London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202324172)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324172

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 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 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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 4-bedroom house, owned by the landlord. She lives with her children and partner. The landlord has recorded health vulnerabilities for members of the household.
3. On 11 April 2024 the resident submitted a formal complaint, citing longstanding ASB by a neighbour, which included a physical altercation in September 2023 involving her partner. She also raised concerns about the neighbour parking in her allocated disabled bay and installing CCTV. The resident requested that the landlord move her neighbour to another property.
4. On 23 April 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It set out actions it had taken, such as offering temporary accommodation, consulting with the police, installing a sensor light, completing a risk assessment, and exploring housing options. It did not uphold the complaint.
5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 2 August 2024, expressing dissatisfaction with its handling of the situation.
6. In its stage 2 response, issued on 13 August 2024, the landlord reiterated the actions it had already taken and confirmed its approach to ASB resolution. It addressed the parking issues and proposed solutions to resolve this, including offering to install a bollard in the resident’s bay. It again declined to uphold the complaint.
7. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to us. She expressed frustration with her neighbour’s behaviour and reported that the parking issues persist.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her family’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
9. The resident stated that she has experienced ASB from her neighbour for the past 10 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate the issue whilst it is still ‘live’ and sufficient evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. As issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as an Ombudsman to conduct an effective review of the actions taken.
10. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to 11 April 2023. This is 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint to the landlord and any reference made to events prior to this date is for context only.

The landlord’s handling of ASB

11. It is outside the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but rather, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the residents’ ASB reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances and whether it acted in line with its own internal policies, and best practice.
12. In summary, the landlord’s ASB policy states it will; take prompt and decisive action to resolve ASB, collaborating with police and local authorities, communicate regularly, assess risks, and provide support. It will address the behaviour of perpetrators rather than relocate them and it will close cases when no further action is possible.
13. On 3 January 2024 the landlord recorded allegations from both the resident and her neighbour. The resident reported a physical altercation in September 2023 involving her partner and the neighbour. She also reported that the neighbour was parking in her designated disabled bay and had installed CCTV facing her home.
14. On the same day, the landlord opened ASB cases for both parties and informed the resident that the ASB caseworker would request a police disclosure. It advised both households to avoid any direct or indirect contact and to report concerns through the ASB caseworker or the customer service team.
15. The landlord visited the property and, on 19 January 2024, confirmed that the neighbour had parked in the resident’s bay without consent. It issued a verbal warning and stated that it would follow up with a formal letter. On 31 January 2024, it updated both parties and confirmed it was investigating further.
16. Between February and early April 2024, the landlord failed to provide updates to the resident. This gap in communication was unreasonable. On 12 April 2024, the ASB caseworker acknowledged this lapse, explained she had been on leave for medical reasons, and apologised for the distress caused by the unresolved parking issue. It was reasonable of the caseworker to apologise and acknowledge the communication gap.
17. On 16 April 2024 the ASB caseworker resumed management of the case and provided an updated action plan to the resident. The action plan included requesting police disclosure, maintaining 3 weekly contacts, and following up on parking misuse. She asked the Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL) to issue a block letter regarding parking misuse, explore the installation of CCTV and regulation of parking.
18. The ASB case worker also confirmed that she had offered the resident a Homeless Persons Unit (HPU) letter for temporary accommodation; shared 4 housing options, installed a sensor light, requested a ring doorbell, completed a risk assessment matrix, issued warning letters to the neighbour and conducted home visits. These actions were reasonable and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
19. Later that day the resident responded with concerns. She reported that the neighbour continued to park in her bay and submitted photos and video evidence. She said the floodlight was ineffective, she had not received a letter offering temporary accommodation, and the police were not progressing their investigation. She added that the situation had affected her daughter’s mental health.
20. On 18 April 2024 the ASB caseworker acknowledged the neighbour’s breach of the warning regarding parking. She confirmed that she would issue another warning letter to the neighbour, and reassigned parking issues to the NHL as low-level ASB. She kept the ASB case open while awaiting the police report and asked the resident to contact the NHL about any future parking concerns.
21. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 23 April 2024. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, stating it had offered her an HPU letter for temporary accommodation to manage any potential risk, provided housing options, completed a VR1 form for additional security (sensor light in the resident’s back garden). It said it had also enquired about a Ring doorbell for her security and conducted a home visit to all parties involved and completed a Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM assessment).
22. The landlord promised to complete the following actions: chase the police for the disclosure to use as evidence, maintain 3 weekly contact agreements to keep the resident updated on her case, follow up on her concerns regarding the parking bay, send a block letter concerning designated parking bays and make enquiries about regulating parking and installing CCTV. It also provided links to 4 housing options and 2 support services, including victim support and NHS Talking Therapies.
23. The landlord stated that it could not relocate the resident’s neighbour as she requested. It explained that it was committed to preventing and stopping ASB by addressing the behaviour of perpetrators, not simply moving the behaviour away from one neighbourhood into another. Its response on this point was in line with its ASB policy. Furthermore, it can undertake legal action, such as eviction, only as a last resort when all other efforts at resolution have failed and it has built a robust case to present to the courts.
24. Overall, the landlord’s response was thorough, it showed empathy and addressed all the resident’s concerns and demonstrated that it had acted in line with its ASB policy. It considered her vulnerabilities and provided information on how she could assess additional support.
25. The resident responded the same day, stating she had not received the HPU letter. She expressed disappointment in the landlord’s support and said she preferred not to move, given her home’s adaptations and location.
26. In May 2024 the resident again reported that the neighbour was using her parking bay. In response, the landlord offered her the option to swap bays and proposed installing a lockable bollard. These were practical and proportionate actions aimed at preventing further disputes.
27. Between April and June 2024, the landlord contacted the police several times to request the incident disclosure. On 25 June 2024 the ASB caseworker informed the resident that the police had concluded their investigation and found no evidence to support either party’s claims. The police decided to take no further action.”
28. On the same day, the landlord issued a case closure letter to the resident, summarising all actions taken. It confirmed that, considering the police outcome and lack of evidence, it could not determine who was at fault. It confirmed that it had issued warning letters to both parties, reminding them of their tenancy obligations and the need to maintain a safe and respectful environment.
29. The landlord closed the ASB case in line with its policy, which allows case closure when no further action is possible or supported by evidence. The closure decision and the issuing of final warnings were proportionate and reasonable.
30. In her escalation request of 2 August 2024, the resident expressed that she wanted the landlord to move her neighbour to a different property.
31. In its stage 2 response of 13 August 2024, the landlord maintained its stage 1 decision not to uphold the case. It reiterated the actions it completed at stage 1 and its stance on relocating residents.
32. Regarding the parking issue the landlord stated it had contacted all residents about using their designated parking spots following the resident’s reports of not always having access to her own space. It promised to send further letters reiterating this. It also offered to install a bollard in her space to prevent others from using it and suggested the possibility of swapping spaces, which she declined. It apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused by the situation and emphasised that the safety and wellbeing of its residents are paramount. It advised the resident to contact it if the situation did not improve.
33. The landlord’s stage 1 response was detailed and empathetic. It explained the steps already taken, set out next actions, and clearly stated the landlord’s policy against relocating residents due to ASB complaints.
34. The stage 2 decision, reviewed all previous actions, confirmed the offer to install a bollard, and acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction. It restated that moving the neighbour was not appropriate given the lack of evidence and the landlord’s preventative ASB strategy.
35. Although the resident claimed that the landlord did not provide certain promised items (such as the HPU letter), the landlord did not provide evidence to confirm or refute this. This lack of documentation is a minor administrative shortfall, but it did not significantly affect the outcome of the case.
36. In conclusion, the landlord responded to the resident’s ASB reports with a detailed action plan, timely engagement with police, appropriate case management, and practical attempts to resolve the parking issues. Its decision not to relocate the neighbour was in line with its policy, and it made reasonable efforts to support both parties while remaining impartial.
37. While we appreciate that the situation would have been distressing for the resident, the landlord demonstrated that it followed its ASB policy and procedure in investigating the report of ASB. It also appropriately showed that it had investigated all the resident’s concerns. Its responses were appropriate and we, therefore, find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Determination

38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.

Recommendations

39. It is recommended that the landlord completes the following actions:
    1. Inspect the parking area to ensure the resident has unobstructed access to her bay.
    2. Considers installing CCTV to deter misuse of the bay and support enforcement when needed.