London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202413917)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413917

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 March 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:
   1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and concerns about staff conduct.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom, first-floor flat, owned by the landlord. She has mental health vulnerabilities, including PTSD, a history of self-harming and suicidal ideation. The landlord is aware of this.
3. The resident started reporting ASB around early 2022, citing excessive noise, verbal abuse, and property damage by her neighbour. Between September 2022 and June 2024, she reported multiple issues, including noise, which led to her sleeping in her car. She also reported neighbours throwing eggs at her door.
4. The resident complained on 11 June 2024, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB and inappropriate conduct by staff. She said she had received communication from the Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL) despite requesting to have no further contact from them.
5. In its stage 1 response of 6 September 2024 the landlord apologised for delays in addressing the resident’s complaints. It said it had taken various steps to investigate the ASB, including visiting the alleged perpetrator, offering mediation, and conducting sound tests which found only household noise. Based on these findings, there was insufficient evidence for it to take legal action. However, it agreed to conduct a new risk assessment and referred the case to the Local Authority Community Safety ASB Forum for extra support​. It acknowledged the distress caused by its staff and said it would investigate the sharing of her personal information internally. It offered £220 in compensation.
6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response as she felt it had not adequately addressed her concerns. She requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of its process on 8 November 2024.
7. In its Stage 2 response of 22 November 2024, the landlord acknowledged poor communication and administrative errors in managing the ASB case. It agreed to organise a home visit and raised works to install carpets to reduce noise from the neighbour. It said it would investigate her reports that the NHL shared her personal information with its contractors. It said it had offered to help her move but she was not keen. However, this offer would remain available. It awarded an additional £420 compensation on top of its stage 1 offer of £220, bringing the total to £640.
8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. She wants it to permanently resolve the ASB, as she said it is causing her distress and affecting her health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her 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.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and staff conduct concerns.

10. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will take prompt and decisive action to tackle ASB. It will review all reported incidents and will consider the risk in each case. It then assigns a priority to the case ahead of further action.
11. The policy says the landlord will record as ASB noise that is “persistent, deliberate or targeted.” However, it would not consider daily living noise as ASB. It states when considering what is and is not ASB, it will consider vulnerabilities or other issues facing the resident which may make it more difficult for them to resolve the issue without support. If vulnerabilities are present, it will adjust its approach, as necessary. When managing an ASB case it will:
    1. Keep in regular contact with the resident.
    2. Follow safeguarding procedures.
    3. Provide support and advice including supporting to gather evidence.
    4. Agree an action plan.
    5. Use remedies available including warning letters, offer mediation, use acceptable behaviour contracts, or take legal action based on the nature of the ASB.
12. Under the landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy, it will identify any vulnerabilities a resident might have and their needs. It will tailor its services to the unique needs of its residents.
13. The landlord’s records show the resident started reporting ASB from her neighbour in August 2022. It sent a warning letter to her neighbour and offered mediation on 9 September 2022, which the resident declined due to PTSD. It initially took reasonable steps to address her concerns, in line with its policy.
14. On 9 January 2023 the resident shared noise recordings with the landlord. She said her mental health was deteriorating and requested an action plan and safeguarding referral. Its legal team reviewed the recordings on 17 January 2023 but could not confirm the noise source. The legal team suggested she fill out diary sheets and that it should consult environmental health about installing noise recording equipment. It showed good practice in consulting its legal team. However, it failed to communicate effectively with her about how it would investigate and did not act promptly on her request for a safeguarding referral.
15. The landlord conducted a safeguarding meeting on 29 March 2023. During this, it suggested that she could move to a void bungalow. On 17 May 2023 it told her that there was a misunderstanding about this offer. It apologised and said it would help her find other accommodation in her preferred area. It showed good practice in acknowledging its error, but it is important to note that this caused upset to the resident.
16. On 15 September and 19 October 2023, the resident told the landlord that she was sleeping in her car, had attempted suicide, and was self-harming due to the ASB. She reported experiencing verbal abuse, drug paraphernalia entering her flat from the neighbours flat above, and she described the noise as unbearable. She voiced her distress and said it had ignored her concerns for two years.
17. Despite the resident’s reports of severe distress there is no evidence that the landlord completed a comprehensive risk assessment or offered support to her during this critical time.​ This failure meant it did not identify her vulnerabilities in a structured way, which impacted its ability to provide appropriate support.
18. On 1 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, expressing concern about the lack of communication, especially after disclosing her suicide attempt. It promised to contact her. She sent follow-up emails on 2 and 3 November 2023, urgently requesting contact about her ongoing ASB reports. Its promise to have someone reach out lacked urgency, given the severity of the situation. This was a failing and not in line with its ASB or vulnerable user policy.
19. The landlord informed the resident about a home visit to the neighbour’s house on 22 November 2023 and said they denied the allegations. It said that it would install noise recording device in her home to capture the noise. However, these actions were reactive, and it continued to lack a proactive approach towards the issues.
20. The landlord installed noise recording equipment on 7 December 2023. It outlined its action plan to the resident, which included conducting sound tests at both properties, gathering witness statements, and asking Environmental Health to investigate sound levels. It promised to update her with the results of the tests, the witness statement meeting, and the next steps in the ASB investigation. These actions were reasonable and in line with its relevant policies. However, this was almost 11 months from when she began to regularly report ASB in January 2023. As it was aware of her vulnerabilities, it should have been more proactive in managing her concerns.
21. On 2 February 2024 the landlord informed the resident it had completed a second sound test to assess the noise transference between both homes. It found that the noise was typical everyday sounds. It said her neighbour had agreed to install a carpet, rugs, and cabinet bumpers to reduce noise. Her neighbour also agreed to mediation. It asked if she would consider this. It scheduled a case review meeting for 6 February 2024 and committed to updating her with the outcome of this. Additionally, it asked that she continue filling out the new diary sheets.
22. The landlord’s records show it contacted environmental health 3 times between 8 February and 13 March 2024 to chase their response to the resident’s ASB diary entries, but they confirmed she had not sent any completed diary sheets so they could not progress her noise reports. Its actions were reasonable, however, as per its vulnerable user policy, it should have asked the resident if she needed support in completing the noise sheets. Also, it may have explored other avenues of recording the noise as she told it she could not use the recording equipment for health reasons.
23. The resident contacted the landlord on 18 and 19 March 2024, reporting more ASB, and she said this was severely affecting her mental health. She asked it to take immediate action. It responded on 22 March 2024 asking her to confirm her availability for a further home visit and for her permission to contact her GP to seek further support for her. It was reasonable to offer a further visit and look to involve medical professionals, however as stated above, it would have been good practice to offer extra support earlier in the process.
24. On 3 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord, informing it that she felt very distressed after a conversation with the Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL). She requested not to have further contact with the NHL. She reported continued noise disturbance and said she did not feel heard or supported by it. She said the situation was making her mental health worse. It acknowledged her concerns about the ongoing ASB on 8 April 2024. It said it would reassign her case to a new case manager within its specialist ASB team who would contact her, and that the NHL would no longer handle her case.
25. On 15 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that she was unhappy the NHL contacted her again, despite her request for them not to. She reported ongoing ASB and felt it had not done enough to resolve the issue. She disagreed that the noise was everyday living noise and said she would send additional evidence of the disturbances. She reported that no one from the ASB team had reached out to her as promised, which frustrated her and supported her feeling that it lacked concern.
26. The landlord replied to the resident on 10 May 2024. It apologised for the lack of communication from the ASB team. It said it would ensure the case worker contacted her urgently to address her concerns. It also apologised for the email she received from the NHL and explained that the intent was to summarise past communications, close their involvement, and ensure they updated her case before handing it over.
27. It is understandable that the resident would have been upset after receiving communication from the NHL after the landlord assured her there would be no further communication from them. It should have taken adequate steps to ensure this was the case. Its actions reflect lack of sensitivity and consideration of her vulnerabilities, and it did not adhere to its policy of adjusting its approach to support vulnerable residents.
28. The resident’s GP sent a letter to the landlord on 13 May 2024, requesting immediate housing support for her. The GP explained she had attempted overdoses and often slept in her car to find safety. They were worried about the risk of her potentially harming herself if it did not address the situation urgently. The GP shared her medical records and asked the landlord to take decisive action to urgently resolve the matter.
29. The resident contacted the landlord’s CEO on 20 May 2024, informing them of the ongoing ASB, her deteriorating mental state, and its failure to resolve the issues. She asked the CEO to help resolve the ASB reports. On receiving this further communication from the resident and her GP, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not take urgent steps to resolve the issue, such as arranging an immediate safeguarding referral. However, it did not respond to either letter. Instead on 10 June 2024, the NHL informed the resident that it had closed her ASB case. By sending the case closure letter to the resident, the landlord’s NHL further ignored her request to limit contact. Furthermore, its ASB team did not contact her as promised on 8 April 2024, before closing the case.
30. The landlord’s actions were not in line with its ASB case closure policy which states:
    1. It will not close cases if the complainant remains at risk or the issue persists.
    2. It will conduct a risk assessment before closing a case, particularly in cases where the resident has reported vulnerabilities.
    3. It will keep the resident informed and maintain communication.
31. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 June 2024, stating she was unhappy about its response to her ASB reports and the conduct of its NHL. She contacted it again at least 4 times between 20 June 2024 and 6 September 2024, informing it of continued ASB, her declining mental health, and requesting contact from its ASB team. On 29 July 2024, she told it that its NHL had shared her medical details with contractors working in the property. She said this had triggered her and caused her more upset.
32. The resident received little to no communication from the landlord after it acknowledged her complaint on 13 June 2024 until its stage 1 response of 6 September 2024. A period of almost 3 months. This lack of communication was a significant failing, especially given that it was aware of her vulnerabilities.
33. In its stage 1 response on 6 September 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay in addressing the resident’s complaints, citing administrative errors that hindered engagement from the ASB case worker. It noted that she could not use the noise recording device due to health issues, leading to insufficient evidence for legal action against the neighbour. It planned to support the neighbour in reducing noise transfer, conduct a new risk assessment, and refer the case to the Local Authority Community Safety ASB Forum for extra support. It said that it had addressed all other non-noise related ASB issues with the neighbour and encouraged her to report any further concerns. Regarding the staff conduct complaint, the landlord confirmed that the NHL would no longer manage the resident’s ASB case, and it would investigate the allegation of sharing personal medical information. It explained that the NHL was unaware of the no contact agreement when sending correspondence on 8 April 2024 and had decided to send out the case closure information on 10 June 2024, because they wanted to prevent delays while other staff were on leave.
34. The landlord apologised for any distress caused and offered £220 in compensation, comprising £160 for the complaint response delay (considered below in our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling) and £60 for distress and inconvenience.
35. The resident continued to chase the landlord for update on her case. On 23 September 2024, she informed it that it had been 20 weeks since it said someone from the ASB team would contact her and she still had not received any contact. She reported more noise and other ASB from her neighbour, including them throwing rubbish into her flat. She reminded it of her vulnerability and said her health was deteriorating.
36. There is no evidence showing that the landlord referred the case to the Local Authority Community Safety ASB Forum or provided the outcome of any referral if it occurred. Additionally, there is no evidence that it completed the risk assessment it mentioned in its stage 1 response. Furthermore, there is no record of any communication between the landlord and the resident, nor any contact from a specialist in the ASB team between its stage 1 response and her escalation request of 8 November 2024.
37. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated its previous actions to address the ASB reports as outlined in its stage 1 response. It noted that it had offered her a different property, which she rejected because it was a seventh floor flat far from her support network. However, it mentioned it could help with a mutual exchange if she was interested.
38. The landlord planned a home visit with the new ASB Case Worker to discuss the resident’s concerns and raised a work order for the neighbour to install carpet to reduce noise. It encouraged her to keep logging incidents and assured her that the ASB case worker would arrange regular check-ins. It apologised for its poor communication and the distress caused, emphasising its commitment to her well-being. It offered total compensation of £640, comprising:
    1. £360 from its previous compensation offer.
    2. £60 for distress due to failures related to vulnerabilities.
    3. £60 for inconvenience due to failures related to vulnerabilities.
    4. £60 for time and effort spent resolving the complaint.
    5. £100 for poor complaint handling.
39. It is unclear how the landlord arrived at the £360 previous compensation offer as the amount offered at stage 1 was £220. However, we have split the £640 compensation as £260 for complaint handling failures and £380 for distress and inconvenience.
40. The landlord acted reasonably in some areas of this case. It engaged with environmental health, suggested involving an independent specialist to monitor noise, sent warning letters to the neighbour, and offered mediation. It also offered to help the resident in moving to a different property, and it provided an explanation and apology regarding the staff conduct complaint. However, despite these actions, there were multiple failings in its overall handling of the case
41. In conclusion, the landlord failed to adhere to key elements of its own ASB Policy and Vulnerable Residents Policy. These failings led to poor handling of the resident’s ASB case, significant delays, and gaps in communication. It made promises to conduct a risk assessment, follow safeguarding procedures, and assign an ASB caseworker, but these actions were either delayed or not completed. It therefore failed to put matters right for the resident. Furthermore, the compensation offered did not adequately address the long-term impact of its failings. The landlord’s actions therefore amounted to maladministration. As such, we will be making an order for increased compensation of £300 to reflect this. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situation such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint handling

42. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It some cases this can be extended by an additional 10 working days, but any extension will be agreed with the resident.
43. The resident complained on 11 June 2024, the landlord acknowledged the complaint in line with its policy. However, it did not issue a stage 1 response until 6 September 2024, almost 3 months from when she made the complaint. Furthermore, knowing she was vulnerable, it was unreasonable that it was not responsive in addressing her complaint. It did not request an extension or provide any updates about her complaint, leaving her to chase it for updates. Its actions were unreasonable and would have led the resident to believe it was not taking her complaints seriously, thereby leading to further unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
44. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay and offered £160 compensation for this. It also offered an additional £100 at stage 2, bringing its total compensation offer for complaint handling failures to £260. It was reasonable for it to acknowledge and offer compensation for this failing. Its compensation offer was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy which says it will offer compensation if it does not respond to or process a complaint within agreed response times.

Determination

45. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and staff conduct complaint.
46. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

47. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures detailed in this report.
    2. Complete a thorough ASB risk assessment with the resident. It must share the result of the risk assessment and any subsequent action plan to manage the ASB with the resident and this Service.
    3. Pay directly to the resident total compensation of £680 made up of:
       1. £380 previously offered in stage 2 if not already paid.
       2. Additional £150 for distress and inconvenience caused.
       3. Additional £150 for communication failures.
    4. Provide proof of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

48. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident the £260 it previously offered for its complaint handling failures at stage 2 if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is on the basis that it makes this payment to the resident.