furthermore, in June 2023 the landlord persuaded the neighbour to sign an acceptable behaviour agreement in an effort to stop the ASB. That was another tool for resolving ASB set out in its policy.
  8. Additionally, the landlord recognised the resident’s camera doorbell was a contributing factor to the ASB being reported. The evidence shows that during its investigation it became aware the camera was directly facing the neighbour’s front door and that this was a breach of its CCTV policy. This is further supported by internal emails about potential legal action against the neighbour which noted that the presence of the camera could weaken the court case. The resident said it was wrong for the landlord to ask her to move the camera, and declined to do so because of her safety concerns. Nonetheless, the evidence supports the landlord’s request and the explanations it gave for it.
  9. However, there were also failings in landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports and many of these were not acknowledged in its complaint responses or reflected in the remedies it offered.
  10. These failings include times where the resident was either reporting new incidents of ASB, or asking the landlord for updates on her case, and not receiving any response. This happened in December 2022, when she repeatedly contacted it but received no response, which then led to her raising her complaint in January 2023. The same issue occurred in February and March 2023, where she was reporting multiple new incidents but it did not reply or provide any updates on her case.
  11. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged its case handler had needed to take an unexpected leave of absence. However, it failed to recognise the impact on the resident by not putting in place sufficient cover for this absence. This caused delays in how the case was progressed and the resident was left without contact while the ASB issue was still ongoing.
  12. The landlord’s complaint responses also failed to acknowledge that while its actions were in line with it ASB policy, there were parts of the policy it had not followed. The policy states all reports of ASB will be risk assessed and dealt with according to the risks identified. There is no evidence that a risk assessment was ever completed during its handling of the ASB case.
  13. Additionally, the policy says the landlord will agree an action plan with the complainant on how it will handle the case going forward. There is no evidence of such a plan in this case.. Also, there is no evidence to suggest it made her aware she had the right to have an independent review of her ASB case by the local authority. Considering a large part of her complaint was that she felt her case was not being correctly handled, this was a missed opportunity. All of the above are featured as steps the landlord should take in its ASB policy, and there is no evidence explaining why it did not do so. This should have been identified in its investigation of the complaint and it was inappropriate for it not to do so.
  14. In its complaint response the landlord said the police had failed to provide it with certain information it needed to handle the ASB case. At stage 1 it said it had been waiting on a police disclosure it had requested and that they had only just provided the information when it issued its response on 5 September 2025. It said it needed to know if the police would support rehousing the resident before it could present her case to its priority needs panel. However, the evidence shows the police had provided this disclosure several months before in June 2023. In an email sent from the police to the case officer on 28 June 2023, it provided the requested disclosure and said it would support a move.
  15. This email was important information that appeared to be missed by the landlord. So much so, it chased the police for its disclosure in August 2023, and the police provided an almost identical disclosure again in September 2023. It was this newer disclosure that was then used when presenting the case to the  panel. The panel ultimately decided not to offer a move to the resident, and therefore the police’s disclosure did not affect the overall outcome, which it explained in its stage 2 response. However, had the landlord acted upon the disclosure it had been sent by the police in June, the process of bringing her case to panel may not have been delayed. It was therefore unreasonable for it to say lack of information from the police had been behind such a delay.
  16. In summary, the landlord initially handled the resident’s ASB reports in line with its ASB policy. It used the tools at its disposal, such as acceptable behaviour agreements and warning letters, to try to manage the behaviour. However, there were also failings in its handling which ultimately contributed to delays in progressing the case in good time. Accordingly, there were failings in the landlord’s handling which it has not acknowledged or remedied.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a resident’s stage 1 complaint within 5 working days of receipt. It then says it will aim to provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. For stage 2 responses, it will aim to issue within 20 working days of receipt. Its policy says it can extend its response deadlines at both stages by a maximum of 20 working days. However, it says it must agree these extensions with the resident beforehand.
  2. In both the landlord’s complaint responses it acknowledged there had been delays in issuing its response. It did not provide a reason for the delays at either stage. At stage 1, it offered the resident £20 compensation for these delays. At stage 2 it offered the resident a total of £150 compensation for complaint handling delays. It said it had calculated this as £50 for each month its response was delayed between August and October 2023.
  3. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint via the landlord’s online complaint webform on 9 January 2023. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 5 September 2023. This was 167 working days after the complaint had been raised. This response time far exceeded the maximum 30 working days its policy says it aims to respond within. In addition, this service had to chase the landlord multiple times to ask for it to provide a response to the resident which it continued to fail to do. This resulted in us issuing it with a complaint handling failure Order in August 2023. The evidence shows it was only as a result of receiving this order that it finally issued its response to the resident. 
  4. It took the landlord 39 working days to provide its stage 2 response to the resident. Again, the Service had to chase it for its response and set a deadline that it failed to meet. The evidence shows again that it was a result of our chasing that it then started to collate its stage 2 response. This response time was inappropriate as it again exceeded the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.
  5. When the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 October 2023, it issued two different versions with different findings and compensation offers on each. The Service had to ask it to clarify which response was the correct version and then chase it to respond.. Issuing different versions of its response was confusing and not in accordance with its own complaints policy..
  6. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling delays at both stages, which was appropriate to do. However, it failed to explain the delays, and offered compensation of only £150, which was not proportionate to its failings.
  7. At stage 2 the landlord offered £50 compensation for each month of delay between August and October 2023. This calculation was incorrect as the resident had made her complaint in January 2023. Furthermore, it was not until 8 December 2023 that it confirmed which of its stage 2 responses was its actual response. By its own calculation, it should have offered the resident £50 compensation for each month she had actually been waiting for it to respond. This was 9 months between when she raised her stage 1 complaint in January to its response in September. It then issued its stage 2 response 19 days over the 20 working day deadline it sets. There was then an additional 1 month delay for it to then confirm which of the stage 2 responses it had sent was the correct version. For the 11 months delay, by its own calculations it should have offered her £550 compensation overall.
  8. Overall, there were significant delays in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints, it issued two different versions of its stage 1 response, and the remedies it offered for its poor service were insufficient when compared to their scale and nature. .

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation for the complaint handling delays identified in this determination. This is based on the landlord’s calculation of £50 for each month of delay, and the 11 months of delay between January and December 2023. This amount includes the £150 previously offered by the landlord that covered August to October 2023.
    2. Pay the resident £600 for the failings identified in this report around the landlord’s handling of her reports of anti social behaviour. This includes the £400 it previously offered for time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience caused.
  2. Given its poor complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to review what went wrong and how it can ensure such failings are not repeated in future. It should provide a copy of its review to the resident and the Service within 8 weeks of this report.
  3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided by their respective deadlines.