London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202225258)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225258

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

21 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Personal data.
2. The resident’s reports of ASB.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 1bedroom ground floor flat of a low-rise block.
On 1 December 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the tenant above him was making excessive noise from 1am to 9am. On 5 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again and complained the noise was ongoing. The landlord visited the resident at his property on 23 January 2023 and visited the neighbour on 3 February 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 June 2023 and summarised its findings. The landlord said:
1. It had visited the neighbour, and it believed the noise was generated by a bathroom fan that had since been repaired. No further noise incidents had been reported.
2. The case had been closed on 17 May 2023 as the resident did not provide evidence to support his allegations of ASB.
3. Both parties had agreed to mediation, and it was waiting for the resident to respond to the request.
4. It advised the resident to consider a mutual exchange if he wished to move property.
On 29 July 2023 the resident escalated his complaint with the landlord. He stated he was disappointed with the response as it did not resolve his situation. The resident reported that he had since been threatened by the neighbour.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 September 2023 and acknowledged there had been failings in the service the resident had received. The landlord said:
1. It had not managed the resident’s ASB case and subsequent complaint in a consistent and timely manner.
2. It had opened a new ASB case in relation to the allegation of threatening behaviour and advised the resident to report the matter to the police.
3. The resident’s case did not justify a property transfer. It advised the resident to consider a mutual exchange if he was still looking to leave the property.
4. It offered the resident £120 compensation, made up of:
  1. £60 for the delay in managing his complaint at stage 1 and 2.
  2. £30 for the time and effort taken in pursuing the matter.
  3. £30 for the delay in managing the ASB case.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident raised concerns to us regarding alleged breaches by the landlord of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). This was in relation to sharing his personal information with another tenant. This issue was not contained within his complaint to the landlord.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure. This is because it is fair to allow the landlord the opportunity to respond to dissatisfaction raised against it, and for it to deal with complaints made to it through its complaints process before the involvement of the Ombudsman.
The resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of his personal data is outside of jurisdiction because it has not yet been raised by the resident to the landlord as a complaint issue.
The resident may wish to visit the website of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The website contains information and advice about what to do if you are concerned about how an organisation has handled your data.

Scope of investigation

We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In his correspondence with us, the resident has raised matters that occurred both before and after those subject to this complaint, which have not been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 12 September 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has told us how the issues have impacted on his health. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

The resident’s reports of ASB

The purpose of this investigation is not to establish if noise nuisance or antisocial behaviour have occurred. However, the Ombudsman can assess whether or not the landlord responded appropriately and reasonably to the resident’s reports, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The resident’s neighbour is also a tenant of the landlord.
The resident reported excessive noise from his neighbour who lived above his property on 1 December 2022. He made further reports that the noise was continuing of 5 and 8 January 2023. The resident described the noise as a door being constantly slammed and possibly a washing machine / dryer being used late at night. He also reported the neighbour was using the resident’s bins and locking the meter cupboard to prevent access.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, nuisance, or annoyance to another. The policy also sets out the action the landlord will take when it receives a report of ASB. This includes:
1. Reviewing all incidents and considering the risk in each case.
2. Assigning a priority to the case based on the level of risk. Standard priority cases will be logged and assessed within 3 working days.
3. Keeping in regular contact with the reporting party.
4. Agreeing an action plan.
5. Providing advice and support, including referrals to third party agencies.
The landlord failed to follow its policy when the resident first reported the ASB and did not appear to open the ASB case until 8 January 2023, over a month later. The landlord’s policy also states it will not treat noise made by people going about their everyday life as ASB. However, the information provided suggested the noise being made went beyond what the resident could reasonably expect, as it was keeping him up at night. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acted earlier to establish the true nature of the noise.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 January 2023 to arrange a home visit at his property. It informed the resident to keep a diary of the noise and to use the noise app to record it. The landlord visited the resident the following day. It is unclear what took place during this visit as no notes of the visit have been provided to us.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 27 January 2023 and informed him it would visit the neighbour the following week. The landlord visited the neighbour on 3 February 2023 and recorded the noise was believed to have been coming from a bathroom fan that had since been repaired. The landlord noted that the neighbour had agreed not to use the resident’s bins. It is unclear whether this information was communicated back to the resident at the time.
The resident has told us that in mid-March 2023, he gave the landlord his completed diary sheets and heard nothing back from it. The lack of communication from the landlord was unreasonable and caused the resident to feel ignored and distressed. This is supported by the resident reaching out to the local authority and the police to try and pursue his complaint in a different way:
1. On 6 February 2023 the local authority contacted the landlord and said the resident had reported noise nuisance and ASB from the property above.
2. On 23 May 2023 the police contacted the landlord and said the resident had reported excessive noise coming from the flat above and the occupant had been “playing around” with the resident’s bins.
On 15 May 2023 the resident told us he had been “confronted” by his neighbour. While he did not clarify further details of what happened, he stated he had informed the landlord of this.
The landlord closed the ASB case on 17 May 2023 and recorded the resident had not supplied evidence to support his ASB claims, no further incidents had been reported, and both parties had agreed to mediation. While it is positive that the landlord was able to offer mediation, it is not clear at what point this was offered and whether the reports from the local authority and police had been taken into account. In the absence of this evidence, and any further communication with the resident to clarify the current situation, we are unable to conclude that closing of the ASB case at this point was an appropriate action for the landlord to take.
Furthermore, the landlord’s ASB policy states it will try and contact a resident before closing a case to discuss it with them. The landlord’s records show contact was made with the resident on 17 May 2023 and he was told to submit further diary entries. The case closure was not communicated to him and this was unreasonable.
The resident’s escalation request, dated 29 July 2023, stated the neighbour had “physically threatened” him and was continuing to use his bin for food waste. This suggests there still unresolved issues for the resident. The resident’s frustration with the issue was clear from the email he sent.
In its stage 2 response, dated 12 September 2023, the landlord said it would open a new ASB case in relation to the behaviour of his neighbour. While the nature of the ASB was different, the alleged perpetrator was the same. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to reopen the original ASB case so that neighbour’s alleged behaviour towards the resident could be assessed in full. This was a missed opportunity to rebuild the landlord / tenant relationship and show the resident it was taking his concerns seriously.
The landlord did acknowledge it had failed to handle the resident’s ASB case in line with its policy. However, the £30 offer of compensation did not fully reflect its failings or the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, 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. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only limited information was received, which did not include significant items such as an ASB risk assessment, an action plan, notes of the meeting with both the resident and the neighbour and any similar reports received from the resident prior to December 2022. The landlord has been asked specifically for this information and has not provided it.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time.
In summary the landlord failed to act upon the resident’s initial reports of ASB and does not appear to have done so until our involvement 1 month later. When it did, the landlord failed to apply its ASB policy in respect of completing a risk assessment, documenting a plan of action, and providing the resident with regular updates. While it is unclear as to whether the landlord received the resident’s diary logs, it failed to contact him before closing the case, despite the resident informing it that the behaviour had escalated.
These failings lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £300 compensation. This is in line with Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but it was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
The landlord’s complaints policy also sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint within 5 working days.
2. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded. If the landlord needs more time to reach a decision, it will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days.
3. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint.
When the resident contacted the landlord to report the ASB on 1 December 2022, he said he had previously completed a complaint form online regarding the issue but had heard nothing back from it. From the documentation provided, it is unclear whether the resident was making a first report of ASB or whether he was making a complaint that ASB had not been dealt with.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 January 2023 and expressed further dissatisfaction that the ASB issue had not been dealt with. On 19 January 2023, we contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and informed it the resident had not had his complaint acknowledged. There is no record of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and this was unreasonable.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was issued 5 months later than the time scales set out in its policy. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord updated the resident of the reasons for the delays during this time. This was a further deviation from its policy which added to the resident’s frustration.
The resident’s escalation request was acknowledged by the landlord 3 days after it was received, in line with its policy. However, the stage 2 response was not issued in line with its policy, causing us to contact the landlord again on 5 September 2023. The landlord’s stage 2 response was eventually issued on 12 September 2023, 29 working days after the escalation request had been acknowledged.
In its response, the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages and offered him a total of £90 compensation. While this offer went someway to addressing the failings, the landlord did not acknowledge the failure to record the resident’s complaint and acknowledge it.
In summary, the landlord failed to record the resident’s complaint when it was first made. It then failed to provide timely communications to the resident in line with its policy and update him on the reasons for the delays in dealing with his complaint. The 5-month delay in issuing the stage 1 complaint response was particularly unreasonable. The level of compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the impact caused by the level of its complaint handling errors.
These failings lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where the landlord has failed to acknowledge the full extent of its failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of personal information is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £400 compensation made up of:
  1. £300 for its failures in handling the resident’s ASB reports.
  2. £100 for its failures in complaint handling.
3. Liaise with the resident to establish whether he is still experiencing ASB with the same neighbour and if appropriate:
  1. Complete an updated risk assessment.
  2. Agree a plan of action in line with its policy.
  3. Liaise with the local authority regarding potential statutory noise nuisance.
  4. Provide the resident diary sheets and offer the NoiseApp or noise monitoring equipment to him again and explain the importance of building evidence.
  5. The landlord should provide us with a summary of the conversation with the resident, or evidence of the case being reopened and the action to be taken if applicable.
The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.