London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202346332)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346332

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 August 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:
1. The resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a two-bedroom ground floor flat under an assured tenancy agreement that began on 9 July 2001. The property is a converted house. The landlord’s computerised records system states the resident had a stroke which affects her memory and mobility.
The resident explained that the noise nuisance from her neighbour, who lives in the flat above her, began in or around 2021. During this time there was an incident where the resident alleged the neighbour’s children had kicked her door and the police had been called. The resident has reported various incidents of ASB between 2021 and February 2024. This related to noise nuisance, including thumping and banging in the upstairs flat and using the washing machine at unreasonable hours of the night.
On 15 March 2024, the resident raised a complaint. She said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of noise from her neighbour and asked for it to be resolved. She also asked to be transferred to a more suitable property for her medical conditions. On 26 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. it had investigated the resident’s concerns and established that the property above was experiencing a repair issue with the floorboards which was generating “significant” noise.
2. it scheduled a carpenter to replace the floorboards on 19 April 2024.
3. it provided an action plan which included the replacement of the floorboards and that it would conduct a sound test after this to see if the issue had been resolved.
4. it noted the resident had been accepted for a management transfer based on her medical needs.
5. it offered the resident a discretionary offer of £40 for her time and effort.
On 29 April 2024, the resident escalated her complaint because the noise issues remained unresolved which meant her living conditions were not suitable for her medical needs. She explained this was because the noise was impacting her ability to sleep. She also expressed that she wanted to be rehoused.
On 17 May 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It recognised it had failed to provide the resident with updates or consider her vulnerabilities. It also said it had contacted the neighbour to explain how to minimise noise while waiting for the floorboards to be replaced. After this, it said it would investigate further if the noise continued.
The resident subsequently brought her complaint to the service as she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. Although the landlord closed the resident’s ASB case in July 2024, she told the Ombudsman the noise from her neighbour was unresolved at the time of writing this report. She was also unable to confirm that the floorboards had been replaced. The resident explained she would like her landlord to stop the noise nuisance.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident explained the noise nuisance dated back to 2021. This relates to a history of loud noises during anti-social hours coming from the neighbour as well as an incident where her door was damaged.
Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states, however:
“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.”
The Ombudsman expects residents to raise complaints with their landlords within 12 months of issues arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider specific issues while they are still ‘live,’ and while evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. In light of this, the investigation will only look as far back as March 2023, which is 12 months before the resident’s formal complaint in March 2024.

Noise nuisance

It is not part of the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether someone has or has not committed noise nuisance. It is our role to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations and industry best practice and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances.
In line with its antisocial behaviour policy, the landlord has an obligation to investigate reports of noise nuisance and respond appropriately. As such, the landlord would have been expected to investigate the resident’s reports and take reasonable steps to resolve the noise issues.
When the resident made her initial report in July 2023, she said her neighbour was moving furniture and had the washing machine on during the night which was keeping her awake. The landlord responded by opening an ASB case and asking the resident to use a noise app to record the incidents. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted in accordance with its policy because it took the resident’s reports seriously and gave the resident the tools to record the noise incidents so that it could investigate the matter further.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will treat those affected “sympathetically and sensitively, keep in regular contact with the complainant, and seek to identify any vulnerabilities or support needs and adjust [its] approach, as necessary.”
The resident later said she was unable to use the noise app because of her vulnerabilities. There is no evidence the landlord was made aware of this until January 2024. When the landlord was made aware, it discussed the use of diary sheets as an alternative. The landlord also explained the resident could call the council’s noise team to record the nuisance. The evidence shows the landlord tried to provide the resident with different alternatives to help her report the incidents which was appropriate in the circumstances.
While the landlord was unaware of the resident’s difficulties in using the noise app to record incidents between July 2023 and January 2024, the resident made two calls to the landlord in September 2023 to request an update on the case. There is no evidence these were actioned by the landlord. The Ombudsman considers the landlord did not keep in regular contact with the resident between July 2023 and September 2023. This was a missed opportunity to identify any barriers the resident was experiencing in gathering evidence.
In October 2023, the resident reported shouting and the sound of physical violence from the neighbour’s flat. When the landlord responded it asked her to use the noise app or diary sheets to record incidents, or to call the council’s noise team. There is no evidence the resident told the landlord she was having any difficulties with recording incidents at this time or that she had called the council’s noise team. The landlord’s response was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord states that as part of its approach to ASB, it will take “prompt, appropriate and decisive action to prevent the problem from escalating, for example by sending warning letters, using mediation and acceptable behaviour contracts. If necessary, legal enforcement action will be considered.”
In response to the resident’s report in October 2023, the landlord spoke with the neighbour to confirm who was occupying the property. The Ombudsman notes there are no details about this meeting. This is evidence of poor record-keeping because the Ombudsman would have expected to see details of what was discussed during this meeting and any actions that had been recorded. The landlord also contacted the resident the day after her report and said that an appointment had been made for 8 December 2023 to replace the neighbour’s “squeaky” floorboards. It explained the neighbour had carpets and it could not treat “normal living noises” as ASB.
For the landlord to take appropriate action, it needed to review the evidence it had before it. The Ombudsman notes there was an absence of any evidence from the resident about the level of noise nuisance.
Based on the types of noise being reported and the conclusions that had been made regarding the floorboards, the landlord was entitled to conclude that the noise from the floorboards was not ASB. Its ASB policy makes a distinction between household noise and noise nuisance. The ASB policy states: “Residents must acknowledge that day-to-day activities cannot be avoided and, whilst the behaviour of another resident is frustrating, it is not reasonable to place restrictions on their usual enjoyment of their home.”
The landlord continued to keep an open ASB case for the resident. This was appropriate in the circumstances because the resident explained that she felt the incidents were deliberate and impacting her sleep. This demonstrated the landlord intended to monitor whether the repair issues would resolve the issue.
There is no evidence the resident made any further reports between 5 October 2023 and 6 January 2024. There is also no evidence the landlord contacted the resident about the ASB case during this time. Given the ASB case remained open, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have reviewed the case and updated the resident on the progress of the repairs to the floorboards which it had implied was the source of the noise transference. This was a failure to communicate regularly with the resident in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy.
The landlord called the resident on 7 January 2024 following a report she made to the customer services team around the same time. The notes indicate the resident put the phone down before the landlord could speak to her. The landlord followed up with an email which explained the previous ASB cases had been closed because there was no evidence to support her allegations. It asked the resident to provide any crime reference numbers she had so it could investigate further. It also said if the resident did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour it would have no option but to close the case.
The Ombudsman considers that for the landlord to carry out a thorough investigation into the resident’s reports it required evidence from the resident about the noise. It also required engagement from the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord acted reasonably by trying to encourage the resident’s engagement and to manage her expectations about what it could do in the circumstances.
In February 2024, the resident made another report of loud banging, items being dragged along the floor and noise late at night. The evidence shows the police attended during this incident, following a call from the neighbour reporting the resident was banging on her ceiling. The landlord called the resident the same day to discuss the report. It said:
1. it would write to the resident to explain the case was not ASB as it was normal living noise.
2. it would investigate the “creaking” floorboards.
3. the resident should call the council’s noise team to make reports if she was unable to record the noise using the noise app.
4. it wanted to complete a joint visit with the council to conduct a subjective noise test to see “how she was faring” as she had not engaged with contractors and staff, and she had refused a former welfare check.
5. it asked if the resident was being supported by social services. The resident explained she did but did not know the contact details.
The evidence shows the landlord had a counter-report from the resident’s neighbour and tried to call them to discuss this. It is unclear if this was successful based on the evidence provided. This was evidence of poor record-keeping because the Ombudsman would have expected to see details of the landlord’s discussions with the neighbour or confirmation it had been unsuccessful in its attempts to contact them.
The landlord also contacted social services to confirm if the resident had support. There is evidence the landlord acted as a third party to try and arrange further support for the resident with social services in March 2024. The Ombudsman considers the landlord acted on its concerns about the resident’s lack of engagement, made enquiries into the support available to her, and tried to arrange this. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord tried to call the resident again on 8 March 2024 to discuss the ASB case but was unable to reach her. The notes state that the landlord intended to close the case as the resident had not responded to several calls and emails. However, the case remained open during this time.
When the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process in March 2024, it said that it had investigated the resident’s reports and found the flat above was experiencing repair issues with the floorboards generating “significant” noise into the resident’s property. The landlord said the floorboards were due to be replaced on 19 April 2024. It also gave the resident an action plan which included the floorboard replacement and that following this a sound test would be completed.
Given the resident explained that she felt the noise from her neighbour was deliberate, the Ombudsman considers it was a reasonable response for the landlord to keep the ASB case open. This enabled it to monitor the resident’s reports following the completion of the floorboard replacement.
On 16 April 2024, the landlord received another report from the resident regarding the washing machine being on during the night and in the early hours of the morning. She explained this was impacting her mental health. The council also contacted the landlord to explain the resident had called its out-of-hours service on 30 April 2024, to report excessive vibration in her home from the neighbour’s washing machine. The council advised the resident to report this to her landlord, however, if the noise carried on after 10pm it would consider conducting a home visit. The landlord responded by taking the resident’s report and logging it on its system. It also spoke with the resident’s son about the noise at her request.
The records during this time did not indicate the landlord gave an update on its investigation to the resident. Given the noise issues were ongoing for the resident, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have reviewed its progress against the action plan it gave the resident in March 2024 and provided the resident with an update on the flooring and the noise test. This was a failure to communicate with the resident.
During May 2024, the resident made a further report about being stressed at the property because of the constant noise throughout the day and night. She said the council had conducted a home visit at 1am but the neighbour had gone quiet. The landlord said it would escalate the resident’s case to the area housing manager. As a result, the landlord’s records indicate that there was a discussion over the resident’s vulnerability and what measures were in place to deal with the ASB case. It was recorded that the appointment for the floorboards was cancelled on 19 April 2024 due to operative availability. The landlord tried to expedite a further appointment, but the neighbour was unavailable.
The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord attempted to update the resident on the failed appointment in April 2024 or its efforts to re-arrange this. This was poor communication which could have mitigated the resident’s concerns and demonstrated it was monitoring its obligations set out in the action plan. The landlord acknowledged during the complaints process that it had not provided regular updates to the resident and offered her £40 for her time and effort. This was reasonable in the circumstances because the landlord tried to put things right.
In addition, the evidence shows the landlord said it had spoken with the neighbour because of the resident’s concerns over the use of the washing machine during anti-social hours. The landlord said the neighbour had denied the resident’s allegations. While the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to speak with the neighbour about the noise allegations, there was no evidence of what the landlord discussed with the neighbour. The Ombudsman would have expected further details such as a contemporaneous note explaining what was discussed and how this may have impacted the landlord’s investigation of the matter. This was evidence of poor record-keeping.
The landlord emailed the resident in May 2024 to arrange a visit to carry out the subjective noise test. This was 3 months after the landlord’s initial suggestion that it would carry out a noise test. There is no evidence the landlord had followed up on this action before this email. This was an unreasonable delay in progressing the actions it said it would take to continue its investigation.
On the day of the visit, the resident cancelled the appointment as she felt unwell. This was outside of the landlord’s control. Following this, the landlord did not take steps to re-arrange a visit for the subjective noise test. This was a failure by the landlord to monitor and follow up on the outstanding actions it said it would complete as part of its action plan.
The landlord also asked the resident in May 2024 to provide any crime reference numbers she had and confirmed the floorboards were due to be resolved on 28 May 2024. This was reasonable because the landlord provided an update and asked for further evidence from the resident to continue investigating the resident’s concerns.
The landlord also referred the resident to the noise app and sent her diary sheets. Given the landlord was aware that these methods of recording the incidents did not work for the resident in January 2024, it is unclear why it asked her to do this again. It would have been appropriate to see if there were alternative approaches it could take to support the resident in making her reports, for example, by telephone. The Ombudsman considers the landlord missed an opportunity to consider how it could support the resident further based on her vulnerabilities. However, the landlord acknowledged this as part of the complaints process by apologising and offering her £30 compensation. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 3 occasions during June 2024 to discuss the ASB. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It also said it had sent her a letter which it wanted to discuss with her. A copy of this letter was not provided to the Ombudsman. This was evidence of poor record-keeping. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have provided us with all its correspondence with the resident.
The landlord later asked the resident’s outreach worker to provide the crime reference numbers it had asked for in May 2024. Once received, the landlord requested a police disclosure. The disclosure noted the nature of the noise meant they could not take further action and they had signposted the resident to the council for support. This was in line with its ASB policy which states it will take a multi-agency approach to investigate allegations of ASB.
In June 2024, the resident reported more disturbances caused by her neighbour stomping on the floor, dropping heavy items, kicking the ceiling, and the constant sound of the washing machine. When the landlord tried to call the resident to discuss her report, it said she put the phone down before it could speak to her. The landlord sent a follow-up email to explain it would investigate the resident’s reports.
The evidence shows the resident was reluctant at this time to allow the landlord to speak with her neighbour about the noise incidents because she wanted to remain anonymous. The resident said she felt intimidated because she felt the neighbour’s children were violent, and she did not want any trouble. Although the landlord’s ASB policy states it accepts anonymous reports, it would have been clear where the reports originated from. While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident, to address the resident’s reports the landlord needed to make the neighbour aware of the allegations against them. As the resident did not want this to happen, it is unclear what the landlord could have reasonably done in the circumstances.
On 9 July 2024, the landlord closed the resident’s ASB case and sent her a closure letter. The resident indicated to the Ombudsman that she was uncertain where she stood with the case and whether it was open. The landlord did not give the Ombudsman a copy of this letter or the reasons for closing the resident’s ASB case. As a result, the Ombudsman is unable to verify the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy when closing the case. This was evidence of poor record-keeping.
At the time of writing this report, the resident said she was still experiencing noise nuisance from her neighbour. She also said she did not know if the landlord had replaced the neighbour’s floorboards.
There was no evidence provided to the Ombudsman that the landlord had replaced the neighbour’s floorboards, despite this allegedly being the main cause of the nuisance. Given the landlord provided several dates for this to take place, it had also failed to communicate any delays it had experienced to the resident. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide evidence of completing a sound test after the floorboards were due for replacement. This meant the Ombudsman was unable to verify the landlord had completed all the actions in the action plan before closing the case. This was inappropriate and evidence of poor record-keeping.
The Ombudsman considers that residents must acknowledge that day-to-day noise or minor disturbances cannot be avoided and that while the behaviour of another family can be frustrating, it is not reasonable for the landlord to place restrictions on the usual enjoyment of their home. Nonetheless, there were failures by the landlord which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. As a result, there was maladministration with the landlord’s overall handling of this element of the complaint because:
1. the landlord failed to provide all the correspondence it had with the resident and the neighbour including letters and contemporaneous notes of discussions with both parties.
2. the Ombudsman was unable to verify the landlord had completed all the actions in the action plan before closing the ASB case.
3. the Ombudsman was unable to verify the landlord acted in accordance with its ASB policy when it closed the case due to poor record keeping.

Complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) states landlords must respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint on 15 March 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 March 2024. This was 7 working days later. The landlord’s response time was reasonable and in line with the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 29 April 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 May 2024. This was 19 working days later. The landlord’s response time was reasonable and in line with the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that it recognised it had not considered the resident’s vulnerabilities as part of its approach, apologised, and offered her £30 in recognition of this. In addition, the landlord’s stage 2 response recognised it had failed to provide updates to the resident. The landlord also offered the resident £70 for its complaint handling and the time and effort of the resident in getting the complaint resolved. This was reasonable in the circumstances because the landlord acknowledged its failures and tried to put things right.
When the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failures, it did not explain which steps it intended to take to prevent the failures from reoccurring. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have explained any wider learning it had taken from the complaint to improve its service provision for the resident. Although this was a missed opportunity, there was no adverse impact on the resident in relation to this.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint because it recognised its failures and tried to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the noise nuisance.
3. The landlord must contact the resident to establish whether she is still affected by the noise.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that:
1. the landlord pays the resident the £100 it offered during the complaint procedure if it has not already.
2. the landlord considers providing refresher training to relevant colleagues about its expectations around record-keeping for ASB cases. This is to ensure that all important information relating to the actions it has taken when investigating ASB is captured.