From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202323936)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323936

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

26 August 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 reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) in her building and the security of the communal entry door.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant under an agreement dated February 1992. The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat in a purpose-built block. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident reported non-residents accessing the communal areas of her apartment block on 21 May 2023. She said she had found a hypodermic needle, and the non-residents were taking substances in the communal areas which put the residents at risk. The resident said she had twice reported that the communal entry door required repair, and the landlord should install a new one. The landlord raised a repair for this on 24 May 2023. It emailed the resident and informed her of this.
  3. The resident reported that this issue was ongoing on 5 June and 28 August 2023. She said non-residents were now sleeping in the communal area and leaving a mess behind. The resident said the landlord could easily resolve this by securing the communal entry door and it should stop “messing about with repairs” and install a proper security door.
  4. The landlord treated the report of 28 August 2023 as a complaint. It sent its stage 1 response on 30 August 2023. The landlord said:
    1. only the lock on the communal entry door required repair as there were no issues with the doorframe and it did not require replacement. It managed repairs effectively and completed them swiftly.
    2. as a repairs service it would not change the door unless it was beyond repair, then it would replace it like for like.
    3. the resident’s request to replace the door with a more secure door would be considered an improvement. It had raised the resident’s concerns about non-residents accessing her block to see if it could add this to an estate improvement list.
    4. it had raised an ASB case, and the resident should report any break-ins or non-residents sleeping in communal areas to it and the police.
  5. The landlord inspected the communal front door in September 2023 and was satisfied that it was secure. The resident continued to raise concerns about the security of the communal entry door and non-residents accessing her block between September 2023 and February 2024. She also chased a response to her complaint and queried what the landlord would do to resolve the issue with the communal entry door. She reported that the non-residents were smoking, which was a fire hazard, leaving a mess behind and had graffitied the premises. The landlord said it would look into adding additional maglocks to the door.
  6. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 23 February 2024. We asked it to provide a written complaint response, within 5 working days, by 1 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint the same day. It sent its stage 2 response on 1 March 2024. The landlord said:
    1. its contractor had completed repairs to the communal front door on 11 May and 24 June 2023. It had managed and completed repairs within its timescales and to the quality agreed with its contractors.
    2. no further requests were raised for the door until 4 January 2024 when it asked its contractors to recommend ways to improve the security of the door and quote for a replacement steel door.
    3. it rejected the quote as it considered this an improvement rather than a repair. It rejected the request to install maglocks for the same reason.
    4. it raised a repair on 16 February 2024 for its contractors to replace the electronic door keep. The contractors were awaiting parts, but it should complete this by mid-March 2024.
    5. it had raised a separate complaint for ASB, it was liaising with the resident about this and liaising with the safer neighbourhood team and local police to increase patrols to address ASB.
    6. it closed the resident’s complaint as it received no further communication from the resident following the stage 1 response.
    7. its surveyor visited the block on 27 February 2024 and recommended that its contractors fitted a metal plate around the locks to stop non-residents forcing them open. It was unable to give a specific date for its contractor to install these, but it would manage this as part of the ASB case.
    8. it upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £100 compensation for time and effort getting the complaint resolved in line with its guidelines.
  7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 4 March 2024 as she was unhappy with the stage 2 response. She said the landlord had not reached a resolution with her. The resident said the issues had affected her anxiety and she had not accepted the compensation. She wanted the landlord to repair the communal entry door.
  8. The landlord’s contractor overhauled the door and installed a steel angle bar to prevent forced access on 12 April 2024. The landlord closed the ASB case on 13 November 2024 as there had been no further incidents. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 November 2024. She disputed that the landlord resolved the security issues in the block. She said the issues only stopped after the residents themselves arranged for a lock smith to reinforce the lock on the communal entry door.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident indicated that the ASB issues had impacted her mental health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in her building and the security of the communal entry door

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
    1. it will take prompt, appropriate, and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalated. It will work with relevant partners to meet its responsibilities.
    2. it will prevent ASB by carrying out estate inspections to identify and respond to environmental issues on estates and maintain and manage communal areas to minimise crime and ASB.
    3. it categorises ASB into 2 categories, high priority and standard priority. In all high priority cases it will complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix and where relevant on standard priority cases to measure the harm caused to the victims and to guide staff on the actions to take to protect victims from further harm.
    4. harassment or intimidation, including threats, vandalism, property damage, drug or substance misuse, it would record alcohol related incidents and the misuse of common areas where it was persistent as ASB.
    5. it will keep in regular contact with the reporting party or as agreed where necessary arrange an interview at the place of choosing of the reporting party and identify any particular circumstances or needs that it should factor into the handling of the case.
    6. it will provide advice and support. This could include making referrals to other agencies that could provide assistance and, where appropriate, empowering the reporting party to take positive action, for example support to gather evidence and identifying any appropriate security measures to ensure that residents are safe in their property.
    7. it will agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated throughout the case. It will update the action plan to reflect new information or new incidents related to the case. The action plan will show decisive actions and a prompt timeline for communicating delivery.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
    1. it is responsible for maintaining common entrance ways, communal entrance doors and frames, halls, passageways, and other communal areas including estate grounds.
    2. it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
    3. for emergency works where there was an immediate danger to residents or members of the public it would attend within 24 hours.
  3. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedures and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
  4. The resident reported ongoing issues with non-residents accessing the building and taking substances on 21 May 2023. The landlord raised a repair for the communal entry door on 24 May 2023. It emailed the resident the same day to inform her of this. However, the landlord did not enquire if it needed to remove the hypodermic needle the resident had reported. Considering the resident had reported a biohazard which would likely have been a risk to her health and safety, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss this further with the resident.
  5. The landlord’s records indicate that it did not complete the repair to the communal entry door within the timescales stated in its repairs policy. However, its contractor had to order a part for this, so this was beyond its control. However, the resident had reported property damage, the use of substances by non-residents and the misuse of communal areas. The landlord did not raise an ASB case, consider a risk assessment or complete an action plan as stated in its ASB policy. This was inappropriate.
  6. On 5 June 2023 the resident reported that there were still issues with non-residents accessing the building. She said they had left a mess, and the landlord was not doing enough to rectify the problem. The landlord did not respond to this email. This was unreasonable. Additionally, the landlord had not taken any action to address the ASB other than arrange for the repair of the communal entry door. The Ombudsman acknowledges that repairing the communal entry door could prevent the ASB in the resident’s building. However, when measured against its ASB policy the landlord’s lack of further action was unreasonable.
  7. The resident raised the issue of non-residents accessing the property and taking substances again on 28 August 2023. She said they were now sleeping there, and she had contacted the police. However, she said the landlord could easily resolve the issue if it if it secured the communal entry door as this was its responsibility. She said the landlord should install a proper security door and the landlord’s lack of constructive action was compromising residents’ safety.
  8. The landlord responded with its stage 1 response on 30 August 2023. It said the resident’s request to replace the door would be an improvement and not a repair, but it had queried if it could put this on an estate improvement list. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 sets out that landlords must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord was entitled to replace items like for like and did not have an obligation to improve installations. However, considering the continued reports of ASB by non-residents accessing the building, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explore alternative options to secure the existing door.
  9. Additionally, although the landlord raised an ASB case, its delay in doing this was unreasonable when considered against its ASB policy. The landlord did not agree an action plan with the resident as stated in its ASB policy. This was inappropriate. The landlord has also not provided any record of how it categorised the case or if it required a risk assessment. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) states that good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. Had the landlord considered this it may have prevented this failing.
  10. The landlord attempted to call the resident on 30 August 2023. It emailed her on 14 September 2023. It said it would inspect the communal entry door the following week and knock on her door to see if she was available. The landlord inspected the door on 21 and 26 September 2023 and was satisfied it was secure. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it would undertake estate inspections, so it was appropriate for the landlord to do this.
  11. The landlord emailed the resident on 26 September 2023 and informed that her that it was satisfied the communal entry door was secure after inspection. The landlord told her to contact it if she felt it needed to take additional measures to secure the door. It was appropriate for the landlord to keep the resident updated in line with its ASB policy.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord 4 times between 2 October and 6 October 2023. She disputed that the communal entry door was secure. She said non-residents were still accessing the building, were smoking and had graffitied the premises. She reiterated that the landlord could resolve this by installing a new security door. The landlord responded on 6 October 2023. It said the staff member handling the ASB case was on leave until 16 October 2023, but it would assign her concerns to somebody else. There is no evidence the landlord did this. This was unreasonable as the landlord had not acted as it said it would.
  13. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 October 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding and the ongoing issues with non-residents accessing the building. The landlord advised the resident to call the police to remove them. Its ASB policy states that it would provide advice. Therefore, this was appropriate. The landlord asked the resident to provide additional information regarding the condition of the lock and security of the communal entry door. The resident had reported that the communal entry door was insecure on several occasions. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate this itself.
  14. The resident responded on 16 October 2023. She said there was no damage to the lock, but non-residents were constantly forcing the door open, so it was not secure. She said this was a matter for the landlord and not the police. The landlord raised a repair to remove the graffiti which it completed the following day. This was appropriate when measured against its repairs policy.
  15. The landlord attempted to call the resident on 26 October 2023. It left a message saying it had attended her building and was unable to push the door open. The followed up with an email to the resident the same day. It asked to meet the resident on 2 November 2023 so she could demonstrate her concerns. The resident declined this invitation on 2 November 2023. She asked what the landlord intended to do about non-residents trespassing in the building. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange to meet the resident in line with its ASB policy.
  16. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 November 2023. It said it had completed an emergency repair for the communal entry door on 3 November 2023. The landlord has not provided any record of this. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs from March 2019 highlights the importance of keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records. Had the landlord considered this it may have prevented this failing.
  17. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 and 29 November 2023. She said non-residents were accessing the building daily, they had woken her in the early hours, and they had graffitied the wall again. She said the landlord had completed inferior repairs and it was ignoring her concerns about safety. The landlord responded on 5 December 2023. It apologised for the resident being unhappy with the repairs. It advised her to report any criminal activity or unauthorised access to the police. The landlord did not arrange to assess the security of the communal entry door. This was inappropriate when measured against its repairs policy.
  18. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 December 2023 and 3 January 2024. She said the issues with non-residents accessing the building was ongoing and the landlord had done nothing to remedy the situation. The landlord raised a repair to remove graffiti on 3 January 2024 and assumed responsibility for this. The resident had reported this on 29 November 2024. Therefore, the landlord’s delay in raising this was inappropriate when measured against its repairs policy. It is also unclear when the landlord completed this repair. Had it considered the information in the spotlight report on repairs it could have prevented this failing.
  19. The landlord emailed the resident on 4 January 2024. It apologised for the ongoing issues with non-residents accessing the building. It said that it recognised that previous repairs had not addressed the issue. Therefore, it said it was waiting approval to add additional maglocks to secure the communal entry door. The landlord was under no obligation to replace the communal entry door as requested by the resident. However, the delay in considering additional measures to secure the existing door was unreasonable.
  20. Additionally, the landlord said it anticipated that it would write to residents with further information in the next 10 working days. There is no evidence that the landlord did this. This was inappropriate as its ASB policy states that it would keep residents updated. The landlord has also not provided any record of raising a request for additional maglocks or working closely with the police as stated in its email of 4 January 2024. Had it considered the information in the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on KIM and repairs it could have prevented these failings.
  21. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 January 2024. She wanted to make a complaint about the handling of the repair to the communal entry door. She said non-residents were still accessing the building even though she had reported this in May 2023. The resident said she did not receive any communication as promised by the landlord in its email of 4 January 2024 or any update on the additional maglocks for the communal front door. She said the door was “completely useless” and allowed non-residents to come and go as they pleased.
  22. On 24 January 2024 the landlord received recommendations from its contractor to replace the communal entry door with steel security doors and integrate new locks into the existing door entry system. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 January 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding and not completing the repair. It said it had chased the contractor that day and had been working closely with the police to increase the number of patrols. The landlord has not provided a record of either of these. Had it considered the information in the spotlight reports on KIM and repairs it could have prevented this failing.
  23. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January and 23 February 2024. She disputed that the police had increased patrols. Additionally, she said the communal entry door remained insecure and allowed non-residents to use the building for illegal purposes unhindered. The resident said that the landlord had not updated her on the request to have additional maglocks installed on the communal entry door. There is no evidence that the landlord had kept the resident updated. Its ASB policy states it would do this. Therefore, this was inappropriate.
  24. In its stage 2 response of 28 February 2024 the landlord said its contractors completed repairs to the communal front door on 11 May and 24 June 2023. The landlord has not provided any record of completing these repairs. Additionally, it said it had raised a further repair on 16 February 2024, and a surveyor had inspected the door on 27 February 2024. It also said it had been liaising with the police. The has not provided any record of this. Had it considered the information in the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on repairs and KIM it could have prevented these failings.

Summary

  1. The Ombudsman recognises that the repeated damage to the communal front entry door was a factor in the ongoing reports of ASB in the resident’s building. The landlord took some steps to repair the door. However, the resident reported that this had not resolved the ASB. The landlord failed to take appropriate action in line with its ASB policy to try and mitigate the impact the issues had on the resident.
  2. In summary, the Ombudsman has found maladministration because the landlord:
    1. did not communicate with the resident about the hypodermic needle she reported on 21 May 2023.
    2. did not raise an ASB case or complete an action plan or risk assessment when the resident reported ASB on 21 May and 5 June 2023.
    3. did not respond to the resident’s email of 5 June 2023.
    4. did not consider alternative options to secure the existing door when it confirmed it would not replace it on 30 August 2023. It did not explore this until 4 January 2024.
    5. did not agree an action plan with the resident when it opened the ASB case or provide any record of how it had categorised this.
    6. did not pass the resident’s concerns to somebody else while a staff member was on leave as stated in its email of 6 October 2023.
    7. did not provide any record of the emergency repair to the communal entry door it completed on 3 November 2023 as stated in its email to the resident of 9 November 2023.
    8. did not arrange to assess the security of the communal entry door following further reports of ASB from the resident in November 2023.
    9. delayed until 3 January 2024 to raise a repair to remove graffiti when the resident reported this on 29 November 2023. It did not provide a record of when it completed this.
    10. did not write to the resident to update her as it stated in its email of 4 January 2024.
    11. did not provide any record of its request to add additional maglocks or keep the resident updated about this.
    12. did not provide any record of it chasing its contractor and liaising with the police as stated in its email of 25 January 2023 or some of the actions outlined in its stage 2 response.
  3. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings in its stage 2 response or offer any compensation for them. The resident demonstrated the upset and distress this had on her in her correspondence with the landlord. The landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise this.
  4. Having carefully considered our Remedies Guidance a fair level of compensation would be £600. This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in her building and the security of the communal entry door. The landlord should also write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures found in this report.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states that:
    1. a complaint was an expression of dissatisfaction however made. Residents do not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to treat it as such.
    2. it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days at stage 1 and provide a response with 10 working days of acknowledgement.
    3. a resident must request to escalate their complaint within 6 months of the stage 1 response.
    4. it would provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging an escalation request.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 May and 5 June 2023. She expressed her dissatisfaction. The landlord did not raise a complaint. This was not in line with its complaint policy and was inappropriate. The landlord treated the resident’s email of 28 August 2023 as a complaint. It did not acknowledge this. However, it provided a stage 1 response on 30 August 2023. This was appropriate when measured against its complaint policy.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 October 2023. She said the issue remained unresolved. The landlord did not raise a stage 2 complaint. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy. This was inappropriate. The resident and landlord exchanged correspondence throughout October and early November 2023. She continued to show her dissatisfaction. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. This was inappropriate when measured against its complaint policy.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord 3 times between 20 and 29 November 2023. She continued to show her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her complaint and specifically referred to awaiting a response to her complaint. The landlord responded on 5 December 2023. It provided information on how to raise a complaint. The resident had already raised a complaint, and the landlord should have escalated this. Therefore, this was unreasonable.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 December 2023 and exchanged emails with the landlord in January 2024. She remained dissatisfied. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 23 February 2024. We asked it to provide a response within 5 working days, by 1 February 2024. The Code sets out that landlords should be able to identify and respond to complaints without the intervention of this Service. Therefore, this was inappropriate. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 23 February 2024.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 28 February 2024. It acknowledged its delay in handling the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response. It offered £100 compensation for this. While the landlord took some steps to put things right in its complaint responses, the compensation offered does not quite reflect the impact its failings had on the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It unreasonably delayed in raising the initial complaint and providing a stage 2 response. This delayed the resident in seeking redress through this service.
  7. Having carefully considered our Remedies Guidance a fair level of compensation would be £50 in addition to the £100 already offered for a total of £150. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in her building and the security of the communal entry door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this investigation.
    2. pay the resident the £100 compensation offered in its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    3. pay the resident £650 compensation, which it must not offset against any arrears, consisting of:
      1. £600 to recognise the likely distress and upset caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in her building and the security of the communal entry door.
      2. £50 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.