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 (202310094)

Back to Top

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

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310094

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

5 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 the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a flat.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 1 June 2023. He said he reported ASB in January 2023, including slamming doors, banging, scratching, arguments, stolen goods and blocking access for repairs. The landlord had not contacted him since 21 March 2023. He said the landlord had taken no action and the issues were ongoing.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 July 2023. It apologised that the housing officer had not provided any updates on the ASB case. The staff member had since left the landlord and did not leave handover notes. It would now reinvestigate the case. It would contact the resident to gain more information and then discuss an action plan. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It offered £170 compensation comprised of £50 for the time and effort, £40 for distress, £40 for inconvenience, and £40 for complaint handling.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 September 2023 as the landlord had not paid the compensation and the ASB was ongoing. He said his neighbour had breached the good neighbour agreement. The housing officer had not contacted him since August. He said the issues were impacting his mental health. He requested immediate action from the landlord.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 1 December 2023, the landlord agreed with the service failings identified at stage 1 but said it did not fully address the impact. It noted the compensation offered for the distress and inconvenience did not reflect that the issue was ongoing. It increased compensation to £160 each for distress and inconvenience. It also offered £50 for the delay in the stage 2 response, bringing the total compensation to £460.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to the Service as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case due to the delays, poor communication, and as it did not follow an action plan. He incurred financial loss as the ASB impacted his ability to work and the issues impacted his mental health. He moved in June 2024 due to the ongoing issues, which meant he moved away from his family and support system.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reports that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted his mental health. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear this, it is beyond the expertise of the Service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on health. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are better equipped to access and assess all the relevant evidence that can provide an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation and so should the resident wish to pursue this matter, he should do so via this route. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy / its legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.
  2. It is understood that the resident sought a mutual exchange due to the ASB issues. The landlord did not have the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns with its handling of the mutual exchange within the complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. Any new 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 ASB

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy notes that it considers noise that is persistent, deliberate, or targeted as ASB. Daily living noise is not considered as ASB. When handling ASB cases it will keep in regular contact with the resident, interview the alleged perpetrators, agree an action plan, provide advice and support, and take a multi-agency approach where appropriate. It will assess standard priority cases within 3 working days.
  2. The Service has not seen any evidence of correspondence relating to the ASB prior to 9 May 2023. However, both parties appear to accept that the resident initially reported issues in January 2023. In its complaint response, the landlord noted that the housing officer managing the resident’s initial reports had left and there were no handover notes. Due to the lack of records, details of events prior to May 2023 are from the resident’s account.
  3. The Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) found that in cases where staff leave and case details are not on a central database, this can cause landlords difficulties obtaining the history of the case. The landlord should ensure that it has relevant processes in place and staff are sufficiently trained so all correspondence is stored in a central database. This is to prevent a recurrence of the record keeping issues identified in this case.
  4. The resident said he reported ASB from the flat above in January 2023 including slamming doors, banging, scratching, arguments, stolen goods and blocking access for repairs. There is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord assessed the case within its 3 working day timeframe. 
  5. In his complaint, the resident said the landlord apologised for the delay on 16 March 2023 and advised him to download a noise app on 21 March 2023. It would then review the recordings and could take steps such as implementing a good neighbour agreement. Despite the 2-month delay, once the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports it took appropriate action by instructing him to document the noise and explaining the steps it could take. Landlords are expected to follow an evidenced based approach to ASB, to ensure their services are fair and an efficient use of resources. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to require evidence of the reported noise, by requesting the resident to complete diary entries, in order for it to proceed with any action.
  6. However, following this there was a significant delay in the landlord assessing the evidence provided by the resident. The resident said he chased the matter 4 times between 28 March 2023 and 26 April 2023. We have also seen evidence that he chased an update on 9 May 2023, 16 May 2023, 23 May 2023, and in his complaint on 1 June 2023. This demonstrates the resident incurred unnecessary time and effort pursuing the ASB case. In its stage 1 response on 19 July 2023, the landlord apologised for the lack of updates on the ASB case. As such, there was no meaningful progress of the ASB case for over 6 months. This was an entirely unreasonable delay.
  7. In its stage 1 response on 19 July 2023, the landlord said a new housing officer would contact the resident that day to obtain information and discuss an action plan. The resident further chased the matter on 2 August 2023. There is no evidence that the housing officer had contacted him in the interim as agreed. This was unreasonable as it failed to fulfil the actions promised in the complaint response. This would likely cause the resident to believe the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
  8. The landlord visited both properties on 14 August 2023. The following day, the resident advised the landlord the ASB was ongoing. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 16 August 2023 advising it had written to the neighbour about the issues and requested them to stop the slamming doors, scratching, and banging immediately. This was reasonable action to take.
  9. In the letter, the landlord also noted the walls are thin, so the resident should have a “certain level of consideration for your neighbour”. Due to the structure of the building, it would likely not be possible for the landlord to eradicate all transference of general living noise. It was therefore important for the landlord to highlight this factor to manage the resident’s expectations about the limitations on the possible outcome following its intervention.
  10. The resident continued to make further ASB reports between 4 September 2023 and 21 September 2023, when he escalated the complaint. This included arguing, smashing sounds, noise late at night, loud music, banging and drilling. This is clearly not general living noise, so the landlord should have considered additional action, including issuing a warning to the neighbour as requested by the resident. The resident also thought that the neighbour was targeting him due to his race and sexuality due to comments they had made. The landlord should have considered whether the issues were escalating and demonstrated it was taking his concerns about being targeted seriously. There is no evidence it addressed the matter, which was unreasonable.
  11. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports until 25 September 2023, which caused a further 3-week delay. The landlord apologised for the delay and explained that the housing officer was on leave and then off due to sickness, which was outside of its control. However, it is of concern that the lack of oversight of ASB complaints when the housing officer is unavailable has continually caused delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. It would be reasonable for the landlord to have a process to monitor ASB cases when the housing officers are absent so that residents still have support in these scenarios.
  12. The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets and said it would listen to the recent recordings. Although evidence is important when investigating ASB, it is unclear why the landlord required additional information in the form of diary sheets to proceed with action against the neighbour, given the resident had provided regular updates and numerous recordings. This presented an unnecessary boundary to the landlord taking action and caused the resident additional time and effort in his pursuit of the ASB issues.
  13. On 29 September 2023, the resident reported an incident with his neighbour at the train station which he had reported to the police. As the incident occurred outside of the property, it fell properly within the police’s remit rather than the landlord’s. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider whether the issues were escalating and if it could take any further action to support the resident.
  14. The resident continued to regularly report ASB between 30 September 2023 and 16 October 2023. He provided diary sheets with his recollection of events and said he had provided 284 recordings total. It was appropriate that the landlord arranged a visit on 19 October 2023. However, the outcome of the visit is unclear. The landlord should have clearly set out what actions it would take to manage the resident’s expectations. The resident subsequently asked the landlord to issue a warning to the neighbour on 11 November 2023 due to ongoing ASB.
  15. On 30 November 2023, the landlord told the resident that it had listened to the recordings provided but it was difficult to determine the cause of the sound. It said the recordings showed the banging and shouting had reduced following the landlord’s actions, which the resident had also confirmed. It reiterated it is common to experience some transfer of domestic noise as the property was a converted house, which is not considered ASB. It would therefore not take any action against this noise. This is in line with its ASB policy. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether the reported noise was ASB, but rather how the landlord responds to the resident’s reports. The landlord acted reasonably by assessing the available evidence, which it ultimately concluded was insufficient to take further action at this stage.
  16. The landlord requested the council to install noise recording equipment in January 2024. On 9 February 2024 it told the resident that the noise does not meet the criteria for statutory noise nuisance. It advised him to report any out of hours noise to environmental health as they have the ability to issue warning notices for noise between 11pm and 7am which does not meet the statutory threshold. It was reasonable that it signposted the resident to the appropriate authority to respond to his reports.
  17. The landlord also noted on 9 February 2024 that it had offered mediation, but the resident had declined the offer. While this was a reasonable step, the landlord should have offered it at an earlier date given the resident had been reporting ASB for over a year. Mediation is likely to be more effective as an early intervention tool before the relationships with the parties deteriorate.
  18. The resident also reported that his neighbour had tampered with his post. The landlord responded appropriately to this element of the complaint as it promptly installed a private mailbox so the resident was the only one that could access his post.
  19. Overall, there were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord did not set out a clear action plan, which led the resident to continually chase as it had not managed his expectations about the steps it could take. It is evident the resident did not feel supported by the landlord. Nonetheless, following the resident’s complaint the landlord took reasonable action by visiting the properties, discussing the issues with the neighbour, and issuing a good neighbour agreement and warning to the neighbour. The landlord subsequently determined that the noise recordings demonstrated a reduction in the noise and the remaining noise was considered general living noise rather than ASB. Further to this, following the completion of the complaint process, the resident has moved out of the property. As such, no further action is required to address the ASB. 
  20. The landlord offered £370 for its identified failings in handling the resident’s reports of ASB. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  21. The level of compensation is deemed proportionate to the failings identified by the landlord. However, the landlord’s final response only reflected on the failings identified at stage 1 and whether the compensation was appropriate. As such, it did not address or apologise for any of the shortcomings in its handling of the ASB between July 2023 and December 2023. This includes not contacting the resident within the agreed timeframe after the stage 1 response, several delays in responding to his reports (albeit not extensive), and failing to respond to his reports of being targeted for his sexuality and race. An order has been made for the landlord to apologise.
  22. In his complaint to the Service the resident said he incurred financial loss as the ASB impacted his ability to work and he incurred costs moving. There is no evidence that the resident reported the impact of the ASB on his ability to work to the landlord, so it would not have had the opportunity to support the resident. At the time the resident pursued the mutual exchange, the landlord had taken reasonable steps to address the ASB. It would therefore not be responsible for any costs incurred due to the move or any loss of wages.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The resident raised a complaint on 1 June 2023 and the landlord issued its response on 19 July 2023. This exceeded its response timeframe by 24 working days, which was unreasonable.
  2. The resident then escalated the complaint on 21 September 2023 and the landlord sent the stage 2 response on 1 December 2023. This exceeded the response timeframe by 31 working days.
  3. The landlord offered £40 for the delays and stage 1 and £50 for delays at stage 2. This was proportionate to the delays experienced and the impact on the resident so the landlord has redressed this element of the complaint.

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 ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should apologise to the resident for its failings in handling his ASB reports between July 2023 and December 2023.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence that it has paid the resident £460 as offered in its stage 2 response.
  3. It should provide evidence to the Service within 4 weeks to confirm it has complied with the orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider whether it can make any changes to its handling of ASB cases to have better oversight in case the staff member handling the case is unavailable for any reason.
  2. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure all correspondence is stored in a central database.