London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202317035)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317035

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour.
The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident and his wife are joint assured tenants of the landlord. The tenancy began in November 2010. The property is a 2 bedroom 1st floor flat. The household consists of the resident, his wife, and their 3 children. There are no reported vulnerabilities.
Beginning in late May 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that his downstairs neighbour (referred to as “the neighbour” in the rest of this report) banged on the ceiling of his flat/the floor of the resident’s flat in response to the resident’s family playing and walking around their flat. This happened at different times of the day and night and caused the resident’s wife and children to feel scared. Correspondence from the landlord indicates the neighbour had made counter-allegations against the resident. The landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour and then closed its anti-social behaviour (ASB) case in October 2022.
In May and June 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the neighbour had started banging again. Sometimes this was at night and it woke his family and scared them. On 18 June the resident reported that the neighbour had verbally abused him and made threats of violence. The resident felt unsafe.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of his reports of ASB on 27 June 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 10 July, said that it had opened a new ASB case on 9 May, and apologised for delays in contacting and updating the resident. It was still investigating but would be in contact to agree an action plan. It recommended that the resident and his neighbour take part in mediation, and offered £30 compensation in recognition of its service failure.
The resident declined to take part in mediation and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2. He wanted the landlord to rehouse him or evict the neighbour. The landlord asked him to continue providing evidence, and said that it would contact the police, the local authority and potential witnesses. It did not escalate the complaint to stage 2.
In July, August, October and December 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour banged on the ceiling/floor, and rang his intercom and then did not say anything. He said he and his family were woken up at night, were frightened and worried they would be attacked.
On 21 December 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour had verbally abused him in the street and tried to kick and punch him. The resident continued to report banging by the neighbour, as well as music played late at night in January, February and March 2024. On 23 March 2024 he reported that the neighbour had blocked him and his family from entering the building and threatened him.
The landlord provided a response under stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 30 April 2024. It apologised for the resident’s time and effort pursuing a resolution of his complaint, said the neighbourhood housing lead would email him with a response, and offered £60 compensation.
The resident was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response and asked this Service to investigate. As at October 2024 reports of ASB were ongoing and the resident has told this Service that it has caused “constant stress” for his family.

Assessment and findings

Handling of reports of ASB

In cases concerning ASB it is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether a party is responsible for anti-social behaviour. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB, and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This is limited to consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures, as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy said it would risk-assess all reports of ASB. This would be done within 1 working day for incidents involving violence, threats of violence or hate crime, and within 3 working days in all other cases. ASB cases would be assigned to specific case managers, who would assess the case and agree an action plan with the resident within 7 days. They would keep the resident updated, monitor cases and ensure they were progressed in timely manner. The landlord would provide advice and support to victims and witnesses, including referring to support agencies as appropriate, and supporting victims in finding temporary accommodation or permanently re-housing them, where appropriate.
The policy described the landlord’s steps to combat ASB in 3 stages: prevention, early intervention and enforcement. The landlord said it would design its policies to try to prevent ASB from occurring. When ASB was reported it would aim to intervene at an early stage to manage the situation and prevent it escalating. This included steps such as acceptable behaviour contracts, tenancy support and mediation. It would decide on a case by case basis if enforcement with legal action was appropriate, and would ensure that any legal action taken was proportionate. It would work in partnership with other agencies to deliver a coordinated action plan.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Noise Complaints recommends that landlords act to prevent and/or mitigate for the typical sources of noise nuisance. Landlords should adopt a proactive good neighbourhood management strategy, distinct to the ASB policy, which recognises the impact of living in close proximity to others, and has options for fostering understanding of differing lifestyles and maintaining good neighbourhood relationships. This could stop noise complaints escalating into ASB and focus more on prevention. This Service has not seen a distinct noise policy or good neighbourhood management strategy for the period considered by this investigation.
It is not clear from the records provided by the landlord when the resident first reported ASB, but the landlord has provided copies of ASB diary sheets emailed to it by the resident on 10 June 2022. These contain reports that the neighbour had banged on his ceiling/the resident’s floor on an almost daily basis between 30 May and 8 June 2022. The banging was reported to be in response to the sound of the resident’s child playing, or the family walking around the flat. The resident’s wife and child were scared by the banging and the family was confused and upset, feeling they could not do anything in their flat without the neighbour banging. The resident sent video evidence of banging sounds on 22 and 26 July and 2 August 2022. He said the banging happened during the day and night and the whole family did not feel safe.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records of reports of ASB and the actions it takes in response to these. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. As part of this investigation the landlord was asked to provide all records, documents and correspondence relevant to the resident’s complaint. However, the evidence provided was not comprehensive. This indicates a failure in record-keeping.
The landlord has provided a copy of a letter it wrote to the resident dated 6 October 2022. This said that it was closing its ASB case. It stated that its investigation involved speaking to other neighbours and considering video footage provided by the resident. A formal warning had been issued to the neighbour regarding noise, nuisance and harassment. It said that during its last conversation with the resident he confirmed there had been no further incidents.
Whilst considering evidence and speaking to other neighbours were reasonable steps to take in response to the resident’s reports, no evidence has been seen that, following the resident’s report of ASB in May/June 2022, the landlord:
1. Carried out a risk assessment.
2. Assessed the case and agreed an action plan with the resident within 7 days.
3. Kept the resident updated.
4. Monitored the case and ensured it was progressed in timely manner.
5. Provided advice and support to the resident.

There is therefore no evidence that the landlord followed its ASB policy.

The evidence provided by the resident clearly indicates that, at least initially, the neighbour banged on his ceiling in response to household noise from the resident’s flat. The landlord missed an opportunity to “intervene at an early stage to manage the situation and prevent it escalating,” as per its ASB policy. No evidence has been seen that the landlord acted promptly to:
1. Prevent and/or mitigate for the typical sources of household noise from the resident’s flat.
2. Advise and assist the parties to foster understanding of differing lifestyles and maintaining good neighbourhood relationships, for example by suggesting mediation.
Between 7 and 30 November 2022 there was further email correspondence between the landlord and the resident relating to ASB. The resident reported a “further incident” resulting in police attendance, and provided a computer aided dispatch (CAD) reference number. The landlord said it had contacted the police. The landlord asked the resident what type of flooring he had, stating that it wanted to “try and find solutions to the noise complaints from [the resident and neighbour].” The resident confirmed that he had carpet in all of the flat.
Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord enquired regarding the flooring, this was too late, as relations between neighbours had already broken down. Furthermore, apart from making one enquiry regarding floor coverings, no evidence has been seen that the landlord went any further to prevent and/or mitigate for the typical sources of household noise, or to advise and assist the parties to increase understanding and tolerance. Despite involvement of the police, no evidence has been seen that the landlord carried out a risk assessment, in breach of its policy and good practice standards.
The resident next reported ASB, including the neighbour banging on the ceiling in the early hours of the morning, in May 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 response states that a new ASB case was created on 9 May 2023 and that it spoke to the resident on 14 June 2023, although it has not provided any records confirming this. No evidence has been seen that the landlord carried out a risk assessment, or assessed the case and agreed an action plan within its policy timescales. This was poor practice on the part of the landlord.
On 18 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord reporting that the neighbour verbally abused him and made threats of violence. He had reported this to the police. He said he and his family felt afraid and unsafe. The landlord did not respond at all until 27 June 2023, when this Service forwarded a complaint on behalf of the resident about its handling of his reports of ASB. This was particularly poor practice given that the resident had reported threats of violence. Furthermore, no evidence has been seen that the landlord carried out a risk assessment following this report.
The complaint made by this Service on the resident’s behalf on 27 June 2023 was about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB by the neighbour, including threats of physical violence, verbal abuse, bullying, harassment and noise. The resident wanted the landlord to speak to the neighbour and investigate his behaviour. If it was found that he was in breach of his tenancy agreement, the resident wanted the landlord to take “appropriate action.” After receiving the complaint the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss the matter. The resident told the landlord that he wanted it to evict the neighbour, or rehouse his family.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint was provided on 10 July 2023. The landlord:
1. Apologised that it had not contacted the resident sooner. It said this was because the neighbourhood housing lead was “out of the office” for 2 weeks at the end of May.
2. Apologised that the resident had not received an update. It was still investigating, and would contact the resident on 21 July to agree an action plan.
3. Recommended that the resident and the neighbour take part in mediation.
4. Said that “due to data protection” it was unable to share specific details of actions taken against the neighbour, but it had “processes in place and [was] taking the matter seriously.”
5. Recognised that there had been a service failure and offered £30 compensation.
It was appropriate that the landlord apologised for delays in communication with the resident. However, whilst it was correct that it could not share personal data relating to the neighbour, it was inappropriate that it did not provide any information on steps it had taken in response to the reports of ASB. It was also inappropriate that it did not respond to the resident’s request that he be rehoused, or for the neighbour to be evicted. Whilst the landlord was not obliged to take either of these steps, it should have explained its intentions to the resident with reference to its policies and procedures. This would have gone some way towards managing the resident’s expectations and showing that it was listening to his concerns.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 10 July 2023 to say that he wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2. He said that there were “no grounds for mediation” as the neighbour had made threats to his and his wife’s life.
On 18 July 2023 the landlord told the resident that it needed further evidence and agreed the following action plan:
1. The resident to:
  1. Provide further evidence of ASB, including ASB diary sheets, “police reference,” and noise app.
  2. “Enquire noise complaint on his behalf” with local authority.
2. The landlord to:
  1. Contact police to follow up on CAD reference numbers.
  2. Contact the local authority to check if there were any current noise complaints made by the neighbour against the resident, and discuss the case with the local authority ASB officer.
  3. Talk to potential witnesses of deliberate banging on the ceiling by the neighbour.
  4. Discuss the case again to determine next steps once “all evidence is provided.”
  5. Give a formal warning to the neighbour.
  6. Contact the resident every Monday to review the week.

Whilst the agreement of an action plan happened too late in relation to the landlord’s policy standard, these were appropriate steps for the landlord to take to investigate the reports of ASB.

The resident made a noise complaint to the local authority on 18 July 2023, as advised by the landlord. Between 31 July and 28 August he provided further evidence of ASB to the landlord, including emails, videos and diary sheets. The ASB reported included the neighbour banging on the ceiling in the early hours of the morning, ringing the intercom and then not speaking, and an incident when the neighbour had sworn and been verbally abusive towards the resident and his son. The resident provided police CAD numbers.
No evidence has been seen that the landlord contacted the police, spoke to potential witnesses, or contacted the resident every Monday to review the week, as agreed on 18 July 2023. On 1 August the landlord told the resident it would send a formal warning to the neighbour, but this was not done. On 22 August the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for lack of contact due to an ”emergency situation,” and said that it would send the warning letter that week. On the same day it emailed the local authority asking to discuss the case. The landlord therefore failed to act promptly and did not do everything it said it would do. This was inappropriate and must have eroded the resident’s trust in it.
On 6 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord saying that, following the warning letter and a leak being fixed, there had been no further banging or ringing of the intercom. The landlord replied the following day to say that it would continue to monitor the situation for a further month. This was appropriate.
On 9 October 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour had been banging on the ceiling again. On 16 October 2023 he told this Service that he was worried that he would be attacked by the neighbour. In December 2023 and January 2024 he provided further ASB diary sheets to the landlord. On 21 December 2023 he reported to the landlord that the previous day the neighbour had tried to kick and punch him, and had grabbed his hands when he put them out to defend himself. He had reported this to the police. No evidence has been seen to show that the landlord took any steps in response to this. This was very poor practice following a report of violence.
On 6 February 2024 the landlord thanked the resident for providing a witness statement regarding the 20 December 2023 incident, asked if he had been able to get a statement from a witness, and if the police were taking action. It informed him that the neighbour had made a noise complaint against him and suggested mediation.
Although its ASB policy detailed a range of possible actions in response to ASB, no evidence has been seen that the landlord took any of these apart from sending 2 warning letters and repeatedly suggesting mediation. It was inappropriate that the landlord continued to suggest mediation despite the escalating seriousness of the ASB reported. No evidence has been seen that the landlord discussed the noise complaints against him with the resident or provided advice regarding this.
The resident declined mediation citing safety concerns and asked that the landlord rehouse him. He had to take time off work due to stress and fear that the neighbour would “do something.” His performance at work had also been affected. He continued to provide evidence of ASB in February and March 2024. This detailed almost daily ASB including banging on the ceiling and playing loud music in the early hours of the morning. His wife and children were frightened by this. He reported that on 23 March 2024 the neighbour had blocked he and his family from entering the building and threatened him.
No evidence has been seen that the landlord responded at all to the resident’s reports of ASB in February and March 2024. Given that the resident had made very clear that his wellbeing was impacted by stress it was inappropriate that the landlord did not offer support, as per its policy. Although the landlord was not obliged to rehouse the resident, it was unreasonable that it did not respond to his request. If it did not intend to rehouse him it should have made this clear and provided him with advice on the options available to him.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 30 April 2024. This:
1. Apologised for the “time and effort it [had] taken to resolve [the] complaint.”
2. Said that the neighbourhood housing lead would email the resident with a response.
3. Offered £60 compensation for the resident’s time and effort dealing with the complaint.
The stage 2 response completely failed to address in a meaningful way the substance of the resident’s compliant, the concerns raised by him, or his desired outcome. It did not identify or apologise for what had gone wrong or set out any remedies. The compensation offered was too low in relation to the landlord’s failings and the impact of these on the resident and his family.
The resident asked this Service to investigate on 7 May 2024. The resident told us that the ongoing ASB caused “constant stress” for his household. His wife was afraid to go out alone, and he had to watch his children leave the property. He had to be cautious when he returned home from shift work in case the neighbour confronted him. The whole family had to “constantly watch their backs.” The evidence provided by the landlord indicates that reports of ASB continued until at least October 2024.
Considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB overall, numerous failures have been identified, including:
1. Poor record-keeping.
2. Lack of risk assessment.
3. Delay in agreeing an action plan.
4. Missed opportunities for early intervention to stop noise complaints escalating into ASB.
5. Poor communication with the resident.
6. Not doing what it said it would do.
7. Not progressing the case in a timely manner.
8. Failure to consider/use all of the tools at its disposal. Repeatedly suggesting mediation despite increasing severity of ASB reported.
9. Failure to offer support to the resident.
10. Failure to respond to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Cumulatively, these failings constitute maladministration on the part of the landlord. This caused significant and ongoing distress and inconvenience to the resident and his family. The landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay £800 compensation to the resident in recognition of this. The landlord has also been ordered to review the resident’s ASB case and produce an action plan, as well as carrying out a review of learning from the case. It is hoped that this will improve the landlord’s service in future.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy current at the time said that following receipt of a complaint it would make contact with the resident by the end of the next working day. Overall, the process to log and acknowledge a complaint at stage 1 would take no longer than 5 working days. It would send its written decision within 10 working days of logging the complaint.
The policy stated that if the complainant was dissatisfied with the stage 1 decision and asked it to, it would escalate to stage 2. Where possible, it would “try to reach a resolution without the need for escalation.” Otherwise, the complaint would be escalated without delay. It would send its final written decision at stage 2 within 20 working days of the request to escalate. If more time was needed it would explain why and write again after no more than 10 working days. In exceptional circumstances it would try to agree a further extension with the complainant.
The resident’s initial complaint to the landlord was made by this Service on the resident’s behalf on 27 June 2023. The landlord telephoned the resident to discuss the complaint and acknowledged it by email on the same day. The stage 1 response was provided on 10 July, 9 working days later. This was appropriate and in line with its policy.
The resident told the landlord that he was not happy with the stage 1 response and wanted to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 10 July 2023. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint “without delay” as required by its policy. This Service contacted the landlord on 9 August and asked the landlord to respond to the resident within 5 working days. The landlord did not provide a stage 2 response until 30 April 2024, almost 10 months later. It did not give a reason for the delay. The stage 2 response lacked empathy and the landlord did not show learning from the complaint. This was very poor complaints handling.
Considering the landlord’s complaints handling overall, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate to stage 2, and there was a very long delay in providing a stage 2 response. This delay meant that the resident had to wait around 9 months longer than he should have done to ask the Ombudsman to investigate, during which time he continued to report ASB which the landlord did not adequately address. The tone and content of the state 2 response when it was provided was poor. Overall, this constitutes maladministration in complaints handling on the part of the landlord. The landlord has been ordered to apologise and pay the resident compensation of £400.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should speak with the resident and conduct a review of his ASB case. This should include a risk assessment and a proactive action plan. The landlord should share a report of the review and action plan with the resident and this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior officer of the landlord, at minimum Director level, must apologise to the resident for the impact of its failures, having regard to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £850, broken down as follows:
  1. £600 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience arising from its handling of his reports of ASB.
  2. £250 to reflect the poor handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of learning resulting from the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide a report of the review to its senior leadership team, the resident and the Ombudsman. The report should identify improvements and when these will be brought into the landlord’s day-to-day operations.

Recommendations

It is recommended that relevant staff involved in this case undertake complaint handling learning from our Centre for Learning (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/complaint-handling/).