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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202300453)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300453

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

19 November 2024


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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour (‘ASB’).
    2. Handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced in 2008.
  2. The resident says he has experienced ASB from a neighbour for over 10 years. The landlord provides information that, in 2020, he reported his neighbour stealing from a shop; his bike being pushed over; his car, door lock and steps being damaged; faeces being thrown at the property; being driven at; and being attacked and threatened by his neighbour’s partner and guests. The landlord opened ASB cases; spoke to the resident; asked him to complete diary sheets; and liaised with the police. The resident subsequently supplied diaries sheets that detailed incidents from 2016 and 2018 but not 2020. The landlord and police both took no further action for the reported incidents.
  3. The resident made further reports from August 2022 about his neighbour and other individuals, which included being verbally abused; being threatened; and being punched. He said he had diary sheets, and he met with the landlord in September 2022. The landlord noted that the resident brought documents which he refused to allow it to copy, and only detailed one recent incident where a neighbour had emptied the contents of a suitcase onto the street. The landlord asked the resident to write down incidents with his neighbour in the past 6 months, which it proposed to meet in 4 weeks to discuss, while it would contact residents in the area for further information. Following this, the landlord spoke with the neighbour, who made counter allegations, and scheduled a home visit and door knocking.
  4. In October 2022, the resident reported that he was attacked by another individual and required hospital treatment. The landlord obtained a statement from the alleged perpetrator, who made counter-allegations. The landlord also contacted the police, who reported difficulties obtaining a statement from the resident up until mid December 2022, and who decided to take no further action due to the level of evidence. In December 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that it was only able to investigate ASB from the past 6 months, and it had been unable to evidence he was a victim of recent ASB. However, it said the case had been referred to other staff who would contact him in the New Year.
  5. In January 2023, the landlord promised to carry out an ASB case review, and staff visited the resident on 27 January. Around this time, he requested a video doorbell for his safety, and the landlord promised to consider this request. On 24 February 2023, the landlord provided the ASB case review, apologising for the delay due to ill health.
    1. It noted that the resident had shown documents which he said was evidence of incidents over many years, but he had only allowed it to view select documents and not allowed evidence to be taken away. It noted the resident had written about his neighbour having someone at the door, who he described as “druggie visitors,” but it said his neighbour was allowed to have visitors and this was not ASB. It noted an assault allegation, but it said this involved counter-allegations, and the police had tried to obtain a statement on multiple occasions. It said it would follow up the resident’s report that the police had now taken a statement. It said that it was unable to draw conclusions into historic ASB without reviewing the documents, but it hoped to work with the police to investigate the current allegations.
    2. It denied the resident’s request for a video doorbell. It noted that a mirror he had installed should allow him to view who is on the doorstep without opening the door, and it said a video doorbell would be intrusive and an invasion of neighbours’ privacy.
  6. The resident made complaints before and after the ASB case review about the handling of ASB reports since 2012; delays responding to contact from him and providing the review; and the conduct of staff involved, including their threatening to take his flat off him.
  7. The landlord investigated the complaint and provided responses in March and May 2023.
    1. It said it was not investigating historic ASB and complaints. It detailed recent events and that it had visited the resident in January and provided an ASB case review in February. It noted that the resident had denied full access to documents that he said evidenced incidents, and that he had been advised a neighbour having visitors was not ASB. It noted that police had not been able to obtain a statement about the assault in October 2022, and it had contacted the police after the resident said he had now given one. It noted its decision to deny the resident’s video doorbell request. It concluded that the case review was fair and it had done everything in its capacity to assist the resident.
    2. It noted that staff provided the case review in February due to ill health, it did not identify the delay as gross incompetence, and no further action would be taken. It said it could not identify any form of misconduct from 7 members of staff which warranted dismissal, and no further action would be taken. It noted there were some delays due to a member of staff being on leave, and said that while it was satisfied with their involvement, it would be ensured that their manager would monitor the effective management of any ASB. It said that allegations that staff were abusive and threatening were discussed with their manager and was disputed.
    3. It said that staff had worked hard to monitor the ASB the resident had reported, and it assured him that it wanted him to feel safe at home and in his community.
    4. It awarded the resident £10 for a delay responding to the complaint.
  8. The information provided shows that the landlord contacted the police multiple times in January, February, and May 2023 about the resident’s witness statement, and shows that the police did not take further action for the October 2022 incident due to the level of evidence. In July 2023, the landlord also carried out a further review of its May response and confirmed it was satisfied with the response and conduct of staff.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said that ASB was ongoing for over 10 years. The Ombudsman generally investigates complaints made within a reasonable time of the events they relate to, so this investigation mainly focuses on events from 2022, up until the landlord’s response to the complaint in May 2023. The resident has also been informed that we do not investigate ASB itself or matters that would be investigated by the police, but we can assess how a landlord has handled reports of ASB.

Reports of ASB

  1. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Effective use of an ASB procedure enables the landlord to identify appropriate steps to resolve potential areas of conflict, improve landlord/tenant relationships and improve the experience of tenants residing in their homes. ASB cases are also often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available to a landlord or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not include a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations.
  2. Following ASB reports, it is necessary for the landlord to respond in accordance with its ASB policies, such as assess risks; discuss cases with those involved; discuss and monitor the situation with other agencies; and deal with reports in a proportionate manner, considering its obligation as the landlord to treat allegations from and about its customers in a consistent and evidence-led way. In this case, it is evident that the landlord considered and responded to ASB reports and complaints in a reasonable way.
  3. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s investigation, and it is evident that it attempted to investigate recent incidents, but this was limited by information about recent incidents despite attempts to obtain this. The landlord was reasonable and acting in line with its policy to require sufficient evidence of ASB, as it has to be sure any action is a proportionate and justified response to allegations and evidence available. In 2020, it asked the resident to log recent ASB, so he was made aware then of information needed. In the timeframe of this complaint, it met a December 2022 commitment that different staff would take over the case and contact the resident. It met with the resident, asked him to log recent ASB, and asked if it could record documents said to evidence ASB. It also liaised with the police which confirmed it was taking no further action for reports. The Ombudsman cannot see any substantial further action the landlord could take without reasonable evidence, and so cannot see any basis for any significant failing in its investigation of ASB to merit a significant compensation award sought by the resident.
  4. The resident raised concerns about staff conduct, and said he wanted multiple staff dismissed. This is a personnel issue and not an outcome that the Ombudsman is able to provide, but we can assess the landlord’s response about staff conduct.
  5. The resident experienced delay receiving the ASB case review and some response to contacts, and will have been caused frustration, which the landlord reasonably addressed. He was apologised to for the delay providing the ASB case review, and he was provided suitable explanation about this being due to illness. The landlord acknowledged there were delays when other staff were on leave, and it said that a manager would help ensure effective management of any ASB. The resident said he was abused and threatened by staff, which the landlord disputed. The resident’s account is not necessarily disputed by the Ombudsman, but where there are 2 different accounts, it is hard for us to decide which one is more true than the other. On the evidence seen, the landlord responded reasonably by discussing the allegations with a relevant manager and setting out its position. The landlord shows that, by taking the resident’s concerns seriously and setting out its position on them, it addressed them in an appropriate way even if the resident disagreed with the outcome.
  6. The resident requested for a video doorbell to be installed, and the landlord responded to this reasonably by considering the request and setting out its position on this in the February 2023 ASB case review. The resident’s account suggests that before this, the landlord may have committed to install a video doorbell, then went back on this. The landlord should aim to meet commitments it makes to residents, however it is also entitled to change its mind if this is in line with policies. The Ombudsman cannot see any obligation for the landlord to install a video doorbell for the resident, and it gave reasonable reasons for deciding not to do so. The landlord’s website suggests the resident could install a video doorbell himself, if the doorbell will not capture images beyond the boundary of his property or images of other properties, and he has the option to discuss this with the landlord if he wishes to explore this further.
  7. Overall, while the Ombudsman recognises that the resident was distressed by issues he reported, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It discussed issues with him and parties involved; liaised with police; sought to obtain information from other residents; provided reasonable advice about reporting ASB and criminal behaviour; provided reasonable position and explanation on matters; and provided suitable reassurance that it would investigate further ASB reports and review its approach, where necessary. It clearly sought to balance the resident’s needs against the needs of its other customers, who it also has obligations to treat in a fair, proportionate, and evidence-based way. The resident will have been caused frustration by some delays, however the landlord reasonably addressed these given there is no evidence that this led to any wider significant detriment. The resident has the option to liaise with the landlord and other parties such as the police to build a clearer record of any ASB he currently experiences.

Staff conduct

  1. On 10 March 2023 two contractors attended the property for an appointment to fix the toilet flush. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the contractors reported that the plumber was assaulted and the police were called. The landlord cancelled all further repair appointments.
  2. Following receipt of the contractors’ report, the landlord considered applying for an injunction against the resident. Social landlords can apply for an injunction against an individual to prevent nuisance or annoyance. A court may grant an injunction if it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that:
    1. a person has engaged, or threatens to engage, in ASB; and
    2. it is just and convenient to grant the injunction for the purpose of preventing that person from engaging in ASB.
  3. If granted, an injunction will include a:
    1. prohibition, requiring a person to stop doing something; and/or 
    2. a positive requirement aimed at getting a person to deal with the underlying cause of their ASB.
  4. The court can attach a power of arrest to any prohibition or requirement in the injunction where either:
    1. the antisocial behaviour, consists of violence, or the threat of violence, against other persons;
    2. there is a significant risk of harm to other persons.
  5. A police officer can arrest the perpetrator without warrant if they have reasonable cause to believe that a breach of the injunction has occurred. The maximum penalty for breaching an injunction is up to two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. In addition, where a court has found there has been a breach of an injunction, this could lead to eviction of a secure or assured tenant.
  6. The landlord’s ASB officer called the resident in early April 2023. The landlord does not hold a call recording of this conversation. It has also been unable to provide a contemporaneous written record. Following the resident’s complaint about the telephone call, the landlord’s internal records show that its complaints staff asked the ASB officer for their recollection of the call. They noted that the reason for the call was to discuss the injunction application. They stated that they tried to explain to the resident that they were not being evicted, but the landlord was proceeding with obtaining an injunction to give the resident the chance to change their behaviour and keep their home.
  7. The ASB officer’s recollection of the call suggests that it was a difficult conversation and the resident did not accept the landlord’s assurances that it was not trying to evict them. As such, to avoid any ambiguity, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident to confirm what action it was taking, what their rights were and who they could speak to for further information or advice. The landlord’s failure to take this action immediately after the telephone call was a shortfall in service. The need for the landlord to write to the resident to clarify what action it was taking was underlined when the resident called the landlord on 11 April 2023 and asked the landlord to provide ‘written confirmation of his eviction and the reasons’.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 23 May 2023 explained it was not taking action to evict the resident and it was only proceeding with an injunction, but this assurance should have been provided sooner. This delay was compounded by confused messaging, as the landlord wrote to the resident again on 25 May 2023 to warn that it ‘may have to issue a Notice of Seeking Possession’ due to arrears on the rent account.
  9. The resident complained to the landlord on 5 April 2023 that the ASB officer ‘abused and threatened’ him. Without further supporting evidence to confirm what the ASB officer said during the telephone call, it is not possible to determine if they acted inappropriately. The evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable action to investigate the matter. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response indicates that its complaint staff discussed the matter with the ASB officer and their manager, who refuted the allegation. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response explained that ‘providing you [the resident] with options regarding your tenancy, is not classed as a threat’.
  10. The Ombudsman’s interpretation is that the landlord tried to explain that the loss of the resident’s tenancy was a possibility if they did not adhere to the terms of their tenancy agreement or a potential injunction. This is not a threat, but instead it is an attempt to explain the conditions of the resident’s tenancy. Given the landlord was planning to apply for an injunction, it would be remiss for the landlord not to mention that the resident’s tenancy was at risk if it received further reports of ASB against him. However, the landlord should have explained this to the resident plainly and clearly. Its letter dated 23 May 2023 failed to do this. This was a further shortfall in the landlord’s communication with the resident. Overall, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter. The landlord should apologise to the resident and provide compensation of £60 for the shortfalls in its communication in relation to the injunction.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide an apology for the shortfalls in its communication in relation to the injunction.
    2. Pay compensation to the resident of £60 for the shortfalls in its communication in relation to the injunction.