Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202333129)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333129

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 July 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of a neighbour preventing access to the communal garden.
    2. The formal complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Background

  1. The resident was the leaseholder of the property, which is a one-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. At times the resident sub-let the property to tenants. There are no recorded vulnerabilities.
  2. On 13 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report that he had been prevented from accessing the communal garden by the neighbour. She had blocked and padlocked the gate. She had also allowed her dog to roam free in the garden. The landlord replied on 19 January 2022 that it had told the neighbour she must allow access as it was a shared garden. It emailed the neighbour, on an unknown date after 23 February 2022, to repeat this. It also told her that a previous informal agreement for sole use was not binding. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 3 August 2022, which was about:
    1. The neighbour having taken over the garden, allowing her dog to roam free, and denying him access.
    2. The landlord having previously said it would send a legal letter to the neighbour, but he had not heard anything further from it.
  3. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident and acknowledged it on 10 August 2022. It noted in an internal email on 12 August 2022 the issue had been ongoing since June 2020. It had told the neighbour several times it was a shared garden. The resident felt unsafe trying to access the garden, due to the neighbour and her dog. It set out a plan to contact the neighbour, visit the garden, and issue a warning, with a view to applying for an injunction. It provided its stage 1 response that day, in which it:
    1. Upheld the complaint and accepted its communication had been poor, with several different members of staff having been involved. It apologised for this.
    2. Explained it had previously told the neighbour not to restrict access to the garden. It had an action plan, would contact him by 15 August 2022, and would keep him updated.
  4. The resident asked about applying for compensation on 30 September 2022. The landlord said he asked to escalate his complaint on 17 November 2022 but has not provided any evidence of this to the Ombudsman. On 14 February 2023 it emailed him to say there had been a delay in escalating the complaint due to a backlog. He chased it for a response, and for it to act, 3 times between 16 February 2023 and 20 July 2023. It acknowledged escalation on 25 July 2023 and provided an update on 9 August 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 August 2023, in which it:
    1. Said it had visited the neighbour on 18 August 2022, and she had refused to share the garden, so it had told her it would take legal action. It accepted it had told the resident this too, but it had not referred the matter to court. It had also asked him not to use the garden in the interim.
    2. Explained it would speak to the neighbour again and that its solicitors were now dealing with the matter. They had suggested a deed of variation to split the garden (at the resident’s cost) or to pursue an injunction against the neighbour.
    3. Upheld the complaint. It said it had not provided a service which met its standards, and its communication should have been clearer and swifter.
    4. Offered £680 compensation made up of £500 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and £180 for complaint handling failings.
  5. The resident called the landlord on 21 July 2024 and said the neighbour was still preventing access and now had 2 dogs roaming the garden. He emailed it on 29 August 2024 and said there had been no change. It replied on 4 September 2024 and said its solicitors had written to the neighbour threatening to apply for an injunction. On 2 October 2024 it told the resident it had asked its solicitors to apply for a court hearing.
  6. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he had agreed to sell the property in April 2024, but the buyer pulled out due to the garden situation, causing him financial loss. He asked the landlord for permission to put up a dividing fence and separate gate. It granted this on 29 January 2025 provided the resident paid for the works. He sold the property in June 2025.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour preventing access to the communal garden

  1. The landlord has not provided a full copy of the lease, but it is not disputed that the resident had a legal interest in the communal garden, which is shared between his and the neighbour’s flats. It is not clear whether there is a difference between a shared and a communal garden. Under its estate management policy, the landlord will inspect and ensure communal areas are maintained, kept clean and safe.
  2. When the resident reported that he could not access the garden the landlord promptly spoke to the neighbour about allowing access. He also reported that she allowed her dog to roam free. There is no evidence it checked whether she had permission for a dog which was a failing. Under its pets policy it will not unreasonably refuse permission, but permission will not be given if the tenant does not have a private garden. It also failed to take any tenancy or legal action for her having a dog without permission, which was causing a nuisance to the resident.
  3. Under its anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy, the landlord says it classes animal nuisance, dog-fouling and uncontrolled pets as ASB. It also states garden nuisance, persistent, deliberate, or targeted common area misuse can be ASB. The resident clearly explained that the presence of the neighbour’s dog (later 2 dogs) in the garden prevented him from safely being able to try to enter. There is also clear evidence the neighbour was deliberately and persistently denying him access to the communal garden. The landlord failed to treat the behaviour as ASB or to open an ASB case. If it had, it could have issued warnings. It could have tried arranging mediation or the use of an acceptable behaviour contract to resolve the issue. By not recognising the ASB it did not consider or use these approaches which was a failing.
  4. Although the landlord did create a suitable action plan following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, there is no evidence it contacted him by the date it said it would. It also failed to offer any compensation despite accepting failings and upholding the complaint. Within its stage 2 response, just over a year after its stage 1, it accepted it had not carried out its action plan. It admitted the neighbour refused to allow access, but it failed to take legal action when it said it would. While it offered 2 possible remedies, it failed to recognise that it was responsible for enforcing its tenancy agreement with the neighbour. Suggesting a remedy which the resident would have to pay for was inappropriate. The landlord failed to ask its solicitors to apply to court for an injunction until a month and a half after its stage 2 response. This was 2 years and 9 months after he reported the issue in January 2022 and an unacceptable delay in taking action.
  5. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly accepted its failings, apologised, and offered £500 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  6. The landlord failed to resolve the issue. It was slow to act, failed to take appropriate action and its communication was poor. The situation also caused difficulties for the resident in trying to sell the property. Although the situation was eventually resolved this was by the resident at his own expense. There was maladministration. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 additional compensation to the resident. This amount, added to the £500 the landlord has already paid, equates to £500 per year for the 3 years’ loss of amenity.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

  1. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its complaints policy timeframe of one working day. However, it provided its stage 1 response within its 10-working day policy timeframe.
  2. It is not clear when the resident asked to escalate the complaint as the landlord has failed to provide evidence of this. It said this was on 17 November 2022, and it acknowledged escalation on 25 July 2023. This was over 8 months later, and not in compliance with its policy or any notion of a reasonable timeframe. It provided its stage 2 response 210 working days after it said he escalated the complaint. This was against a policy timeframe of 20 working days. The landlord was also not in compliance with paragraph 5.13 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. This was a significant failing. It also failed to ask for an extension of time, which it could have done under its policy and the Code.
  3. Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered £180 compensation for its complaint handling failings. This amount did not reflect the delays caused to the resident, who had to chase it for a response. There was maladministration. To reflect the additional inconvenience, time and trouble, an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 additional compensation.

The landlord’s knowledge and information management

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out 21 recommendations to help landlords improve their management of knowledge and information. These include developing an organisational key data recording standard to set out the minimum standard to which data must be entered in the landlord’s databases.
  2. The Ombudsman’s investigation has been hampered by a lack of evidence and documents which the landlord has failed to create, retain, or provide. It has not provided:
    1. A complete copy of the lease.
    2. Evidence of the resident’s escalation request.
    3. Complete email trails/records with dates for all relevant emails.
    4. Copies of any inspections or visit notes.
    5. Evidence of any instructions or requests made to its solicitors relating to injunction or other legal proceedings.
  3. Due to the lack of complete evidence there was service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of a neighbour preventing access to the communal garden.
    2. The formal complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,100 additional compensation, made up of:
      1. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble, and loss of amenity, caused by its failings in handling reports of a neighbour preventing access to the communal garden.
      2. £100 for the additional inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Ask the resident to provide receipts or invoices to it, and if so provided, reimburse him for the cost of:
      1. Adding the dividing fence and adding the additional gate to the garden following its grant of permission.
      2. Any associated legal costs the resident incurred to be able to divide the garden, such as paying for a deed of variation, if he paid these costs.
    4. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.