London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202310991)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310991

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property, which is a terraced house. She lives with her college-aged daughter. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, this Service has noted that during correspondence with the landlord in this case, the resident stated that she had depression and crystals in her ears which had become unstable.
The neighbour (and reported perpetrator of ASB) is also a tenant of the landlord. They were temporarily decanted by the landlord into a property next to the resident at some point prior to December 2022 due to works required at their original property.
On 13 September 2022 the resident reported that the neighbour had been shouting, screaming and banging doors for over an hour during the night. She also stated that resident’s daughter had been smoking cannabis. She outlined the negative impact the neighbour’s behaviour was having on her mental health. The resident continued to report similar behaviour by the neighbour until the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 3 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised the issue of the impact of the ASB on the mental and physical health of the household. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting the household, as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour

It is evident that the situation has been very distressing for the resident and her daughter. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB and the reasonableness of its responses to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a neighbour was responsible for ASB. The investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures, as well as what was fair in all the circumstances. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against the neighbour.
The landlord’s ASB policy states as follows:
1. Standard priority cases will be logged and assessed within 3 working days.
2. It will seek to identify if there are any vulnerabilities or support needs relating to the reporting party and the alleged perpetrator and will adjust its approach as necessary.
3. When investigating, it will:
  1. Agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated.
  2. Be clear that it takes ASB extremely seriously, and the potential consequences for any resident identified as perpetrating ASB.
  3. Use prompt, appropriate and decisive action to prevent the problem escalating, for example the use of warning letters, mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts.
  4. Take a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB.
From the correspondence seen by this Service, the resident reported ASB by her neighbour on 13 September 2022. She stated that her neighbour had been shouting, screaming and banging doors for over an hour during the night. She also reported that the neighbour’s daughter had been smoking cannabis, which meant she could not open her window. She requested that the landlord take action against the neighbour and that she was tired of the police attending to view her video doorbell footage. She stated that the situation was impacting her depression.
There is no evidence that the landlord followed its ASB policy in respect of this report or that it responded to the resident’s concerns in any way. This was not appropriate and the landlord failed to demonstrate that it had considered the impact the resident had advised it was having on her mental health. Due to the lack of response form the landlord, the resident submitted a complaint on 7 December 2022 and advised that the ASB was ongoing. The landlord noted internally that same day that it would send another letter to the neighbour. It is not clear what letter it had sent previously or when it had done so.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord responded to the ASB case and advised the resident as follows:
1. It had spoken to the neighbour. (It is not clear when).
2. It had sent a letter to all residents that day, reminding them of their tenancy agreement in respect of ASB, and that it could take eviction action if a resident behaved anti-socially.
3. It advised the resident to contact the local authority noise nuisance team if ASB continued.
4. The ASB case would be closed but it asked the resident to contact it if further ASB occurred.
It is not clear if the landlord had received supporting evidence of ASB from the resident at this time. Without such evidence it was appropriate for the landlord to speak to the neighbour and remind all resident’s not to commit ASB. Despite closing the ASB case, the landlord committed to maintain weekly contact with the resident to assess the situation.
There was a gap in the correspondence seen by this Service until 6 February 2023 when the resident reported that the neighbour had been fighting and arguing and the police had been in attendance. She subsequently reported further ASB on 8 February 2023. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord logged this report within 3 working days as per its ASB policy. Instead it took the landlord until 16 February 2023 to advise the resident that it would speak to the neighbour and advised her to try to record the noise. The landlord gave no explanation for the delay in responding.
The resident reported further ASB on 20 March 2023 and provided a recording to support this. She stated that her therapist had advised her to take matters further and that she felt the landlord was not taking her mental wellbeing seriously. On 29 March 2023 the landlord apologised for the delay in responding and advised that it would investigate. It noted internally that it would visit the neighbour and would consider a good neighbourhood agreement. It is not clear if the letter sent by the landlord was a good neighbourhood agreement however it was evidence of the landlord having escalated the matter.
On 6 April 2023 the resident advised that there had not been any further arguing but there had been the noise of doors slamming. The landlord advised on 14 April 2024, that as there had not been further incidents, it was closing the ASB case. Despite this, it committed to contact the resident on a weekly basis going forward. However, this Service has not seen evidence of the landlord having kept in contact with the resident as promised.
On 24 April 2023 the resident provided recordings of ASB from 18 and 23 April 2023. The landlord responded to these within a reasonable timeframe (26 April 2023), and advised that it was considering the options open to it. The resident made further reports of arguing and cannabis use on 27 April and 10 May 2023. The landlord responded to these reports on 15 May 2023 and requested to visit the resident. It also advised her to report the cannabis use to the police. The resident declined the offer of a visit, as she was concerned that the neighbour would find out that she had made the reports. The landlord acknowledged this and advised that it would write to the neighbour and try to visit them.
The resident reported further ASB (on 5 June 2023). The landlord advised her on 15 June 2023 that it had spoken to the neighbour but that it was unable to share details of this conversation. It did, however, advise that it was working with other departments about the ASB. It did not provide any further details as to what action it was considering taking in light of the evidenced behaviour. It is noted that the landlord had been considering options to move the neighbour, which it had not made the resident aware of at that stage. Despite this, the landlord could have discussed with the resident the options it had open to it. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to be transparent with the resident as to the possible actions it could take.
The resident reported a further ASB on 27 July 2023. The landlord spoke to the resident the following day (28 July 2023) and noted that the resident had reported the matters to the police. It advised her to report any further criminal activity to the police and any noise disturbance to the local authority. It noted that the resident had described the impact the matter was having on her and her daughter’s mental health.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 1 August 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It summarised the actions it had taken as follows:
  1. It had spoken to the resident about her concerns and had encouraged her to record any noise and report this to the local authority.
  2. It had sent residents in the area a letter about not carrying out ASB.
  3. It had spoken to the neighbour (on 8 December 2022) about the noise and had explained the terms of their occupancy agreement. It had subsequently sent a letter to the neighbour (on 29 March 2023) explaining the action it could take should the ASB persist.
  4. It had closed the ASB case on 14 April 2023 due to a lack of further reports. However, it reopened this on 28 April 2023 following a recording received from the resident of noise and arguing.
  5. It had offered to visit the resident to carry out a noise test between the properties but this had been declined.
2. It advised that it was working closely with all the individuals concerned and that it would consider tenancy action against the neighbour.
3. It set out an action plan as follows:
  1. It would contact the resident fortnightly.
  2. It would visit the neighbour and issue a good neighbour agreement or Acceptable Behaviour Contract.
  3. It provided the resident with diary sheets and advised her to download the noise app.
  4. It encourage her to report criminal matters to the police.
It was appropriate and in line with its policy for the landlord to set out an action plan to explain how it would respond to the issue going forward. However, it is reasonable to expect this should have been provided to the resident at an earlier stage and it should not have taken the resident submitting a complaint for an action plan to be devised. The delay in providing an action plan was unreasonable.
The resident reported further ASB on 11 August 2023. That same day the landlord advised that it had contacted the neighbour and noise nuisance had been acknowledged. It did not clarify what acknowledgement had been given by the neighbour or any action it had taken in respect of this. It would have been reasonable on the basis of its action plan in place for it to have updated the resident on how this new information would affect its management of the case.
On 14 August 2023 the resident reported a further incident which the police had attended. The landlord advised her (17 August 2023) that it was going to issue a formal warning letter to the neighbour. It is not clear if this was issued to the neighbour at the time, however, the landlord subsequently advised the resident (24 August 2023) that it was discussing the neighbour’s behaviour with its legal team. This demonstrated that it had taken the reports and the evidence provided by the resident seriously and that it was considering an escalation to address the ongoing behaviour in accordance with its policy.
Despite the assurance made at stage 1, this Service has not seen evidence of the promised fortnightly contact with the resident, as outlined in the landlord’s action plan. The next contact this Service has seen the landlord initiate was on 7 September 2023 when it asked the resident if the situation had improved. She advised that the situation remained the same. The landlord apologised the following week that it was taking time to compile the events for its legal team.
The resident provided a further recording on 3 October 2023 and stated that the landlord had not updated her since 18 September 2023. The landlord advised that it was still working on the matter. It is not clear why the landlord had not maintained its proactive contact with the resident, however, by not following through on its assurance in the action plan, this impacted the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s handling of the case. The resident provided further recordings on 19 October 2023 and described the situation as “like living in a war zone”.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 3 November 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It acknowledged that it had not managed the ASB case appropriately, as it had not asked the neighbour to attend its office to discuss the allegations. It apologised for any inconvenience or frustration that had been caused. It had arranged a time to interview the neighbour and the daughter.
2. It would use various ASB tools to ensure that that the neighbour kept to the terms of their occupancy agreement. It would look into the possibility of the neighbour being moved, however, it advised that this would not take place in the foreseeable future. As such it would ensure it took appropriate steps to deal with the ASB.
3. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £100 compensation for this.
The resident responded that she was “appalled” that the landlord had offered compensation for what she described as “the last 2yrs of misery and distress”. The landlord clarified that it had offered compensation to acknowledge its complaint handling delay and the resident’s time and trouble in making the complaint.
In early November 2023 the landlord tried to arrange a meeting with the neighbour and the daughter, however, this had to be cancelled due to illness of the neighbour. On 13 November 2023 the landlord’s legal team sent the neighbour a ‘Letter Before Action’. This stated that the neighbour was causing ASB by noise nuisance and cannabis use, which were considered to be a breach of tenancy. It advised that if such behaviour continued the landlord would issue court proceedings.
On 14 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that the Ombudsman had requested it to review the case again. It stated that it had done so and had awarded additional compensation as follows:
1. £300 for inconvenience and distress.
2. £100 for the service failure relating to the stage 1 response.
3. £300 for the resident’s time and effort in bringing the matter to its attention.
4. £40 for the delay in the stage 2 escalation.
5. It stated that £100 of this had already been awarded in the stage 2 response. As such, this brought its total compensation offer to £640.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, 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 takes into account 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 as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The resident had advised the landlord after the stage 1 response, that she did not want financial compensation. However, the landlord’s decision to offer compensation was reasonable as a way to acknowledge the impact its failures had on the resident. The Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance also states that financial compensation is an appropriate way to try to put things right for a resident.
The Ombudsman encourages landlord’s to take resolution focussed action, irrespective of the stage at which a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to ensure that a case in dispute progresses to a fair resolution during its internal complaints process. It was not until the resident referred her complaint to this Service, that the landlord conducted a further review of the case and increased its offer of compensation. Although this did indicate a willingness to learn, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, appropriate redress is something which should have been considered as part of the internal complaints procedure. A referral to the Ombudsman is not meant as another opportunity for the landlord to consider its handling of the complaint.
From the breakdown of compensation outlined by the landlord in its further response, it can be determined that it offered £300 for the impact of its failures in responding to the ASB. The remaining £340 was offered in respect of its complaint handling failures (complaint handling has been assessed separately below). This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord’s decision making in respect of how it determined this additional amount of compensation. However, the landlord’s offer of £300 for its failure in handling the ASB was in line with what the Ombudsman would recommend where there had been a failure or failures which adversely affected a resident, but where there was no permanent impact.
Although the compensation can be said to have put things right for the resident, this should have been offered at an earlier stage and during the internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined under such circumstances.
Throughout the landlord’s handing of the reports of ASB, it demonstrated that it had taken the residents reports seriously and it took appropriate and reasonable action in line with its policy as follows:
1. It spoke to the neighbour about their behaviour and explained the action it could take if this continued.
2. It wrote to all residents in the area about the requirement not to commit ASB.
3. it advised the resident how to evidence her reports and provided diary sheets and the noise app to support the gathering of evidence.
4. It signposted the resident to external agencies such as the local authority and the police for noise and criminal matters.
5. It sought legal advice based on the evidence provided by the resident.
6. It committed to interview the neighbour and the daughter about the reported behaviour. (This took place after the completion of the internal complaints procedure).
7. It is also noted, that after the completion of the internal complaints procedure and the referral to the Ombudsman, the landlord sought to arrange for the neighbour to be moved back to their original property. This however had not happened by 27 November 2024 due to outstanding repairs).
8. The evidence shows the landlord gradually escalated its actions in response to the ongoing reports of ASB when its interventions had failed to prevent the inappropriate behaviour from the neighbour.
The landlord acknowledged some of the failures in its ASB handling. It appropriately recognised it had failed to arrange to interview the neighbour following the initial substantiated reports (from 20 March 2023). Instead it took the landlord until November 2023 to interview the neighbour, a delay of around 8 months. The landlord also outlined the learning it had taken from the case (following the referral to this Service). However, it failed to acknowledge that it had delayed the production and sharing of an action plan. It also failed to follow through on the assurances made within the action plan, as it could not evidence that it had kept in regular contact with the resident. The impact of this failure was that she had to chase the landlord on a number of occasions for an update. Although legal action, as pursued by the landlord can take time, it should have been proactive at keeping the resident up to date with the progress of the actions it was taking throughout.
Given these additional failures which were not acknowledged by the landlord, and that appropriate compensation for the failures it did identify was not offered until after the completion of the internal complaints procedure, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. To acknowledge this, additional compensation of £150 has been ordered. This is in line with the Hosing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there were failures which the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. This states that it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. These timeframes can be extended by 10 working days with the agreement of the resident. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handing Code (the Code) which sets out best practice for complaint handling. The complaints policy does not cover reports of ASB, however, it states that the landlord will accept a complaint if a resident is dissatisfied with how their ASB case had been handled.
The resident submitted a complaint on 7 December 2022 as the landlord had not responded to her ASB report from September 2022. Although the landlord responded to this as a report of ASB, it should have also dealt with this as a complaint, as per its complaints policy. It failed to do so and as such the resident contacted the Ombudsman on 19 July 2023 for help with her complaint. This Service asked the landlord to respond at stage 1 by 2 August 2023. It subsequently did so on 1 August 2023. This was 162 working days after the resident had submitted her complaint and only after the involvement of this Service. This was significantly outside of the timeframe provided in the complaints policy.
This Service expects the landlord to be able to identify what is and is not a complaint. Such practice is a basic minimum standard and it is of concern that landlord has failed to consider the resident’s complaint about its handling of her ASB report to be a complaint. This led to a delay in her receiving a stage 1 outcome and caused the resident time and trouble in chasing a response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 2 August 2023 and the landlord noted internally on 9 August 2023 that it had called the resident to acknowledge this. It provided its stage 2 response on 3 November 2023. This was 67 working days after the escalation, which was significantly outside of the landlord’s 20 working day response time. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £100 compensation for this. It did not offer any explanation for the delay or outline how it would prevent such delays from occurring in the future.
The Ombudsman had been unaware that the stage 2 response had been provided to the resident and so asked the landlord to respond to the complaint by 7 November 2023. The landlord noted internally that it had already responded at stage 2 but the response may need re-reviewing. It is not clear why the landlord thought its response from 4 days earlier needed to be re-reviewed as this should have been a comprehensive review of its handling of the matter. It subsequently reviewed the stage 2 response and increased the offer of compensation from a total of £100 to a total of £640. £340 of this was to acknowledge its complaint handling failures and the time spent by the resident in bringing the complaint.
This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord’s decision making in respect of how it determined this additional amount of compensation was appropriate or why this was not considered appropriate days earlier in its stage 2 response. However, the amount offered was within a range the Ombudsman would recommend where a resident had been adversely affected by a failure of a landlord.
Although additional compensation offered for its complaint handling can be said to have put things right for the resident, this could have been offered at an earlier stage and during the internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined under such circumstances. As such, in its handling of the resident’s complaint the landlord failed to effectively consider the impact on the resident and put things right during the internal complaints procedure. The landlord also missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome of the complaint at the time of its original investigation. This was a missed opportunity to put process in place for the future, to ensure effective complaints handling going forward. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and maladministration has therefore been found with the landlord’s complaint handling.
It is noted that issues have been identified by this Service in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling in other recent cases. This Service has issued orders to the landlord in accordance with paragraph 54.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme to undertake management reviews of complaint handling failures identified. Such reviews were ordered in case reference 202202309 (30 January 2024) and 202221775 (21 June 2024). As the landlord has taken recent action in respect of reviewing its complaint handling, no further order will be made in respect of this within this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handing.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £790 compensation. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £640 compensation and an additional £150 to acknowledge the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failures in responding to reports of ASB. If the landlord has already paid the £640 offered, this does not need to be paid again. The outstanding compensation is to be paid direct to the resident.
3. Update the resident’s vulnerability record to ensure this is an accurate record of the household vulnerabilities.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with an update in respect of the neighbour moving back to their original property.