London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202519929)

Decision
Case ID	202519929
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her daughter. She complained to the landlord following an incident where intruders climbed into her garden to gain access to her neighbour’s property. She wanted the landlord to secure the garden boundaries as she felt unsafe. The landlord was aware the resident had mental health vulnerabilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about safeguarding and security of the property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about safeguarding and security of the property.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s concerns about safeguarding and security of the property

5. The landlord gave the correct information regarding the fence. It recognised its delays and made attempts to put things right. However, it failed to assess the risk following the report or offer advice on further support or alternative security measures. It also failed to show it contacted the resident as promised in its stage 2 response.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s complaint handling adhered to the timelines in the Code; however, it failed to show it provided the resident with its reasons for not initially following its internal complaint process.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 26 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £160 for any distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about safeguarding and security of the property. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure the £60 offered in its complaint responses, if it provides evidence, it has already been paid.	No later than 26 February 2026
3	Specific Order The landlord must write to the resident offering further support and an opportunity to discuss the incident in line with its ASB policy, as agreed in its stage 2 response. It should also provide information on any measures she can take to secure her property. A copy of this letter must be provided to us by the due date.	No later than 26 February 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her concerns about the boundary gate between her garden and the public area.
We recommend that the landlord updates its records to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities if it has not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 June 2025	The resident called the landlord to report an incident involving a lack of fencing in her garden. The landlord said it was a service request, not a complaint.
2 June 2025	The resident completed a complaint form to report the incident. She said: she had safeguarding and security concerns due to a serious incident where intruders had entered her garden to access a neighbouring property they climbed into her garden for access due to there being no fence between her and her neighbour and they verbally abused her daughter she felt traumatised, her anxiety had worsened and she felt unsafe she had previously requested secure fencing due to safety concerns the landlord had said it was not responsible for the fencing, but she felt it was a safeguarding issue she wanted the landlord to complete a safeguarding review, install secure fencing or alternative security measures, add a vulnerability flag to her record and work with police to assess the risks
9 July 2025	The resident complained again to the landlord. She said: it had shown a lack of support and responsibility following the incident by informing her it could not help she felt the response was dismissive and inappropriate the incident left her feeling exposed and unsafe due to insufficient fencing between the properties as the matter was not being treated as a complaint, it had been passed to a different team, but she had not heard from them the Neighbourhood Housing Lead gave a generic response that did not address her concerns she wanted it to investigate her complaint made on 2 June 2025
29 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said it: was sorry to hear of the resident’s experience and the impact on her raised the issue as a service request as per its complaint policy apologised that the NHL’s response fell short of its standards contacted her on 27 June and 24 July 2025 to discuss the concerns asked her to contact her NHL so it could respond, investigate and act in line with its antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy was the resident’s responsibility to maintain and repair their fences The landlord offered £40 compensation made up of: £20 for its lack of responsive communication after logging the issue £20 for its failure to recognise the impact due to her vulnerabilities
29 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: the incident was not a routine service request, and it had “misclassified and downplayed a serious safeguarding incident” it had failed to act with urgency and offered no resolution to ensure her safety or reduce the risk of future intrusions £40 was inadequate and showed a lack of empathy or accountability She wanted the landlord to consider the matter a safeguarding failure, install fencing between the properties, review its compensation offer to reflect the distress and poor service and acknowledge its failings in its complaint handling.
8 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said: it apologised for the distress the situation had caused the resident it encouraged her to report the incident to the police for it to be investigated, so the NHL could support her and liaise with the police the NHL would call her to discuss her concerns and provide support its communication should have been quicker and more effective it offered a further £20 compensation for the time and effort taken to get the complaint resolved
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us because she said she no longer felt safe in her home. She said the lack of secure fencing meant her garden was exposed, and she feared a repeat incident. She said the landlord had failed to take her concerns seriously, which worsened her anxiety and stress. As an outcome, she wanted it to acknowledge the seriousness of the incident, secure the garden boundary and increase its compensation offer.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about safeguarding and security of the property
Finding	Maladministration

7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s initial report within 2 days of her raising it. It then took 18 working days for the NHL to send a response to the resident, which made no reference to her report. This likely caused her distress. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord identified its failing and apologised. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will offer £10 for a failure to respond to a query within 10 working days. The landlord offered more than this which was a positive step to put things right.
8. The resident complained about a lack of secure fencing between the properties and that the incident left her feeling unsafe and exposed. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the fence was the resident’s responsibility. This was in line with its repair policy which states that it will not undertake repairs to dividing fences.
9. The resident told us she also had concerns about the boundary gate from a public area, that the intruders climbed over to get into her garden. She said she felt it was not secure enough. Whilst the landlord’s repair policy states it is responsible for boundary gates, there is no evidence that the resident raised this concern. We have therefore recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss her concerns.
10. The resident mentioned that following the incident, she felt unsafe. Whilst the landlord gave the correct information regarding the dividing fences, it would have been reasonable to have offered advice on any other security measures the resident could take to help her feel safer and reduce her distress.
11. The resident she said she felt the landlord had not taken the incident seriously enough and noted the intruders had threatened her daughter. She asked for a safeguarding review. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would consider the risk in line with its ASB policy once she discussed the details with her NHL. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will review reported incidents and consider the risk in each case. It also says it will follow safeguarding procedures if there are concerns about vulnerable or at-risk adults. It would have been reasonable to have assessed the risk without waiting for resident to speak to the NHL as it had details from the report. This was not in line with its policy.
12. In her escalation the resident expressed further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s delays in responding to her. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, increasing its compensation offer to recognise the inconvenience caused, in line with its policy.
13. The resident described how the incident made her feel. She said her mental health had become worse and she felt distressed. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the NHL would call the resident to discuss the incident and provide further support. It did not specify when they would call and there is no evidence to show that a call took place. This is a record keeping failure.
14. In summary, the landlord gave the correct information regarding the fence. It recognised its delays and made attempts to put things right. However, it failed to assess the risk following the report or offer advice on further support or alternative security measures. It also failed to show it contacted the resident as promised in its stage 2 response.
15. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £100. This is in addition to the offers made in its complaint responses, making a total compensation of £160. This is in line with our remedies guidance for findings that have no permanent impact.
16. We have also made orders for the landlord to write to the resident, offering further support and an opportunity to discuss the incident in line with its ASB policy, and provide information on alternative security measures she can take. This aligns with our dispute resolution principles of be fair and put things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

17. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant code is the 2024 edition. The landlord’s complaint policy aligns with the Code.
18. When the resident initially reported her concerns, the landlord considered the matter to be a service request rather than a complaint. Although the resident mentioned previous requests for secure fencing, she did not express dissatisfaction but asked that it consider her request from a new perspective, based on the incident. The Code states that a service request is a request to the landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord treated it as a service request.
19. The Code also states that if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, it must provide an explanation to the resident setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process. Although there is evidence the landlord provided a written response on 3 June 2025, we have not seen a copy of the letter and are therefore unable to assess whether the response was reasonable. This is a record keeping failure.
20. When the resident raised a formal complaint, the landlord logged and acknowledged it in 4 working days. It issued its stage 1 complaint response 10 working days later. This was in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
21. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on the same day it was raised. It provided its stage 2 complaint response 8 working days later, in line with the Code.
22. Overall, whilst the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the Code and its complaint policy, we have not seen evidence that it explained its reasons for treating the initial report as a service request. This likely caused distress to the resident who disputed it was a service request. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair and put things right.

Learning

23. The landlord’s complaint handling adhered to the timelines in the Code; however, it failed to show it provided her with its reasoning for not initially following its internal complaint process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. When considering a refusal for a request the landlord should refer to its policies, processes, or tenancy agreements in support of its refusal. The landlord did not provide evidence of its communication with the resident following its identification of a service request. It also failed to provide evidence of its follow up actions promised in the stage 2 response. This impacted our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

25. The landlord recognised its failures in communication with the resident and made attempts to put things right.