London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202435364)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435364

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

30 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and deciding 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 sent 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. Rehousing request.
   2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. We have investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident lives in a 2-bed flat the landlord owns and manages. It let the property to her under an assured tenancy agreement in 2014. The landlord records that the resident is vulnerable due to a mental health condition.
4. The resident made a rehousing application and reported ASB to the landlord between 2016 and 2022. The landlord’s handling of these matters was the subject of her complaints.
5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 25 July 2022 about its handling of her rehousing requests and her reports of ASB. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2022. It said it investigated her ASB case under a different reference. It explained it closed its internal rehousing list in 2021 and asked applicants to re-register if they were eligible. It also said it could not influence how the local authority prioritised applicants.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 10 August 2022. She said the landlord should fulfil its promise to approach the local authority for rehousing and influence her rehousing priority.
7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 12 August 2022 and 8 November 2023 and sent its final complaint response on 13 December 2023. It apologised for its complaint handling delays. It explained the reasons it closed the resident’s ASB cases. It offered mediation and suggested it could use an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) to address the neighbour dispute. It said it had not effectively managed communication about its rehousing offer, but it could re-offer the same property to address her ASB concerns. It said completed a welfare call with her on 6 December 2023 and provided contact details of mental health support agencies. It said the level of service she received was not the standard it expected. It offered her £500 for distress and inconvenience, £60 for time and trouble, and £250 for complaint handling.
8. The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said to put matters right the landlord should reinstate her rehousing application with priority need, honour her chosen areas, act against her neighbours, and increase its compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, but we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wishes to pursue a claim she should get independent legal advice.
10. In the resident’s complaint she referred to historical reports of ASB from her neighbour and a rehousing application dated 2017. This assessment looks at the landlord’s actions in responding to the issues in the resident’s complaint of 25 July 2022 from around 12 months prior to that complaint onwards. The historical issues provide useful context.
11. In the resident’s complaint she referred to the local authority’s decision on the priority status of her rehousing application. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of her rehousing application as it is a function it handles. However, we cannot assess the local authority’s decisions on the resident’s rehousing priority under its housing register as this is not the landlord’s decision. Complaints about local authorities are matters for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). If the resident is unhappy with the local authority’s decision on her rehousing priority she should first raise this with the local authority as a complaint, and if necessary to the LGSCO.

The resident’s rehousing request

12. The landlord closed its internal rehousing list in May 2021. It wrote to affected residents to advise them to register on the local authority housing list. Alternatively, to re-register internally if they had a medical need, or experienced significant ASB. It said all new applications would start from their re-registration date and would not retain any previous waiting time. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 March 2018 to confirm it awarded her rehousing application a like-for-like status.
13. The resident forwarded an email containing her preferred rehousing areas to the landlord 3 times between July and November 2021. She emailed the landlord again on 8 November 2023 to ask if it had any suitable properties available in her chosen areas. The landlord did not reply to her which was unreasonable and a missed opportunity for it to manage her expectations.
14. The landlord told the resident it would contact the local authority about her rehousing priority during a conversation in March 2022. By doing so the landlord raised the resident’s expectations. She thought it would arrange for the local authority to increase her rehousing priority by back-dating her application to 2017 and ensure she was offered a 2 bedroom, like-for-like property. The landlord later explained it had no influence on the local authority’s rehousing lists. This advice was correct as the local authority had its own rehousing policies and procedures. However, this advice led to the resident making a stage 1 complaint as it was not in line with her understanding of its promise.
15. On 3 August 2022 the resident raised concerns the landlord did not update her about her rehousing application when it said it would. She said it previously agreed to update her every 2 months. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep to its promise or contact the resident to cancel the arrangement if it was no longer possible. It agreed to reinstate the contact agreement on 5 August 2022 which was reasonable.
16. The landlord summarised the resident’s rehousing position in its stage 1 response on 10 August 2022. It said it closed its internal rehousing waiting list in May 2021 and applicants who reapplied would lose any waiting time. The landlord was entitled to decide to close its internal rehousing list. It was appropriate for it to write to all affected resident’s to provide housing options advice, such as referring them to the local authority rehousing list.
17. The landlord restated it had no influence on the local authority rehousing lists in its stage 1 response. It also said it was aware the resident knew she was not eligible for emergency accommodation from the local authority. The resident escalated her complaint as she thought the landlord should fulfil its promise to approach the local authority and increase her rehousing priority.
18. The landlord emailed a direct offer of accommodation to the resident in April 2023 which the resident declined. She explained the property was not located in one her preferred areas. The resident appealed the offer in keeping with the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy. It did not uphold her appeal and closed her rehousing application. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s appeal decision. We understand housing associations have a short supply of available accommodation. However, the allocations and lettings policy says it will take preferred locations into account when making offers. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain why it was unable to offer a property within her chosen area. It should have done so in its offer letter.
19. The landlord operated a 1-offer only policy to applicants on its direct offer register. To qualify for a direct offer the landlord must present a rehousing application to a rehousing panel for a decision based on priority need. There is evidence the landlord made the direct offer to move the resident from a risk of ASB. However, on 3 May 2023, she told the landlord she did not know it added her to its direct offer register. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to write to the resident when it accepted her onto its direct offer register. This would have ensured she understood her rehousing circumstances, and the condition of any accommodation offers.
20. The landlord’s records said it could not reinstate the resident’s rehousing application without its rehousing panel’s approval. However, as the property it previously offered her was still available it agreed to reoffer it to the resident. It was solution focused for the landlord to reoffer the property to the resident.
21. The landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s rehousing request in its final stage 2 response on 13 December 2023. It acknowledged it did not manage communication about its offer effectively. It offered her £500 for distress and inconvenience. It did not clarify whether this related to its handling of rehousing or ASB. For the purposes of this investigation, we have considered it intended half its offer (£250) for its rehousing failings.
22. When a landlord has acknowledged its failings, we consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
23. The landlord offered the resident an apology and compensation for its rehousing failings. This was appropriate and in keeping with its compensation policy. It said it would reinstate its earlier offer of accommodation as this was the only way it could quickly move her. It also provided information about her alternative rehousing options if she refused its offer.
24. The landlord’s offer was reasonable and proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble incurred by the resident because of its poor complaint handling. This amount was also in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there were failings that adversely affected the resident. We have therefore recommended it pays this to the resident if it has not already done so.
25. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which resolves the landlord’s rehousing failings satisfactorily. Our finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making the above payment to the resident.

The resident’s reports of ASB

26. Our role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. We also considered the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
27. Under the terms of her tenancy agreement, the resident was entitled to quiet enjoyment of her property. The landlord’s ASB policy says residents have the right to not experience ASB from other residents. It also says it would take prompt action to respond to reports of ASB, such as noise and harassment.
28. It is vital that landlords keep clear and correct records to provide an audit trail. Without this we may not be able to understand what the landlord did or whether it followed its policies and procedures. We asked it to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not provide an ASB case file, action plans, update letters, nor advice about its Noise app. This is evidence of poor record keeping.
29. The resident kept diary sheets between 3 January 2020 and 20 June 2020. They said her neighbour persistently stamped, extensively vacuum cleaned, and that he said he could smell an unpleasant smell from the resident’s home. It is unclear when the landlord advised the resident to use diary sheets, or when she sent them to the landlord. It was appropriate for her to use diary sheets to gather evidence of ASB incidents and their impact on the resident.
30. The landlord’s ASB policy says it would not normally consider noise from people going about their daily lives, to be ASB. If the landlord decided the reported ASB was not something it could act on it should have told the resident to manage her expectations. Alternatively, it should have agreed an action plan with her about how it would tackle the issues in keeping with its ASB policy. By failing to do so it gave the resident the impression it ignored her ASB reports.
31. The landlord recorded an ASB risk assessment on its housing database on 12 January 2021. This was in keeping with its ASB policy which says it will complete a Vulnerability Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) on high risk cases or where relevant on standard priority cases. It was appropriate for the landlord to complete a RAM to consider the impact of the resident’s ASB concerns on her.
32. There is no evidence the landlord updated the resident about her ASB case again before she made a stage 1 complaint on 25 July 2022. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have managed her expectations by explaining what it could or could not to do address her ASB concerns, or by explaining the level of evidence it needed to take further action.
33. The landlord told the resident she needed to provide evidence of ASB before it could progress her case on 10 August 2022. This was over a year after she recorded incidents on diary sheets, and 8 months after its RAM. The landlord’s advice was correct but it would have been better if it had told her sooner.
34. The resident said she could not record the noise transference as she slept on another side of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss recording the noise as evidence. However, it could have considered offering to install noise monitoring equipment to gather evidence the noise.
35. The landlord completed another RAM on 17 January 2023, noting the occasional ASB issues were not getting worse. It wrote to the resident on 10 March 2023 to close her case. It said this was because of insufficient evidence and the resident’s lack of communication and cooperation. Completing another RAM and explaining the reasons why it could not take any action was reasonable. However, it should have spoken to the resident before closing the case in keeping with its ASB policy.
36. The resident told the landlord on 4 May 2023 and 8 November 2023 it ignored the ongoing ASB issues. However, there is no evidence the resident reported any further ASB to the landlord to support her allegations. The landlord could not be expected to investigate matters without reports, or evidence of incidents. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to explain this to the resident.
37. The landlord planned a welfare check while investigating the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It said this was to ensure she had support in place in recognition of her vulnerabilities. This was appropriate but it would have been better if it did this when it completed the RAMs. The landlord said it would discuss the resident’s circumstances with external support agencies after its welfare visit. Taking a multi-agency approach to the resident’s needs was appropriate and in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy. However, we have not seen records to confirm it did this.
38. The landlord explained the reasons it closed the resident’s ASB cases in its final complaint response on 13 December 2023. It said this was because she asked it not to contact her neighbour and due to insufficient evidence. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this in response to her allegation it ignored her reports and did not progress her cases. The landlord also provided contact details of a single point of contact and said she should report any threat to life to the police. This was positive and in keeping with recommendations in our spotlight report on noise complaints.
39. The landlord recognised the resident experienced distress and offered her £500 compensation. We have considered half the award (£250) was intended for its recognised ASB failings. Evidence of the resident’s ASB reports may not have been at the level needed for the landlord to act, but it should have told her this. It also failed to offer alternative methods for evidencing ASB such as sound recording equipment or agreeing action plans. It did not offer to use ABC’s or mediation until it sent its final complaint response, 17 months after the resident’s stage 1 complaint. Given the landlord recognised the resident’s experience of ASB was such that it offered her alternative rehousing its actions were inconsistent. Consequently, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
40. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an added £100 compensation (totalling £350). This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance where we have found maladministration the landlord has not proportionately addressed, and which caused the resident time, trouble, and delays. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing and discuss the current circumstances with her and consider opening a new ASB case.
41. We cannot order the landlord to pay compensation for the resident’s experience of ASB because it was not a landlord’s action. The compensation recognises the landlord’s failures caused distress and inconvenience – which she was unlikely to experience if it followed its policy. This award considers the resident’s vulnerabilities and recognises the landlord’s ASB handling may have had a more severe effect when compared to residents in the same position without vulnerabilities.

The resident’s complaint

42. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and paragraph 4.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of this complaint. This says landlords should acknowledge and log complaints within 5 days of receipt.
43. The landlord should have responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 10 working days in keeping with its complaint policy. However, it did not do so until 10 August 2022 which was 2 working days later than its target timescale.
44. Paragraph 5.6 of the Code says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. However, its stage 1 response failed to provide the resident with an update on her ASB case. It said it addressed ASB concerns under a separate reference therefore did not recognise her complaint about its handling of ASB.
45. The landlord did not say if it upheld the stage 1 complaint in line with paragraph 5.8 of the Code. This says landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint, and any reasons for its decisions.
46. The Code and the landlord’s complaint policy set a response target of 20 working days for a stage 2 response. However, it did not issue its stage 2 response until 13 December 2023 which was 322 working days later than its target. Additionally, it did not say if it upheld the complaint in line with paragraph 5.16 of the Code. These were further complaint handling failings.
47. The landlord recognised its complaint handling delays, and it apologised for this in its final complaint response. It spoke to the resident about her stage 2 complaint to ensure it understood her complaint. This was appropriate considering it acknowledged the complaint over a year earlier. It offered her £250 for its complaint handling delays and £60 for the resident’s time and trouble. This was in keeping with its compensation procedure where it fails to respond to a complaint within agreed response times.
48. The landlord’s offer was reasonable and proportionate to the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble incurred by the resident because of its poor complaint handling. This amount was also in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there were failings that adversely affected the resident. We have therefore recommended it pays this to the resident if it has not already done so.
49. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which resolves the complaint handling failings satisfactorily. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord making the above payment to the resident.

Determination (decision)

50. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s rehousing request.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
52. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

53. 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.
    2. Pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered in the stage 2 response for its ASB handling if it has not already.
    3. Pay the resident an added £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB may have caused to the resident.
    4. Contact the resident to discuss her reports of ASB. Consider if it should open a new case and respond in line with its ASB policy and procedures. Update the resident with its decision in writing.
54. The landlord should pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any arrears the resident may owe the landlord, where they exist.

Recommendations

55. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis the landlord pays the resident the £310 compensation it offered her in its final complaint response. It should pay this sum to her direct and not offset against arrears where they exist.
56. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request is made on the basis the landlord pays the resident the £250 compensation it offered her in its final complaint response. It should pay this sum to her direct and not offset against arrears where they exist.
57. We recommend the landlord to contact the resident to discuss her current rehousing priority status and her available housing options and write to her to confirm this.