From 13 January 2026, we 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 (202318757)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318757

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour.
    2. Response to the resident’s request for a new front door due to the smell of cannabis.
    3. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident bought the lease of a one-bedroom ground-floor flat in September 2022. The freeholder is a housing association (‘the landlord’) which manages the building.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 3 July 2023 about its handling of anti-social behaviour (ASB). He said 2 named staff members provided little or no support and did not respond to his ASB reports which affected many residents. He also said it had not offered any guidance about how long the issues might last and if the ASB was something he needed to live with. He also said he wanted to discuss replacing his front door due to the smell of cannabis.
  3. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on the telephone on 3 July 2023 and it sent him a stage 1 response on 20 July 2023. It said:
    1. An officer had responded to the resident’s emails. He had also spoken to the resident to explain that he could not share some personal information due to data protection principles.
    2. It had previously explained that it would resolve the situation as fast as its process would allow, but it could not provide a conclusion date. Meanwhile, its officer would contact him every 2 weeks to provide an update.
    3. The resident should report any drug or criminal activity to the police, and he should provide the landlord with any related “CAD” references.
    4. The resident had a first point of contact for any housing related matters, and he should use the contact details it provided.
    5. It would provide him with £10 for its delay in responding to his complaint within 10 working days.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 July 2023 in which he said:
    1. The staff member had not responded to his emails such as those dated 14 and 26 June 2023.
    2. He understood that things could take time, but he did not feel like the landlord had reassured him throughout the process.
    3. The ASB case had been going on ‘for years’, but the landlord had not provided an action plan or advised what measures it had tried before.
    4. It had not replied to his request for a replacement front door to minimise the nuisance from the neighbour. He did not agree with its decision, and he would like it to address the matter.
    5. He accepted its apology for its delayed stage 1 response, but he wanted it to confirm how long it would take to reply to his stage 2 complaint.
  5. The landlord sent a its final response to the resident on 19 September 2023 that said:
    1. Two staff members were involved in the management of the reported ASB due to the complexity of the case. One of these managed care and support and would take enforcement action for breaches of tenancy and managing the neighbour’s behaviour. The other handled wider housing and estate issues and would own the ASB case and communicate with the resident.
    2. It was sorry that its staff had provided a limited response. It had arranged for them to meet fortnightly and share progress updates with him. It hoped its new process would improve communication so that he knew the steps it would take to remedy the situation.
    3. It had failed in its handling of the matter previously because it did not have a strategy for sharing key information about the case, nor an identifiable point of contact for residents.
    4. It had escalated the resident’s concerns about the responsiveness of its staff members with the relevant manager and it would monitor their responses to the resident.
    5. It did not have a firm update, and it did not wish to raise the resident’s expectations by providing rough timescales. It hoped to share an action plan within a week when it would provide advice about the steps it needed to take to present a case in court.
    6. As the resident was a leaseholder he would be responsible for replacing his front door. Any replacement would need to meet fire regulations, but he could possibly achieve the same results with a draught excluder.
    7. Incidents where the neighbour had intimidated, harassed, or threatened the resident and others in the block were sporadic.
    8. It would factor the neighbour’s use of cannabis into its ASB case, which would form part of any legal action it pursued. The cannabis smell was a constant issue which showed persistent and intentional nuisance.
    9. It would provide him with £50 for time and effort in chasing the landlord for a response to his email and for its service failure.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman and said the landlord had not addressed his ASB reports which significantly affected his mental health and it had handled his complaint poorly. To put the matter right he said that the landlord should have proactively updated him about the situation, offered him a suitable level of compensation, and explained why there had been complaint handling delays.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has explained to us that the ongoing nature of ASB is causing a significant effect on his mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is because independent medical experts can give evidence. They have a duty to the court to give unbiased views on the type, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. The Ombudsman cannot decide on causation based on a review of the housing file.
  2. Therefore, the resident’s concerns about the effect of the condition of the property on the resident’s health are better dealt with via the courts in keeping with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. This says that we may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The resident’s reports of ASB

  1. It is vital that landlords keep clear, correct and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Without this we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. We asked it to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided limited information which did not include significant items such as an ASB case file, recorded action plans, enforcement letters, notes of interviews, case reviews, communication with the police, social services, or other agencies, nor evidence of any legal actions.
  2. We asked the landlord to provide this information again and it provided some further evidence.. We have been able to reach a determination based on the limited information it has provided. However, the omission of significant evidence suggests that the landlord may not have made or kept adequate records.
  3. Under the terms of his lease, the resident was entitled to the quiet enjoyment of his property. The landlord handled ASB in keeping with its ASB policy. Its policy says residents have the right to enjoy their home and not experience ASB from other residents. It also says it would prevent and respond to all reports of ASB and take prompt action to deal with it.
  4. The resident first reported cannabis use, noise nuisance, and shouting from his neighbour to the landlord on 16 December 2022. He requested updates and reported further ASB incidents on 9 occasions before making a complaint on 3 July 2023. He reported 2 further ASB incidents and chased the landlord’s response on 11 further occasions prior to receiving its final complaint response. To address the resident’s ASB reports, the landlord:
    1. Emailed him on 30 December 2022, asking him to report incidents of threatening and aggressive behaviour, noise nuisance, cannabis use, and racist, homophobic, and sexist remarks. This was in line with its ASB policy which says it would record these matters as ASB.
    2. Said it would address the resident’s ASB reports directly with his neighbour in its emails dated 1 March 2023 and 26 May 2023. This was in line with its ASB policy which says it will work with perpetrators to understand the reasons behind their behaviour and allow them to change.
    3. Looked to obtain evidence of the distressing remarks his neighbour had said and evidence of him allowing cannabis smells to enter the hallway and the resident’s property by leaving his front door open. This was in line with its ASB policy which says it will provide support to gather evidence.
    4. Notified the resident on 19 May 2023 that it would inform ‘professionals’ involved with the resident’s neighbour about his ASB reports. This was in line with its ASB policy, which says it would work with partners, the police, and local authorities to take preventative and enforcement action.
    5. Asked the resident to report drug use, criminal activity, or immediate danger to the police and provide a ‘CAD’ reference of these reports. This was in line with its ASB policy which says in cases of serious crime, it required residents to report incidents to the police.
    6. Explained that data protection principles limited the information it could share with the resident about his neighbour. This was in line with its ASB policy which says it was committed to protecting personal information in line with the Data Protection Act 1998.
    7. Explained that it was taking tenancy enforcement action and that it would include the resident’s reports as evidence of continued and ongoing ASB involving his neighbour.
    8. Arranged a fortnightly meeting between 2 staff members responsible for managing the resident’s neighbour’s tenancy and the ASB.
    9. Assigned a single point of contact to provide regular communication to the resident. This was in keeping with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s October 2022 spotlight report on noise complaints which says landlords should have dedicated staffing where appropriate.
  5. There were failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB as it:
    1. Did not complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix (RAM) in keeping with its ASB policy which says it would complete a RAM all high priority cases and some standard priority cases. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider the effect of the ASB on the resident – especially given it later referred to the ASB as intimidation, harassment, and threats in its final complaint response.
    2. Did not ask the resident to use diary sheets, provide recorded noise nuisance, or share the details of any neighbours who could confirm his reports. This would have been reasonable to gather further evidence of the ASB and inform it how best to respond to the reports.
    3. Did not consider using intervention tools to prevent or gather evidence of ASB in line with its ASB policy. The policy says the landlord will take prompt, appropriate, and decisive action, for example by using warning letters, mediation, and acceptable behaviour contracts.
    4. Did not agree an action plan with the resident, nor keep him updated throughout the case in keeping with its ASB policy. This says that landlord will agree an action plan and show decisive action and a prompt timeline for communicating.
    5. Did not open an ASB case or complete regular case reviews to manage the ASB in keeping with its ASB policy.
    6. Did not visit the property to witness the smell of cannabis and noise nuisance and assess the likely impact this had on the resident. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to gather evidence of the ASB, especially given it considered the smell of cannabis to be a ‘constant issue.’
    7. Did not communicate with the police about the reported of ASB in line with its ASB policy which says it will work with the police to take preventative and enforcement action.
    8. Did not take a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling anti-social behaviour by working with social services and any other agency that could contribute to the prevention or resolution of ASB.
    9. Operated internal ASB and tenancy management procedures across 2 different staff teams which were unclear and uncoordinated. This resulted in a lack of ownership and poor communication in its ASB case management.
    10. Did not provide clear information to the resident about the legal action it said it was pursuing – such as explaining the steps it was required to take and what this would address – in response to the resident’s direct requests for this information.
    11. Did not communicate responsively to the resident, nor recognise its poor communication about the ASB case prior to the resident sending a complaint. Additionally, it didn’t clearly explain who the ‘professionals’ it had referred the resident’s ASB reports to were.
    12. Did not set up fortnightly meetings and assign a single point of contact to provide regular communication to him until after he complained.
  6. The landlord’s failure to complete a RAM when the resident first reported the ASB resulted in it not agreeing an action plan or a communication timescale. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to manage his expectations and improve his confidence in its ASB handling. This caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in pursuing the matter as a complaint.
  7. The landlord reviewed it handling of the reported ASB in its final complaint response. It recognised its ASB management was complex because staff members from 2 different teams handled the case. It also said that it had managed the ASB case without a clear strategy prior to setting up fortnightly case review meetings.
  8. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had 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 (an apology, acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  9. The landlord apologised for its poor response to the ASB matters and said that it had taken necessary steps to prevent similar failings happening in the future. In addition, it said that it its staff would provide fortnightly updates, and it would monitor its future responses to the resident. By doing so, the landlord took some reasonable steps to acknowledge its service failures and put in place arrangements to improve its communication in response to the complaint.
  10. Employment matters are confidential. Therefore, we would not assess or comment on any action that the landlord may or may not take against its staff. However, there is evidence that the landlord directly addressed its staff member’s handling of the ASB case internally. It also recirculated its internal procedure for managing ASB and communication to staff so that they were clear about their responsibilities.
  11. In its complaint responses the landlord did not recognise its failure to complete a risk assessment, open an ASB case, complete (and communicate) regular case reviews, and agree action plans in keeping with its ASB policy. This was a significant failing and missed opportunity given its ASB policy says it should have taken or considered these actions when responding to ASB. If the landlord had decided the ASB was not at a level to warrant these actions, it should have explained this.
  12. The landlord offered the resident £60 for any time and effort he had incurred in raising the complaint. However, given the landlord had recognised some ASB handling failings, it would have been reasonable for it to have offered further compensation for any time, trouble, distress and inconvenience these may have caused. However, the landlord therefore missed the opportunity to put right these service failings.
  13. There is no evidence to assess to what extent the landlord gathered evidence of ASB to reach a fair and reasoned conclusion about the likely effect it had on the resident. Its failure to provide clear communication about how it would respond to his reports of ASB was unreasonable. It did not engage with external agencies, complete case reviews and/or provide action plans in keeping with its ASB policy. It had an opportunity to put right its recognised failings by offering compensation. However, it did not do so and therefore it did not proportionately address the likely impact of its poor ASB case management on the resident. Taking all matters into account we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
  14. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 below. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where a landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right but did not fully address the likely inconvenience, distress, time, and trouble caused to the resident. Furthermore, we recommend such compensation when a landlord’s redress was not proportionate to the likely effect of the failings found by our investigation. In addition, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failings this investigation report has found, and to provide him and the Ombudsman with an action plan for addressing the resident’s reports of ASB.
  15. It is important to note that the Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to pay compensation for the resident’s experience of the ASB because that was not an action by the landlord. Therefore, the compensation is to recognise that the failures by the landlord caused some distress and inconvenience – which was unlikely to have been experienced had the landlord acted as it should have done.
  16. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its practices, processes, and procedures following our special investigation of the landlord under paragraph 49 of the Scheme. This order addressed the landlord’s handling of ASB, knowledge and information, complaints, and compensation. The landlord provided evidence in January 2024 that showed compliance with our earlier order. However, in July 2024 the resident sent a further complaint about the poor communication between the same staff teams when handling ASB cases. We have therefore ordered it to review its operating procedures for managing ASB below.

The resident’s request for a new front door

  1. In his complaint, the resident said that he wished to speak to the landlord about installing a new front door due to the smell of cannabis. The resident is responsible for his door in line with Schedule 1.2(b) of the lease. Furthermore, if the landlord renewed the door, it may well have been able to claim that outlay back via a service charge. As such, the landlord’s decision not to install a new door was not unreasonable. It was prepared to offer him permission to do this and advised on how to meet the fire regulations in respect of doors. It also suggested a draught excluder.
  2. The landlord recognised that the smell of cannabis affected the resident, and it said it was taking legal action to address this in its final complaint response.

The resident’s complaint

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it:
    1. Sent 2 emails to the resident on 12 July 2023 which provided different information about who would respond to his complaint.
    2. Sent a further email to the resident on 17 July 2023 that said a third staff member would respond to his complaint. Naming 3 different staff members was likely to have caused confusion and affected the resident’s confidence in its complaint handling procedures.
    3. Did not issue its response to the resident’s complaint of 3 July 2023 until 20 July 2023. This was 4 working days later than the landlord’s 10-working-day complaint policy response timescale.
    4. The landlord discussed the complaint with the resident before sending its stage 1 response. However, it did not address the door in its reply, despite referring to it as an outcome he was looking for.
    5. Did not fully address the resident’s complaint such as by explaining that its timescale for resolving the ASB was unclear because of the involved legal process. Additionally, it did not fully address the resident’s belief that the landlord had not supported him. This was not in keeping with paragraph 5.6 of the of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the ‘Code’) (April 2022) . This says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
    6. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 5.8 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
    7. Did not recognise or register the resident’s email of 21 July 2023 as a stage 2 complaint in keeping with paragraph 5.9 of the Code. This says if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure.
    8. Emailed the resident on 29 August 2023 saying that his complaint was still at stage 1 of the complaint procedure, and he could escalate it to stage 2. But on 1 September 2023 it said that it provided its final stage 2 decision during that week because it responded to stage 2 complaints within 20-working-days.
    9. Did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 21 July 2023 until 19 September 2023. This was 22 working-days later than the landlord’s 20-working-day complaint policy response timescale.
    10. Did not say if it had upheld the stage 2 complaint in line with paragraph 5.16 of the Code which says that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for the decisions made.
    11. Offered the resident a further £100 as compensation on 29 September 2023. This remedy was issued after the complaint had exhausted the complaint procedure. This was a failing as the landlord did not properly address the issue of compensation while the complaint was within its internal complaints procedure.
    12. Said that it would communicate regularly with the resident about ASB. However, he complained about its poor communication about ASB again in July 2024 because it had not kept this promise. This means the landlord has repeated its initial error causing further frustration.
  2. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord’s final response is lacks acknowledgement of its delayed handling of the matter, and it missed the opportunity to work with the resident to improve the situation. Additionally, its response did not provide the resident with a clear timescale or action plan for addressing the ASB which it should have done, given he had complained about these matters 3 months earlier.
  3. The landlord explained that a high volume of complaints had caused a delay. However, it did not offer any reassurance that the issue was temporary or that it was working on a solution to address this backlog. This would have been reasonable in recognition of the contradictory information it provided about who would respond to his complaint. The landlord therefore missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about the handling of the complaint.
  4. The landlord sent internal emails on 19 September 2023, which outlined where its stage 1 complaint response had fallen short. This was positive in response to its review of the complaint. However, it could have gone further by explaining this to the resident in its final response. This was a missed opportunity for it to improve the resident’s confidence in its complaint handling procedures.
  5. The landlord offered the resident £60 compensation for its complaint handling delays. It increased this offer to £160 after issuing its final complaint response. It was right for the landlord to offer compensation in keeping with its compensation procedures in recognition of its poor complaint handling. However, the level of compensation was not proportionate to the likely time, trouble, and inconvenience the resident’s may have experienced in relation to the landlord’s failures.
  6. We have ordered the landlord to pay a further award of £90 below, totalling £250, in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where we have found maladministration that the landlord has not proportionately addressed. Additionally, we have ordered it to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the complaint.
  7. As previously explained, the landlord has separately provided us with evidence of its learning from the outcomes of its poor complaint handling in other cases. This report has not made any further learning orders or recommendations about its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbour.
    2. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a new front door due to the smell of cannabis.
    3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its handling of the resident’s ASB reports and for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident the £60 compensation offered in its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
    3. Pay the resident an additional £490 total compensation made up as follows:
      1. £400 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience that the landlord’s response to the resident’s ASB reports may have caused the resident.
      2. £90 for time and trouble that the landlord’s complaint handling failures may have caused the resident.
    4. Provide an update to the resident and the Ombudsman that sets out the current position and its intended actions in addressing the resident’s reports of ASB.
    5. Produce a learning report to share with its ASB team on this case to ensure it learns from the errors in this case.
    6. Provide documentary evidence of its compliance with these orders.
  2. The landlord must pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.