London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202339743)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339743

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

Final 11 June 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.

Our approach

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a noise nuisance.
2. Request for triple glazing.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been assessed.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom maisonette. Her tenancy began on 30 April 2001. The property had single glazed, wooden sash windows at the time of the complaint.
The resident has made the landlord and this Service aware of her vulnerabilities. She had recently had treatment for cancer at the time of her complaint and lives with a mental health condition.
The resident complaint to her landlord on 5 December 2023. She told the landlord that:
1. She had recently undergone a year of cancer treatment and described herself as severely bipolar.
2. She had told it more than 15 years ago of the noise disturbance from the pub opposite her house. She described how the television in her lounge becomes almost inaudible due to the voices and music coming from the pub. She said that the landlord had done nothing about it, and she had been too ill to follow it up.
3. She believed the noise had affected her health and that she could provide supporting letters from health professionals in relation to this.
4. Its approach to her request for triple glazed windows to alleviate the noise issue was not empathetic. She said it had listened to her at first but then told her that double glazing was the only option.
5. On 29 November 2023 its window replacement contractor told her that it was “very possible” to have triple glazing installed but would require approval. She said she was informed the cost difference would be approximately £500, which she thought was affordable considering the noise she had endured over the period she had lived at the property.
6. The operative that visited that day conducted an air test and confirmed that her flat was “freezing” due to the draught from the windows.
7. After being told about the upcoming window replacement she felt that she could not go through the stress of the replacement unless triple glazing was offered to resolve the noise issue. Although she recognised replacements were needed it would be too stressful for it to be installed without alleviating the noise issue.
The landlord tried to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 5 December 2023 by telephone, it noted there was no answer. It issued its acknowledgement and response in the same letter on 18 December 2023. In summary:
1. It said it was sorry it had not been able to speak with her on 17 December 2023.
2. It said it understood her complaint to be about her request to install triple glazed windows to help with street noise.
3. It said it had read the resident’s concerns and understood that she had “several major health issues”.
4. It said it understood that she was affected by the noise from the pub directly opposite her home.
5. It confirmed that she had single-glazed wood framed windows at the time of the complaint and that new double-glazed UPVC windows were due to be fitted.
6. It said there was not an option for the windows to be changed to triple glazed and that it did not uphold her complaint.
7. It said that she should experience a “significant reduction” in the draught and noise once the double glazing had been fitted.
8. It offered a £20 payment for the complaint handling delay.

j. It said that the contractor would be in touch to arrange window installation and that it recommended she allowed access for the windows to be fitted in line with her tenancy agreement.

On 9 February 2023 the resident escalated the complaint. In summary:
1. The resident said that although the landlord had noted her health issues, it had ignored them.
2. She believed it had not properly considered her request for triple glazing.
3. She believed that she would continue to experience significant noise issues if her home was fitted with double glazing.
4. She reminded the landlord that she had told it about the noise problem 20 years ago and that it had done nothing about it, after being assured by them that they would act.
5. She provided a supporting letter from her mental health professional regarding the detrimental effect on her.
6. She did not think the double glazing was sufficient for the exceptional circumstances she was in.
7. She had not received the £20 compensation offered.

The landlord acknowledged the escalation the same day.

In March 2024, before the issue of the stage 2 response the landlord made internal enquiries regarding the possibility of triple glazing for the resident. The landlord concluded that it was not able to fit triple glazed windows.
On 19 March 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary:
1. It said it understood that the resident escalated the complaint on 15 March 2023 as she was not happy with the stage 1 response.
2. It said it reviewed the complaint and spoke with the departments involved.
3. It said it understood that she had requested triple glazing rather than the double glazed that had been planned, due to street and pub noise.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had health needs.
5. It said it understood her to be severely affected by the noise from the pub directly opposite her property.
6. It said it would be renewing her single glazed wooden windows with double glazed UPVC as per its “standard specification”.
7. It reiterated that it could not install triple glazing.
8. It told the resident that she would experience a significant reduction in both the draft and the noise at the property and that it would fit the windows before the end of the financial year.
By July 2024 the windows had not been fitted. The resident had expressed to this Service that she did not want them fitted while she was in the process of requesting for them to be triple glazed, or during any winter months due to the issue with cold during the works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of report

The resident has said that the issues raised have had a negative effect on her health. The Ombudsman acknowledges these comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on whether these matters are better suited to a court ruling or a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
The resident has been experiencing issues with noise for a number of years, however we are unable to award compensation based on the last 20 years. This is because in accordance with paragraph 42c, the Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
It should be noted that this Service will investigate the landlord’s handling of the noise reports made by the resident, not the noise itself.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a noise nuisance.

The landlord’s ASB guidance says that it does not consider loud music or groups making noise to be antisocial behaviour. However, it does say that the noise must occur regularly and continue over a time to be considered a nuisance.
The information provided shows that the resident said she had been reporting a noise issue to her landlord for over a decade. The description of the noise issue by the resident suggests that the noise concern may have been a statutory noise issue which may have needed investigating and referring to the local authority. This is because she described the noise substantially interfering with the enjoyment of her home and potentially affecting her health.
The resident provided a detailed description of the noise nuisance and provided supporting letters from health professionals involved in her care about the impact the noise was having on her wellbeing.
Throughout her complaint, the resident continued to report how the noise was impacting her health and how the medical professionals supporting her had confirmed the noise issue was detrimental to her health. The landlord recorded this information but did not act upon it. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns or signpost her to appropriate agencies. No acknowledgement of her distress was made or attempt to reassure her via an action plan or suggested timescale of investigation/resolution. This was not a reasonable response in the circumstances.
The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that the resident had health concerns, but it made no consideration of how the noise may have been exacerbating her conditions or how it was impacting on her enjoyment of her home. It did not consider how the longevity of the issue had been impacting the resident either. It was a failing of the landlord not to have considered how the noise had impacted the resident and it did not properly consider her health conditions in its assessment. The lack of consideration negatively affected the resident and the landlord’s ability to respond appropriately. Landlords should ensure resident’s vulnerabilities are considered to ensure responses are appropriate in the circumstances.
The Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Noise Complaints” report, highlights that it is not always appropriate to investigate noise complaints through a landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy. Noise complaints often require a tailored approach that is appropriate to the circumstances of each complaint. While the landlord appears not to have used its ASB guidance to manage this case, it is not clear which policy or guidance it had used. There was a lack of management and direction in handling the complaint due to the lack of adherence with its own policies. This was not an appropriate response.
Given the length of time and repeated nature of the noise issue, the landlord should have recognised that the issue should have been considered under its ASB guidance. In line with this, it would have triggered an investigation within 3 days and an action plan would have been agreed or the case would have been closed if no further action was appropriate.
The lack of investigation and action plan led the resident to complain as she continued to endure the noise nuisance and no action had been taken to help to resolve the issue.
The landlord had sufficient information to trigger an investigation and consider involving third party agencies such as the Environmental Health team at the local authority. However, there is no evidence of an investigation, action plan or any evidence that the landlord considered contacting relevant third party agencies. This was a failing. The landlord should have used its policy to address the noise complaint and consider all options available to it in addressing the impact upon the resident.
It is acknowledged that the circumstances of this case are complex and unique. This Service understands that other than informal communications, the landlord has no direct powers to control the noise coming from the pub. However, given what the landlord knew about the resident’s vulnerabilities it could have considered what options were open to it to support the resident and informed her of any actions it could take and any limitations. The landlord should have demonstrated a greater responsibility in handling the noise complaint and its failure to identify options, caused the resident further distress.
Furthermore, the landlord should have informed the resident of any challenges with the noise management and set out that she may continue to experience issues while it undertook investigations. This may have reassured the resident that the landlord had taken her reports seriously and made her feel heard. There is limited evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date or set out expectations relating to the investigations.
Overall, there was a lack of clear communication with the resident in relation to the noise complaint. This was demonstrated by the resident’s escalation and the repeated issues from stage 1 that had not been answered or resolved. The failure in communication and the identification of the main issues impacted the landlord resident relationship negatively.
The events complained about caused evident distress and frustration to the resident. The landlord’s failure to respond to the reports of noise or provide her with any additional advice and support was unreasonable and amounts to maladministration. The landlord should therefore pay compensation of £300. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance which says such sums are payable where there has been a significant impact on those affected.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for triple glazing.

The landlord’s corporate window replacement specifications, confirm that it will install double glazed 20mm thick sealed units, as part of any new window install. Its planned maintenance information booklet also confirms that new windows will be double glazed, with energy efficient glass.
As part of the complaint, the resident suggested her own solution to noise reduction. She requested that the landlord fitted triple glazed window units instead of double. This was suggested following the landlord informing the resident in October 2023 that it had sought planning permission to replace the windows.
The landlord told the resident in both its complaint responses that triple glazing was not an option. Its response was informed by enquiries it made internally in December 2023 about whether triple glazing was an option. It was appropriate that these enquiries were made, and shows the landlord was considering the residents request.
However, there is no evidence to show that these enquiries were responded too or followed up by the investigating officer. This was a failing and demonstrates that the landlord does not have a robust procedure in place to monitor its outstanding enquires.
This would have impacted the level of detail the landlord was able to provide within its complaint response. The lack of response to her full complaint would have left the resident feeling unsupported.
The landlord should consider reviewing its process for monitoring outstanding enquires, unless it has already done so since this complaint, with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website.)
The landlord was entitled to make an informed decision on what parts and/or replacement items it uses in relation to replacement windows and it is also reasonable for the landlord to reply upon the advice and/or recommendations of an appropriately qualified department, when making decisions about how it replaces items it has responsibility for.
While this may not have been what the resident has requested, the landlord must consider what is efficient and appropriate – both economically and fit-for-purpose.
Landlords should be clear with residents around what they are able to provide where planned works are queried, at the earliest opportunity. The landlord informed the resident with both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that it would not fit triple glazing, but that she could expect significant noise reduction from the double glazing. This was a fair and reasonable response from the landlord. However, its failure to follow up on internal enquires regarding the resident’s request amounts t o Service Failure.
In light of this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £75 compensation, which is in line with our remedies guidance which says such sums are payable where there has been a minor impact on those affected.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

A landlord’s complaint handling should aim to resolve issues quickly, effectively and fairly. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out what good complaint handling looks like and all landlords are expected to comply with this. The Code and further guidance are available on our website
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it operates a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working day and can be extended a further 10 working days. Stage 2 complaint will be responded to within 20 working days and can be extended a further 10 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 within 10 working days, therefore it is unclear why the landlord offered the resident £20 compensation for a complaint handling delay. It provided its stage 2 complaint response within 28 working days. While this was within its published timescales, it did not provide the resident with an update after 20 working days and inform her that it needed to extend the deadline. This was a failing and should have been acknowledged accordingly.
In addition to the above, this investigation has identified that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in full. The resident was clear within her communications that she was being affected by noise and the effect this was having on her. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments, it failed to provide her with any meaningful response and detail what it could do in relation to this aspect.
The Ombudsman is clear that effective dispute resolution requires a process designed to resolve complaints. Where something has gone wrong, or requires the landlord to take steps, a landlord should acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. It should also identify any learning to ensure the failings are not repeated.
The landlord’s failure to do this in relation to complaint about noise would have caused the resident additional and unnecessary frustration. In line with our remedies guidance as referenced above, we order the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation to reflect the impact on her.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the handling of the resident’s complaint about a noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the handling of the resident’s request for triple glazing.
In accordance with paragraph52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings in this case, recognising the impact that the resident experienced due to the landlord’s actions. The apology should come from the Senior Leadership Team. A copy of the letter should be given to this Service.
2. Pay the resident a total of £500 compensation (in addition to the £20 compensation already offered), made up of:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance.
  2. £75 for the failures identified with the handling of the resident’s request for triple glazing.
  3. £125 for the complaint handling failures.
3. Meet with the resident to discuss the noise issue. Where appropriate an investigation and action plan should be implemented if noise disturbances are ongoing. The landlord should provide this Service with a record of the meeting and any subsequent plans, which should show evidence of the consideration of the resident’s needs.
4. Identify its role in the resolution of the noise issue and adopt a multi-agency approach where necessary. Evidence of any necessary referrals or relevant signposting should be provided to this Service.
Arrange a date with the resident to install the new windows at the earliest opportunity, if these works have not been completed. The landlord should ensure that the works are completed in the shortest timeframe possible, with a little disruption to the resident as possible.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Review its staff’s training needs with regard to record keeping, complaint handling and remedies, including in light of the findings of this report, the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, and our remedies guidance.
1. Arrange for staff who deal with complaints to review the Ombudsman’s learning hub and complete the e-learning modules on complaint handling.
2. Consider implementing a noise policy and including an option in its planned maintenance policy to expedite works where it would negatively impact a resident to wait for the planned timescale of works.
It is further recommended that the landlord explore alternative options for providing the resident with appropriate support to allow the window replacement to be completed.