From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202428391)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428391

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 May 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 his associated requests for extra building security.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat in a building owned by the landlord. The evidence provided to us by the landlord has confirmed it is aware that the resident has autism and separate mental health conditions.
  2. On 13 January 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that 2 unknown males had physically assaulted him in the communal area of the building. He asked it to install security guards in the building as had previously happened. On 16 January 2024, it explained why it had previously used security but said it was unlikely to do this again.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 January 2024 about its lack of communication, its handling of his request for it to provide CCTV of the incident to police, and ongoing issues with ASB in the building.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 15 March 2024. It acknowledged that it was at fault for the delay in providing CCTV footage to police and apologised for this. It offered compensation of £240 to cover the delay and poor complaint handling.
  5. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 21 March 2024 as he felt the landlord’s response and offer of compensation were inadequate. He described the impact the event had had on his mental health and said people had broken into the communal area again on 20 March 2024.
  6. On 10 October 2024, the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that it took a “considerable” amount of time to process the CCTV request from police and that it had shared concerns about staff engagement internally. It made an updated offer of £565 compensation for delays and poor complaint handling.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his security concerns and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Antisocial behaviour

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will work to prevent ASB by a range of means. This includes managing communal areas to minimise crime and ASB and developing positive relationships with partners. The policy says it will record as ASB, common area misuse where it is persistent, deliberate, or targeted, and criminal behaviour including theft. After doing this, it will manage ASB by keeping regular contact with the complainant, providing advice and support and agreeing an action plan.
  2. The resident sent 3 emails to the landlord between 13 and 16 January 2024 before receiving a reply. It assigned a new ASB case internally but at no time during the period of this complaint did it complete any of the actions outlined in its policy. This was not appropriate, and it showed little regard for the resident’s understandable concerns following the assault.
  3. The landlord and resident spoke by email on 16 January 2024. He reported that the individuals responsible for assaulting him had returned to the building since. He requested it place security guards back in the building for increased safety. It explained that they were in place previously due to an issue with fob entry and rough sleepers and said an isolated incident was not enough to justify paying for this again. However, it asked its neighbourhood housing lead if there was anything it could do instead and shared the case.
  4. The landlord’s response to the resident was factual but lacked empathy. In one of his emails, he said a former landlord staff member had told him by email that “criminals” had repeatedly targeted the building. It did not respond to this point and simply passed the issue onto the current neighbourhood housing lead. It provided contact details for him to give police so they could request CCTV footage of the incident, but it did not complete an action plan as set in its policy.
  5. In the resident’s complaint of 16 January 2024, he said that nobody from the landlord had responded to his reports until he emailed its property manager. He was unhappy that it told him there was nothing it could do as the building was not damaged. He said the police had struggled to get relevant CCTV footage from it because nobody would answer the phone. He asked for it to place security at the entrance because of historical issues with non-residents committing theft and vandalism and intimidating residents.
  6. The police contacted the landlord on 18 January 2024 to request CCTV of the incident. Immediately following this, it asked the neighbourhood housing lead to make a welfare call to the resident. It sent the CCTV request to its data protection team on 19 January 2024. However, there is no evidence that it tried to make a welfare call the resident.
  7. On 5 February 2024, the police and the resident chased the landlord for CCTV again. The resident said the police had chased him for the footage too. The landlord confirmed it had shared the request with its data protection team that morning. However, he had a further call from police chasing the footage on 7 February 2024. It did not communicate with police in any of the evidence provided. This led to the resident having to act as a communication channel for the police which led to further distress for him.
  8. The landlord’s system sent an automated note on 14 February 2024 to say it had not updated the resident’s ASB case since 17 January 2024. It emailed him on the same day to say it had chased the CCTV footage and apologised for the lack of welfare call. It said it would ask the neighbour housing lead to call him. It then said there was nothing more it could do about security in the property.
  9. The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for security was very single-minded. It continued to focus on his request for security guards and showed no willingness to consider alternative options or work to create an action plan in line with its ASB policy. For example, on 16 February 2024 he said the doors at the property did not lock immediately after closing. It took no action in relation to this.
  10. On 20 February 2024, the landlord’s CCTV contractor confirmed that it had footage of the incident in the communal area but was unable to share this with police as the link to do so had expired. The contractor then shared the footage directly with the landlord on 6 March 2024.
  11. In its stage 1 complaint response of 15 March 2024, the landlord outlined the resident’s complaint points to be about its lack of communication and his concerns about a lack of security at the property. However, it did not address his security concerns in its response. It apologised for the delay in providing CCTV footage to police and said it would send this to police once it received a new link. It offered compensation totalling £240, £120 of which related to its handling of his reports of ASB, as follows:
    1. £60 for distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
    2. £60 for inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
  12. The landlord’s complaint response was not sufficient to address the resident’s concerns. Its apology for delays was reasonable, however it did not consider his security concerns or its lack of communication. It focused on the assault and CCTV request and did not mention his concerns about the history of ASB in the building as outlined in his complaint on 16 January 2024.
  13. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 21 March 2024. He felt the compensation offer was “offensive” when considering the impact on him. He said that landlord had offered no further security measures and reported that unknown persons had broken into the communal area again on 20 March 2024. He explained that he had resumed therapy because of the incident and said he felt scared to leave the building due to location tracking showing the perpetrators in the area following the incident.
  14. The landlord has provided a 24 March 2024 email from a neighbour of the resident who reported broken doors allowing unrestricted access to the building. It said its contractor repaired this on 26 March 2024. However, there is no evidence that it updated the resident of this action to ease his concerns.
  15. On 29 April 2024, the resident made a further report of unknown persons kicking the front door to the building open and loitering in the entrance. He reported that the locking system was not working so non-residents had full access to the building. The landlord repaired this on the same day, but it did not tell him or take any action in relation to its ASB policy.
  16. On 21 May 2025, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint handler contacted all relevant staff to ask why it had not responded to new reports of ASB from residents. It also asked why it had not responded to police or provided CCTV footage of the assault on the resident. It asked staff to contact him or perform an in-person welfare visit and complete a risk assessment. It noted his vulnerabilities and said it must consider these. This was the first positive action in the case and the complaint handler showed a good understanding of ASB procedures. It also communicated clearly and effectively with the resident.
  17. The landlord was still chasing the CCTV footage internally on 30 and 31 May 2025 as it was unable to trace which staff member had a copy of it. It traced the footage to the stage 1 complaint handler but there is no evidence to explain why nobody shared this with the police.
  18. Evidence provided by the landlord shows it did contact its contractor to investigate a different type of door closure system following a conversation with the resident on 5 and 6 June 2024. He reported that the magnetic locking system meant it was easy for people to force the door open. Its records show this repair was complete on 7 June 2024 but there are no details about any actions taken. The complaint handler again showed a willingness to try and seek alternative ways to improve building security.
  19. The landlord reallocated the resident’s complaint on 12 June 2024. It sent its stage 2 response on 10 October 2024. It outlined his escalation request being solely due to wanting it to make an increased compensation offer. It again did not address his security concerns or its handling of his ASB case and said its stage 1 response did address the issues raised. It said it had raised his concerns about staff members with their line managers and made an amended compensation offer of £565, £300 of which related to its handling of the CCTV and of his ASB case, as follows:
    1. £100 for distress for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
    2. £100 for inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities.
    3. £100 for service failure.
  20. The landlord did not fully explain its compensation offer in its response. It noted internally that the £100 for service failure was for taking no action to address the resident’s ASB case. However, it did not make this clear to him. Its response overall was brief, unsympathetic, and lacked any kind of apology.
  21. The landlord’s compensation policy has a section for discretionary compensation payments. This includes offers for distress and inconvenience, but it does not set out the amounts it will offer. The Ombudsman has published remedies guidance on our website which landlords can use to calculate compensation. In this instance, the amount offered is fair and in line with this guidance although it has not fully resolved its failings as discussed below. As such, we will not make further orders for compensation but have considered other appropriate redress.
  22. The landlord’s communication was poor throughout this complaint. It did not acknowledge the resident’s security concerns or use its own ASB policy to manage his reports. It did not account for his vulnerabilities, of which it is aware. In a conversation with this Service on 12 May 2025, the resident reported that issues are still ongoing in the communal areas of the building and the evidence provided shows that he reported further issues between October and December 2024.
  23. A different company now owns the building, but the landlord is still responsible for managing the communal areas of the building. The orders made in this case will reflect this.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. Its process for logging and acknowledging a stage 1 complaint will take no longer than 5 working days. it will then send its written decision within 10 working days of logging the complaint. The policy states it will investigate all elements of the complaint. It will escalate stage 2 complaints without delay and will send a final written decision within 20 working days of the escalation request. At both stages, it may request a further 10 working days to respond if needed.
  2. Following the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 16 January 2024, it acknowledged this on 24 January 2024. However, it did not respond at stage 1 until 15 March 2024, 43 working days later. This exceeded its policy timescale by 33 working days.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not apologise for the delays in its complaint handling. It only mentioned them as part of its compensation offer. Its total offer was £240, £120 of which related to complaint handling, as follows:
    1. £60 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
    2. £60 poor complaint handling.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response was not compliant with its complaints policy for content or time. However, its offer of compensation was fair and in line with our remedies guidance. It would have been good practice for the landlord to properly apologise for the delays.
  5. The resident chased the landlord on 15 April 2024 on his escalation request of 21 March 2024. It sent a formal acknowledgement of this on 21 May 2024 but did not respond at stage 2 until 10 October 2024, despite the resident chasing a response a further 5 times.
  6. The landlord made an amended compensation offer of £565, £265 of which was for complaint handling as follows:
    1. £165 for poor complaint handling.
    2. £100 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved.
  7. This offer was an increase of £145 from its stage 1 offer. It offered £120 at stage 1 for a 33 working day delay which was very reasonable, however, the delay at stage 2 was 140 working days and its revised offer seems not to have considered the considerable difference in the length of delays. Nonetheless, the total amount offered was adequate for the delays at both stages.
  8. As mentioned previously, the landlord’s response was short and lacked empathy. It noted that its compensation offer of £265 accounted for the delay in responding but at no point did it apologise to the resident for this.
  9. Overall, there were clear and obvious failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not apologise to the resident for the delays and issues with its complaint handling and as such, the remedies offered were not sufficient in the circumstances. As with the issue of the ASB, the required resolution at this stage is not more financial compensation. We, therefore, have not ordered further compensation but that the landlord takes specific action to deal with the identified failings.

Determination

  1. 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 his associated requests for extra building security.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident the £565 offered as part of its stage 2 complaint response if it has not done so already.
    2. Write an apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report relating to its handling of ASB and complaints.
    3. Contact the resident to complete an ASB risk assessment and action plan considering his report of ongoing issues.
    4. Provide proof of compliance with the above orders to this Service.
  2. Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Complete a survey of the communal areas of the building to identify any possible target-hardening measures to prevent ASB. If it is not responsible for funding these, it must provide write to the building owner to suggest these improvements.
    2. Provide proof of compliance with the above order to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord consult with the local neighbourhood policing team to gain a wider view of any ongoing ASB issues in the area. It may also wish to consider asking the police for crime prevention advice in relation to target-hardening measures.