London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202337516)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337516

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

27 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. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 2-bed, first-floor flat that the landlord, which is a housing association, owns and manages. The landlord let the property to the resident under an assured tenancy agreement in October 2020. The landlord records that the resident is vulnerable and has a health condition.
3. The resident reported that her neighbour had caused antisocial behaviour (ASB) between 2021 and 2025. She sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 6 November 2024 about its handling of her ASB reports. She said she had logged noise recordings using a noise app and that the police had been involved due to her neighbour physically attacking her and verbally abusing and chasing her children.
4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 November 2024, and it responded to the resident on 13 November 2024. It said it had contacted the resident to explain the actions it would take about the nuisance, and it had made referrals on behalf of the neighbour. It also said it had contacted the resident’s neighbour to discuss the noise nuisance and the conditions of their tenancy agreement, and it had sent warning letters.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 December 2024. She said that:
   1. The landlord had not returned her phone calls. It had said it was going to help her neighbour, but it had never told her it would provide her with help.
   2. The police had arrested her neighbour, who had verbally assaulted her children, caused noise nuisance, and shouted at her through her windows.
   3. She had sent the landlord video recordings of the neighbour approaching her front door. She felt unsafe in her home, she was a vulnerable person that suffered with a health condition, but the landlord had ignored her.
6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 December 2024, and it sent its final response to the resident on 19 December 2024. It summarised its handling of her complaints and its response to her ASB reports. It recognised it had taken longer than expected to respond to her ASB case. It apologised that the resident had not felt supported, that it had not responded to her emails, nor put a contact agreement in place. Additionally, it said:
   1. It had set up a new action plan and it would check and log the recordings the resident had sent via its the noise app. It would also set up a contact agreement, and it would take steps with the neighbour which it could not share due to data protection.
   2. It was satisfied that it had organised home visits and held meetings with the police. It acknowledged its lack of correspondence and its delayed stage 2 response.
   3. It upheld the complaint, and it offered the resident £100 which it broke down as £40 for distress due to the resident’s vulnerability, £40 for time and effort in pursuing the complaint, and £20 for its poor complaint handling.
7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. She said that to put the matter right, the landlord should consider moving her because the matters had been ongoing for 4 years and she did not feel safe.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. Throughout the complaint the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wishes to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
9. The resident has said that she would like to move from her property because she no longer feels comfortable in view of what has happened. The Ombudsman would not order the landlord to move a resident as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information about the availability of suitable empty properties owned by the landlord. We also do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing, such as people facing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence. We have recommended that the landlord should support the resident with her request to transfer from her property and discuss her options with her if it has not already done so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

10. We recognise that this situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to firstly explain that the Ombudsman’s role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
11. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that residents must not cause ASB, nuisance, or annoyance to neighbours. The landlord’s website says everyone has the right to feel safe and respected where they live and it considers persistent unreasonable noise, verbal abuse, and physical attacks as unacceptable behaviour.
12. In responding to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB the landlord:
    1. Asked the resident to report noise nuisance, physical and verbal abuse to it. This was in keeping with its ASB policy which says it would record and investigate these matters as ASB.
    2. Asked the resident to use diary sheets and provide recordings of the noise nuisance as evidence. This was in keeping with its ASB policy which says it would use available and appropriate remedies.
    3. Recognised a risk of harm to the resident following a physical attack from her neighbour. It advised the resident of the local authority’s legal duty to provide alternative accommodation in these circumstances. It took a supportive approach by providing a letter to her to take to the local authority to request temporary accommodation.
    4. Held conversations with the police about the reported ASB. It arranged joint visits with the police to discuss the ASB matters with both parties. It also attended a police meeting on 22 October 2024 about the ASB. These actions were in keeping with its ASB policy which says it will work with agencies such as the police to address ASB.
    5. Engaged with support workers and community mental health staff about the ASB issues. This was in keeping with its ASB policy which says it will take a multi-agency approach to tackle ASB by working with social services and local authorities.
    6. Completed a sound test in the property on 20 May 2024 to witness the level of noise transference in the resident’s property. It also reviewed the recordings the resident sent via its noise app on 7 August 2023. These actions were in keeping with the Ombudsman’s 2022 Spotlight Report on noise complaints. This says that case handlers should always listen to recordings to get a true understanding of the noise – to investigate robustly.
    7. Sought to obtain evidence of noise nuisance by contacting other residents in the block about the matters.
    8. Referred the case it its specialist ASB team for assessment. It concluded that the case did not meet its threshold. But it took a resolution–focussed approach by summarising the actions the caseworker should take to investigate the resident’s reports.
    9. Used a good neighbour agreement and sent warning letters that restated the advice it had previously provided in person. This was in keeping with its ASB policy that says it will take appropriate and decisive action to prevent ASB problems escalating, such as by using warning letters and acceptable behaviour contracts.
    10. Discussed the installation of door cabinet bumpers and door stoppers in the neighbouring property to reduce sound transference between the properties.
    11. Referred the residents to mediation services in September 2024 in keeping with its ASB policy which says it would offer mediation to tackle ASB.
    12. Completed ASB case reviews. It also opened and closed ASB cases based upon its investigations and the available evidence. The landlord told the resident about the actions it had taken and the reasons why it closed her ASB cases in writing. This was in keeping with its ASB policy.
13. However, we have found failings in the landlord’s handling of the ASB as it:
    1. Did not send an action plan in response to the resident’s 13 September 2021 reports of ASB until 2 November 2021. Its ASB policy does not provide a specific timescale for sending this. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have done so sooner to manage the resident’s expectations.
    2. Did not provide the resident with a letter for her to take to the local authority until 11 working days after it said it would provide the letter. Given the physical attack, and the risk of harm it referred to in the letter, it would have been reasonable it if had provided the letter sooner.
    3. Noted on 30 April 2023 that it had not completed a risk assessment or an initial assessment in response to the resident’s ASB reports of 14 April 2023. The ASB policy says that the landlord would do so on all high priority ASB cases (and where relevant on standard priority cases) to measure the harm caused to victims. Given the history of ASB, and the involvement of children in the reported ASB it should have assessed any risks.
    4. Did not provide the resident with access to its Noise App until 30 June 2023 when it recognised it had not previously provided this to her. Given the regularity of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided this to her sooner.
    5. Did not consistently respond to the resident’s reports of ASB or assess her reports within 3 working days in keeping with its ASB policy. Additionally, it did not put in place a contact agreement with the resident in keeping with its ASB policy. The landlord recognised these failings when it reviewed its handling of ASB in its stage 2 response.
    6. Did not keep a record of a visit the resident had made to the landlord on 26 June 2023.
    7. Did not consistently review or respond to the recordings sent via the Noise app. This resulted in the resident reporting that she had sent 50 recordings, but the landlord had not done anything. She had also previously reported that it had told her that 10 recordings would trigger action. The landlord should have ensured the resident was up to date with the actions it had taken. It should also have managed her expectations about the use of the recordings as evidence.
    8. Did not regularly update its ASB case file. The housing database sent email reminders in April 2024, August 2024 and October 2024 highlighting that it had not updated cases for a month.
    9. Said that it would seek advice from its legal team on 11 April 2024, if the resident’s neighbour did not make any further effort. However, there is no evidence that it did so, despite the resident reporting further noise nuisance.
    10. Did not respond to the resident’s email dated 22 May 2024, until she chased its response on 20 June 2024. This was unreasonable, given the resident had reported ongoing verbal abuse and noise nuisance.
    11. Did not respond to an email the local authority ASB enforcement team had sent to it on 4 November 2024 about its handling of the ASB issues.
    12. Did not attend a risk and vulnerability manage panel (RVMT) meeting on 13 December 2024. The panel noted that it did not communicate its availability nor provide updates to it about the ASB and neighbour dispute. This was unreasonable, given its ASB policy says it would take a multi-agency approach to prevent and tackle ASB.
    13. Discussed mediation with the resident in 2021, but it did not make a referral for this until 2024, despite its ASB policy saying that it would prevent problems escalating by using mediation.
14. We asked the landlord to provide evidence of its actions related to the resident’s complaint as part of our investigation process. This is because the onus is on the landlord to provide evidence if its housing services. It has referred to the actions it has taken within its emails and statements. However, it has not provided sufficient evidence for us to confirm that it:
    1. Opened, assessed, and classified the priority of the ASB cases in keeping with its ASB policy.
    2. Created and complied with action plans to address the ASB and communicated these to the resident.
    3. Completed or reviewed risk assessments for the resident and her neighbour.
    4. Responded to the resident in keeping with its proposed fortnightly contact.
    5. Issued a Notice of Seeking Possession or directed any other enforcement action towards the neighbour in response to any breaches of tenancy.
    6. Sought evidence from other residents in the block about noise nuisance.
15. We have been able to reach a decision on the resident’s complaint based upon the evidence provided, but the landlord’s limited supply of these significant records was a failing.
16. It is evident that both neighbours made counter allegations of ASB to the landlord prior to a physical attack taking place in 2022. The landlord advised the neighbours to avoid contact, issued warnings, and it recommended mediation but it did not pursue this. This led to the resident sending reports of ongoing noise nuisance and verbal abuse from her neighbour. The landlord completed a series of actions to address the ASB and neighbour dispute over a period of at least 4 years. However, these actions have not resolved the matters. The landlord had a range of tools available to tackle the ASB issues which it did not use consistently and/or appropriately.
17. The landlord engaged with the police and other external agencies to tackle ASB in partnership which was positive. But it often did not follow up on these actions, such as by clearly explaining what it could or would do to control the nuisance. This resulted in the resident feeling unheard, sending chase emails, and reporting that the landlord was not doing enough. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations by being clear about the conditions it needed to meet to initiate legal action toward the neighbour. Furthermore, it should have sought to improve her confidence in its ASB services by acknowledging and/or acting on the noise app recordings and emails she sent about ongoing ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the impact of the ASB on the resident’s medical condition until its stage 2 complaint response, which was unreasonable.
18. The landlord reviewed its handling of the ASB in its final complaint response. It recognised that it had not communicated clearly throughout the case for which it apologised. It also noted that it had not put in place a contact agreement and it offered the resident £40 as compensation for distress due to her vulnerability. However, it did not recognise that it had not appropriately or consistently applied its ASB policy and/or the additional failings this investigation has found.
19. When a landlord acknowledges its failings, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress the landlord offered had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In line with our remedies guidance, consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental or physical health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
20. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for its poor communication and offer compensation in keeping with its compensation policy. Its policy says it will consider doing so, where it fails to follow its policies, procedures, or guidelines and this has a negative impact on the resident. However, as the landlord did not fully identify the extent of its failings, its offer was not proportionate to the level of distress and inconvenience the resident was likely to have experienced. Given the seriousness of some of the reported ASB, the enduring nature of the ASB issues, and the poor application of its ASB policy we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
21. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £500 as compensation below. It is important to note that the Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to pay compensation for the resident’s experience of the ASB because that was not an action by the landlord. Therefore, this compensation is to recognise that the failures by the landlord were likely to have caused distress and inconvenience which the resident was unlikely to have experienced if the landlord had acted following its policy. This sum takes into account the vulnerabilities of the resident which meant the landlord’s handling of the ASB would have had a more severe effect on her compared to other residents in the same position without her vulnerabilities.
22. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its practices, processes, and procedures under paragraph 54.f. of the Scheme in relation to responding to reports of ASB. Some of the issues found in this case are like the cases already determined. The landlord has evidenced compliance with our earlier wider order, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any other issues arising from this later case that require further action.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

23. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as the landlord:
    1. Closed the resident’s initial stage 1 complaint on 7 July 2023, without providing the resident with information about how to escalate the matter. This was not in keeping with paragraphs 5.8 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in use at the time of that complaint. This says that landlords must confirm the details of how to escalate a complaint if the resident is not satisfied with the answer.
    2. Did not fully address the resident’s complaint of 6 November 2024 as it did not comment on its handling of the ASB matters. This was not in keeping with paragraph 6.7 of the Housing Ombudsman’s April 2024 Code (the ‘Code’) which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
    3. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint dated 6 November 2024 in line with paragraph 6.9 of the Code. This says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
    4. Said that complaints about ASB fell outside of its complaints policy and therefore it would only investigate its complaints handling and communication. The landlord’s investigations into reports of ASB may fall outside its complaints procedure. However, the landlord’s handling of ASB is a matter that the landlord should have investigated as a complaint.
24. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to find issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response is lacking in any sincere acknowledgement of the impact the matter had on the resident. The response was short and lacking in empathy and it missed the opportunity to explain how it would work with the resident to improve the situation. Even where the landlord referenced noise nuisance, it did not provide reassurance that the issue was temporary or that it was working on a solution. It should have identified the ways in which it had not followed its ASB policy. Furthermore, it could have referred to the positive action it had taken to reassure the resident it was taking the matters seriously. Consequently, it missed the opportunity to regain the resident’s confidence in its ASB services. Its more detailed final response put right these failings.
25. There is inconsistency in the landlord’s application of its complaint policy when responding to complaints about its handling of ASB. The landlord responded to the resident’s 30 June 2023 complaint about its handling of ASB on 7 July 2023. However, it did not respond to her later stage 1 complaint of 7 March 2024 which was also about its handling of ASB matters. Instead, it inappropriately registered the complaint as an ASB case. This caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident in pursuing the matter by sending a further stage 1 complaint on 6 November 2024.
26. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints was poor. Its interpretation of what is and what is not a complaint was unclear. In its final response it restated that it would not investigate a complaint about ASB due to its complaint policy, thereby repeating its earlier failings. We expect the landlord to be able to accurately differentiate between investigating reports of ASB under its ASB policy and investigating its handling of ASB reports under its complaints policy. Its failure to do so unreasonably delayed the complaint investigation which consequently delayed a recognition of its ASB handling failings. Additionally, its poor complaint handling prevented the resident from obtaining a final response to her reported concerns for an unreasonable amount of time.
27. The landlord apologised for the failings it recognised, and it offered the resident £60 as compensation. However, this award was not proportionate to the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience that its failings had caused the resident. We have therefore ordered that landlord to pay a further £140 (totalling £200) as compensation. This award is in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where, like here, we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. We have also asked it to write to the resident to apologise for its poor complaint handling.
28. The landlord has separately provided us with evidence of its learning from the outcomes of its poor complaint handling in other cases. We have therefore not made any further learning orders or recommendations about this.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
    2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of antisocial behaviour and for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident the £100 compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident an added £640 in compensation made up as follows:
       1. £500 for any time, trouble, and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB may have caused to her.
       2. £140 for any time and trouble that the landlord’s complaint handling failures may have caused to the resident.
    4. Provide an update to the resident and the Ombudsman that sets out the current position and its intended actions in addressing the resident’s reports of ASB.
    5. Produce a learning report to share with its ASB team on this case to ensure it learns from the errors in this case.
    6. Provide documentary evidence of its compliance with these orders.
31. The landlord should pay the compensation directly to the resident and not offset this against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Recommendation

32. We recommend that the landlord should continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property and discuss her options with her if it has not done so already.