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

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202316802)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316802

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

24 April 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 we have carefully considered this. 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 response to:

  1. The resident’s reports of disturbance caused by major works conducted by his neighbour.
  2. The associated complaint.

Background

2.     The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a 2-storey maisonette owned by the landlord. He lives with his wife and they are both vulnerable due to old age which the landlord is aware of.

3.     The resident complained to the landlord on 7 September 2022, stating that his neighbour had conducted major works around 11 months earlier, which had led to rubble and noise disturbance, and they had erected scaffolding which encroached on his property. He told it that his neighbour had removed the scaffolding at his request at the time, however he was unhappy as he believed the landlord had approved the works.

4.     The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2022. It said the neighbouring property was a private residence, and it had not granted permission for the scaffolding, nor had it been aware of the works. It said it was therefore not responsible for the disruption but offered £50 in compensation for its poor handling of the resident’s original report.

5.     The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 19 October 2022, as he was not satisfied with its explanation or the compensation amount. It did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 25 October 2023 following our intervention. It apologised for its lack of previous action and increased its offer of compensation by £310, therefore offering £360 in total.

6.     The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s final response. He told us that he would like it to explain why it had allowed this to happen, and to increase its compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Disturbance caused by major works

7.     When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, we will consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our 3 dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

8.     In his complaint of 7 September 2022, the resident said his neighbour’s works had led to rubble and dust, a danger of falling materials, and excessive noise pollution. He added that, in his original report 11 months earlier, he had provided photos to show the position of the scaffolding and the level of disruption. He said it should not have agreed to this, and it had failed to respond to his previous reports.

9.     In an internal email of 9 September 2022, the landlord discussed that the neighbouring property was a private residence, and the owner should have provided it with evidence of planning permission, however it had no records of the works. It emailed the resident on 18 October 2022 to explain that it had found his original report from December 2021, but there were no photos or further records. It asked him whether the scaffolding was still present, why he believed that it had granted permission, and whether he had contacted the council. He responded the same day to state that he approached his neighbour at the time and they removed the scaffolding within days, however he did not provide any further information.

10. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2022, in which it said:

  1. It had not found any records to show that the resident’s neighbour had informed it about the works or that it had granted permission for them.
  2. It was not responsible for the disruption caused so was not liable to pay compensation for this.
  3. It would have referred the matter to its legal team, were it not for his neighbour bringing the scaffolding down.
  4. However, its handling of his original report was poor, given that it had not responded in December 2021. It offered £50 in compensation for its service failure.

11. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it was not responsible for the neighbouring works, as it did not own or manage that property. However, there is no evidence that it tried to establish how long the scaffolding had been in place before the resident asked his neighbour to take it down, or whether this happened before or after he made his first report. It is also not clear whether the issues with rubble and noise continued after this point. It is therefore difficult to determine the extent of inconvenience to the resident due to its failure to respond to his original report, or whether it could have done more to resolve the issue at the time. However, there is equally no evidence that the resident elaborated any further when the landlord asked him for more information. We are not questioning the resident’s reasons for not providing further information at that time, but this ultimately impacted the landlord’s ability to respond further.

12. The resident emailed the landlord on 19, 23 and 28 October 2022. He said the offer of compensation was too low, provided photos, and added that the noise levels had exceeded 80 decibels. It emailed him on 2 November 2022 to explain that it had escalated his complaint. It did not issue its stage 2 response until 25 October 2023, 1 year later, and this investigation has considered its complaint handling in paragraphs 16 to 20 of this report.

13. In its stage 2 response to the resident, the landlord said:

  1. It had still not found any evidence that his neighbour had informed it of the works, or that it had given them permission. However, it would ask its legal team whether they had any further advice and would contact him again later that week.
  2. It accepted that the works were intrusive and acknowledged the distress this had caused.
  3. It had not listened or responded quickly enough to his original report, and it should have devoted more effort into finding a solution at the time. It should also have paid attention to his vulnerabilities and checked for any support needs.
  4. It had arranged staff training to improve its customer service.
  5. It had amended its offer of compensation to £360 in total, £120 of which was for his distress and inconvenience. The remaining £240 was for its complaint handling, discussed further in paragraph 20 of this report.

14. The resident asked the landlord to explain the phrasing in its stage 2 response, as it said it was “not aware” of the scaffolding and “could not be certain” that it had granted permission. He asked to it clarify whether it had known about the issue or not. Its records show that, following its final response, it contacted his neighbourhood officer to request absolute clarification. Both parties have provided evidence that he was still chasing it for this information in May 2024, and it is unclear whether it has contacted him since. We have therefore made a recommendation about this. However, we are satisfied it had already taken reasonable steps to investigate.

15. The landlord’s offer of £120 was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. The level of detail in its apology demonstrates that it had taken the complaint seriously, and it said it would learn from its mistakes including arranging staff training. This was good practice and shows learning from the Ombudsman’s special report of July 2023 on this landlord, which identified issues with its customer service. It was fair for it to state that it was not responsible for the neighbour’s actions, but it appropriately recognised that it should have done more to help at the time. Therefore, we conclude that it has offered adequate remedies for its failings.

Complaint handling

16. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code of April 2022 (the Code), which applied at the time of this complaint, sets out a landlord’s required response times when it receives a complaint. The relevant version of the landlord’s complaints policy complies with the Code. It states that it will acknowledge new complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within a further 10 working days. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of an escalation request. It may extend its deadline at either stage by an additional 10 working days, and it will explain its reasons if so. In exceptional circumstances it may ask the resident for more time and will refer them to this Service if they do not agree.

17. The resident raised his complaint on 7 September 2022 and it acknowledged this 2 days later. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 18 October 2022, 26 working days after its acknowledgement. There is no evidence that it contacted him to provide an update or extend its response time. It therefore failed to adhere to the Code and its own policy.

18. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 19 October 2022. It wrote to him on 2 November 2022 to say it had passed this for review at stage 2, but it explained that it had a large backlog. He contacted 6 times between 14 November 2022 and 28 July 2023 to ask when it would issue its response. It wrote to him twice during this time to apologise for the delay but said it could not give a timescale. It did not direct him to this Service.

19. The resident contacted us for advice, and we wrote to the landlord on 18 October 2023 to ask it to respond within 5 working days. Consequently, it issued its stage 2 response on 25 October 2023, a full year since his escalation request.

20. This investigation would have found failure by the landlord were it not for the remedies in its stage 2 response. It showed empathy and apologised for its failings, and it offered £240 in compensation for its poor complaint handling and the resident’s time and effort, which was reasonable under the specific circumstances. The delay in its final response was significant, but this did not prolong the inconvenience caused by the neighbour’s works, which was the heart of the complaint. It also acknowledged that it had not treated the resident with enough care, despite knowing that he was vulnerable, and apologised that it had fallen short of acceptable standards. Our special report on this landlord also identified issues with its handling of complaints and vulnerable residents, and it was appropriate that it showed its learnings from this. Overall, we conclude that the landlord offered adequate remedies for its complaint handling failures.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of disturbance caused by major works conducted by his neighbour.

22. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the issue of the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Recommendations

23. The landlord should pay the resident the total sum of £360 as offered in its final response if it has not done so already. It should pay this directly and not offset against any arrears unless agreed otherwise. We have made our findings of reasonable redress on this basis.

24. The landlord should also confirm to the resident whether it has any further advice following its agreement to consult with its legal team if it has not done so already.