Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202425991)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425991

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a one-bedroom first floor flat owned by the landlord, a housing association. The landlord is aware the resident has physical and mental health vulnerabilities including PTSD, depression, and anxiety.
  2. On 19 December 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that her downstairs neighbour (the neighbour) had physically assaulted her the previous day and confirmed she had informed the police. She described feeling unsafe and distressed. Between 13 February 2023 and 7 February 2024, she submitted multiple reports to the landlord about ongoing ASB, including threats, loud noises, misuse of communal areas, and obstruction of shared access. She requested updates on the Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) the landlord had served on her neighbour, support with a management move, and responses to her concerns.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 15 February 2024. She reported continued ASB by her neighbour, including assault, threats, property damage, late-night disturbances, and inappropriate use of communal spaces. She expressed serious safety concerns, cited police involvement, and voiced frustration over the lack of response from housing officers despite repeated attempts to contact them. She requested urgent support, updates, information about relocation options and CCTV installation.
  4. The landlord gave its stage 1 complaint response on 3 April 2024. It acknowledged poor communication and delays, attributing them to the case officer’s sick leave. It referred the case to its legal team due to the neighbour’s breach of tenancy. It confirmed that a direct transfer was unavailable but outlined alternative housing options and shared relevant website links.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 26 April 2024. She was unhappy with the ongoing lack of communication and delays in following up on the ASB case.
  6. The landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 29 August 2024. It apologised for the lack of updates and explained that the previous Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL) had left the organisation. It said it had appointed a new NHL, who had contacted the resident about her case. It added it had arranged a joint visit with the new lead and the Area Housing Manager on 3 September 2024 to discuss the case. It offered £280 in compensation for the inconvenience and stress it had caused her.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to us. She continued to report ongoing ASB from her neighbour. On 24 June 2025 the landlord informed us that it had begun legal action against the neighbour, including applying for an injunction and a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP). It has informed the resident of this development and is currently awaiting a court date.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In communication with us, the resident said the ASB issues have had a detrimental impact on her health. 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 we 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.
  2. The resident said she has experienced ASB issues in the property for the past 5 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.
  3. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has not considered any specific events before February 2023. This is 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint to the landlord and any reference made to events before this date is for context only. As there is no evidence that the resident raised a complaint prior to the one above, it would be reasonable to focus on events from 13 February 2023 to 29 August 2024, the date of the landlord’s final response.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of ASB. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with her reports appropriately and reasonably. The Ombudsman is unable to establish whether a party is responsible for ASB so cannot tell the landlord to act against the neighbour.
  2. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.
  3. 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. 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.
  4. The landlord became aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities on 13 February 2023 when she reported living in fear, sleep deprivation, and threats from her neighbour. Its internal records from 8 March 2023 also noted a decline in her mental health and recommended assessing her support needs. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord should have completed a risk assessment and action plan and offered support. However, there is no evidence that it did so. These were failings and not in accordance with its policy.
  5. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord is required to assign a priority rating to reports and respond to high-priority cases within one working day and standard-priority cases within three working days. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report within either of these time limits. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, the level of threat and the police involvement, it is likely that the landlord would have assessed the case as high priority. Although the landlord appropriately issued a warning letter to the neighbour on 23 March 2023 it did not contact the resident about her report until 14 April 2023. This was more than 2 months after the initial report. Furthermore, by this time the landlord had still not completed a risk assessment, agreed an action plan, or offered any support to the resident. It actions were unreasonable and would have likely led the resident to believe it was not taking her reports of ASB seriously thereby causing her distress and inconvenience.
  6. The landlord issued a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) to the neighbour on 24 April 2023. This was a proportionate escalation given the severity and persistence of the ASB. However, the following day, the resident reported further ASB, and there is no evidence that the landlord contacted her in response. The next recorded contact from the resident was on 20 July 2023 when she reported additional noise–related ASB and requested an update on the NOSP. She continued to report incidents on 28 July, 11 September, and 26 September 2023 including improper waste disposal, shouting, and threats from her neighbour.
  7. By this point, more than 5 months had passed without any meaningful contact from the landlord regarding her ASB reports. This was an unreasonably long delay, particularly given the ongoing and escalating nature of the ASB. The lack of communication would have understandably caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience during an already difficult period. The landlord’s failure to provide updates was not in accordance with its ASB policy, which commits to keeping residents informed throughout the management of their case.
  8. The landlord’s records show that the resident continued to report various incidents of ASB and repeatedly requested call backs but received no substantive response. On 15 February 2024 she submitted a formal complaint about the landlord’s lack of communication and poor handling of her ASB reports. At that point, she had not received any meaningful updates for approximately 10 months. The landlord had not created an action plan, completed a risk assessment, considered making a safeguarding referral, or provided any progress updates on the NOSP, despite the resident’s frequent and urgent requests. These were failings and not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
  9. In its stage 1 complaint response of 4 March 2024 the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its lack of communication. It provided detailed information about housing options and explained that the officer managing the case had been on sick leave, which it said accounted for the lack of updates. It also confirmed that it had referred the case to its legal team and stated that it would keep the resident informed going forward.
  10. While the landlord’s apology was appropriate, its explanation for the prolonged lack of communication was not reasonable. It should have had systems in place to ensure continuity of case management during staff absence. It was not acceptable for the resident to have received no meaningful contact for over 10 months, and the landlord’s justification did not adequately account for this failure. Furthermore, the landlord did not provide a clear action plan or timeline for progressing the case. Its compensation policy states that it will offer compensation where it has failed to act in line with its policies. Despite acknowledging service failures, the landlord did not offer any compensation in its stage 1 complaint response. This was a further failing.
  11. The landlord’s records show that the resident continued to report ASB and requested contact on 25 and 26 March, and again on 9 and 25 April 2024. Despite the landlord’s commitment in its stage 1 complaint response to keep the resident updated, there is no evidence that it did so. Instead, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on multiple occasions. This was not reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord had not taken adequate steps to improve its communication or learn from earlier failings.
  12. The resident submitted her stage 2 escalation request on 26 April 2024 stating that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s failure to provide updates on her ongoing ASB reports. She explained that the landlord had not completed the actions it promised in its stage 1 complaint response and that she had still not received any meaningful communication from the landlord. This was more than 7 weeks after the stage 1 response.
  13. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation on 3 May 2024. However, it did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 29 August 2024. During this period, the resident continued to report ASB, including further noise nuisance, threats, and a police officer confirmed fire risk. On 31 May 2024 the landlord made a safeguarding referral following a police officer visit to the neighbour’s property, where officers identified hoarding and fire hazards. While this was an appropriate action, it came only after repeated reports from the resident and a direct police intervention. The landlord did not proactively assess or respond to the risk prior to this.
  14. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that on 15 May 2024, 72 days after the stage 1 complaint response, the Area Housing Manager instructed a new officer to contact the legal team for an update. This was despite the landlord stating in its stage 1 complaint response that it had already made a legal referral and it was following this up urgently. The delay in contacting its legal team was not reasonable and contradicted the landlord’s earlier assurances. It also meant that the resident continued to live in distress without clarity on whether legal action was progressing.
  15. The legal team later confirmed that the original Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) served in April 2023 was defective, as proceedings had not been issued within the required 12-month period. The landlord had not informed the resident of this issue, nor had it taken timely steps to re-serve a valid notice. This was a failing and would understandably have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage the case effectively.
  16. Throughout this period, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates, reporting further incidents on 4, 14, and 31 May, and again in June and July 2024. She expressed concern that the landlord had not informed her of changes in case ownership and it was unclear who was managing her case. The landlord’s failure to provide consistent communication or a clear point of contact was not in line with its ASB policy, which requires regular updates and a coordinated approach.
  17. In its stage 2 complaint response of 29 August 2024 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction and apologised for the lack of communication. It confirmed that it had appointed a new officer had arranged an appointment to visit the resident. It offered £280 in compensation for inconvenience, stress, and time spent.
  18. However, the response did not fully address the resident’s concerns or explain the delays in progressing legal action. It also did not confirm whether it had served a new NOSP or provide a clear action plan for resolving the ASB. Furthermore, the compensation offered was not proportionate to the severity and duration of the landlord’s failings. The resident had endured over a year of unmanaged ASB, and prolonged distress. The landlord’s compensation policy states that discretionary payments should reflect the duration of distress, seriousness of the impact, and any vulnerabilities. Given the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities, and the nature of the ASB, the amount offered was not appropriate.
  19. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its policy. It did not respond to reports within required timeframes, failed to complete a risk assessment or action plan, and did not maintain regular contact with the resident. Despite acknowledging service failures in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord did not take timely steps to progress legal action or provide meaningful updates. Its communication remained poor throughout the stage 2 complaints process, and it failed to follow through on its commitments. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  20. In conclusion, the landlord’s apology, and compensation do not amount to reasonable redress in this case. We have found maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to take specific actions to resolve the issue and to pay the resident an additional £400 in compensation.
  21. This amount reflects the ongoing distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and is consistent with the landlord’s own compensation policy, which states that awards should consider any vulnerabilities, as well as the extent, severity, and impact of the failure. It also aligns with our remedies guidance for cases involving failures that have had a significant detrimental effect on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. In some cases, the landlord can extend this by an additional 10 working days. However, it must agree any extension with the resident. This is in line with the provisions of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which also requires landlords to keep residents informed throughout the complaint process and to provide clear explanations and appropriate redress where service failures are identified by the landlord.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint on 15 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 February 2024. This was 4 days outside its 5 working days’ time limit for acknowledging complaints. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 March 2024 which was 12 working days after the resident submitted her complaint. While this slightly exceeded the 10-working day target, the landlord had advised the resident that a short delay might occur, and the response was issued within a reasonable period.
  3. The resident submitted her stage 2 escalation request on 26 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 3 May 2024 but did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 29 August 2024. This was a delay of 87 working days, significantly exceeding the 20-working-day time limit set out in its complaints policy. There is no evidence that the landlord agreed an extension with the resident or kept her informed of the delay. This was a failing and not in line with its complaints policy or the Code.
  4. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not acknowledge, apologise, or offer compensation for its complaint handling failures. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will offer compensation where it fails to respond to or process a complaint within agreed response times and does not comply with the Code. In this case, the landlord did not meet the required time limit for its stage 2 response and should therefore have offered compensation in line with its policy.
  5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to follow its own complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Code. It did not respond to the complaint within the appropriate time limit or acknowledge this failure in its response. These failings would have caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident. In recognition of this, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150 in compensation. This amount reflects the cumulative impact of its poor complaint handling, failure to follow procedures, and the distress caused to the resident.
  6. This Service completed a special investigation into the landlord which we published in July 2023. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant systemic failings impacting residents. The Ombudsman required the landlord to make changes to improve its complaint handling. Some of the failings identified by this complaint mirror the issues noted by our special investigation. The landlord has since been working actively with this Service to implement the recommendations. As such, and in view of the age of this complaint, this Service does not make any wider orders.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlords handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. The complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to us:
    1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff must apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This should include failures for the time taken to resolve the resident’s reports of ASB and not following its complaint policies. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
    2. Set out a clear action plan with timescales for progressing the ASB case. This should include the name and contact details of the officer managing the case and specify how often it will provide updates to the resident.
    3. Pay the resident the total sum of £830 in compensation broken down as:
      1. The £280 it previously offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if not already paid.
      2. An additional £400 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident.
      3. £150 for the frustration and inconvenience caused by its failures in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident.