London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202345302)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345302

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports about anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started in June 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In February 2021, the resident reported ASB to the landlord. This included reports about a neighbour damaging a fire door, shouting, playing loud music, the neighbour’s guest threatening others, and the smell of illegal drug use. The resident also reported drug use in the communal carpark and outside his front door. The resident reported further ASB between May and November 2021.
The resident complained to the landlord on 23 January 2022 about its response to his reports. He said the landlord had not acted to address the issues. The resident asked the landlord to confirm the reports he had made, when it had accessed CCTV and followed up with the police, and the actions it had taken.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 August 2022. The landlord said it opened an ASB case in February 2021 following reports from the resident in conjunction with another neighbour. The actions to address the reports were sent to the neighbour as the reporting party and the resident was logged as a witness. It said it had taken action which included contact with the alleged perpetrators, reports to the police, viewed and provided CCTV to the police, and sent letters to all residents about ASB reports. The landlord confirmed that when appointed there would be a dedicated neighbourhood lead for ASB.
The resident escalated his complaint on 28 September 2022. He said the response did not address his concerns and the response was delayed.
The landlord provided its final response on 2 May 2024. It reconfirmed its stage 1 decision about its response to the ASB reports in 2021. The landlord said there had been confusion about who the resident should report ASB to, following the stage 1 complaint. It said that since June 2022 this was managed by the neighbourhood services lead and confirmed the contact details for them. It acknowledged that it could have managed communication more effectively and apologised for not having a clear line of communication. It offered the resident £340 compensation. It broke this down as £60 for distress, £60 for time and effort, and £220 for poor complaint handling.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He said the ASB issues reoccurred and he had made further complaints to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his complaint, the resident told the landlord he had reported ASB for 3 years. The Ombudsman will usually not investigate complaints which were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (normally within 12 months of the matters arising). This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. This investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about ASB in 2021 which were addressed in the landlord’s final response on 2 May 2024.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord in July 2023 about its handling of further reports about ASB. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 24 July 2023. However, this further complaint has not been considered as part of this investigation. This is because it has not exhausted the landlord’s 2 stage complaints procedure. This investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint on 23 January 2022.
Some of the issues raised to us by the resident happened following the end of the complaints process. This included further reports about ASB. As explained above, this investigation centres on the formal complaint made on 23 January 2022. Any issues or requests which were not included or happened after 23 January 2022 should be raised as new complaints with the landlord before they can potentially be investigated by the Ombudsman.

ASB

The tenancy agreement states residents and their visitors must not do anything which causes a nuisance, use the property for criminal or illegal purpose including selling, supplying or using any illegal drugs, and harass or threaten violence towards anyone in the locality.
The Ombudsman’s role in investigating complaints about ASB is to determine whether, after receiving reports, the landlord responded in accordance with its policies and procedures, and if its actions were fair and reasonable.
The evidence shows the resident reported ASB to the landlord on 12 February 2021. He told the landlord in an email that he wanted to discuss ASB in the building and reported drug use outside his property. The landlord acknowledged this on 23 February 2021. There was no evidence of the landlord categorising the ASB or responding in line with its ASB policy. Its ASB policy at the time stated standard priority cases would be logged as ASB and assessed within 3 working days. The landlord’s response stated it was investigating the CCTV. There is no evidence of the landlord providing an update to the resident about this report until June 2021, after the resident chased it twice. This was not in line with its ASB policy which states it will agree an action plan with the reporting party, victims and witnesses, and keep them updated throughout the case.
The resident reported ASB from a neighbour on 18 February 2021. The landlord acknowledged this the following day and said it was investigating. On 28 May 2021 the landlord provided an update to the resident via its management agent. This stated the ASB was resolved. It said it had interviewed the alleged perpetrator who denied the allegations, and it had spoken to them about noise and visitors. These steps were in line with its ASB policy which says action plans can include actions such as interviewing the other party. However, again there was no evidence of the landlord or its manging agent categorising the ASB report or agreeing an action plan with the resident.
The landlord confirmed on 18 June 2021 that a neighbour made the initial ASB reports and it had logged the resident as a witness. Therefore, all follow up and updates were provided to the neighbour as the reporting party. The landlord also confirmed this to the resident in its stage 1 response. This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. This says where reports are made by different reporting parties concerning the same incident(s) and the same alleged perpetrator, a separate case will be created for each reporting party to address the specific needs of each reporting party. The landlord failed to do this. Furthermore, having confirmed it had logged the resident as a witness it failed to follow its ASB policy in regard to updating witnesses. There is no evidence it proactively kept the resident updated as a witness. The policy states that it will agree an action plan with witnesses and keep them updated.
The landlord did not provide evidence of ASB reports from the resident. The resident provided evidence of a number of reports he made in 2021. This included further reports in June of drug use and being verbally attacked, a report in July of 8 further incidents of drug use and rubbish, and reports between September and November about ASB from a neighbour reoccurring and the carpark. There is no evidence of the landlord logging these reports, opening or updating an ASB case, risk assessing the resident’s situation, or agreeing an action plan with him. This was not in line with the landlord’s ASB policy. This also says the landlord will consider the risk in each case, agree an action plan which will show decisive actions and a prompt timeline for communicating delivery. The landlord’s failure to do this meant the resident did not know how the landlord intended to manage his reports. It also meant the landlord did not set expectations on the actions it could or could not take.
In its complaint responses, the landlord said the reports from May to September 2021 were made in conjunction with a neighbour. Some of the correspondence with the landlord did include emails from the resident’s neighbour, emails the resident was copied into, and covered the same ASB issue and alleged perpetrator. However, the reports included details of incidents he had experienced directly and included his police report reference numbers. The landlord did not follow its policy here and log a separate case for him as an individual reporting party for both his reports about a neighbour and communal ASB. This was unreasonable and a failure to address his ASB reports appropriately. This likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he did not feel the landlord had taken his reports seriously.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain robust ASB records. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance its ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The failure to record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong, and inadequate communication and redress. Despite the resident making a number of reports about ASB incidents, the landlord did not provide records of these reports. The landlord’s record keeping here was poor. As a result, its own complaint investigation failed to identify that it had not followed its ASB policy.
The resident raised concerns about the landlord viewing CCTV of his reports and if it had shared this with police. The landlord confirmed in its complaint that it had viewed the CCTV in March and July 2021. However, the evidence shows the resident had also reported the dates and times of multiple incidents in communal areas throughout 2021. There is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident on the outcome of this in line with its ASB policy or confirming if it had viewed the CCTV on these other occasions. This likely caused the resident frustration having provided information on a number of occasions to enable the landlord to investigate possible CCTV evidence.
In raising his complaint, the resident reported an incident of drug use and intimidation in the carpark on 20 January 2022. He asked the landlord if it would be accessing CCTV and provided a police reference number. The landlord’s internal emails in March 2022 stated it had reviewed the CCTV and no evidence was found. There is no evidence of the landlord updating the resident about the outcome of this report. A further failure to follow its ASB policy.
In its final response, the landlord said there had been confusion about who to report issues to. Its stage 1 response confirmed that a neighbourhood lead would be responsible for managing ASB in the building once appointed. However, it failed to confirm how the resident should report ASB in the meantime and this was a failure to communicate its process effectively.
The evidence shows the landlord did take some action in line with its ASB policy. It engaged with multi agency working by requesting information from the police on 24 February 2021 following the resident’s reports about his neighbour and the communal areas. This was inline with its ASB policy from the time which stated it will take a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB.
The landlord said it sent letters to the building in June 2021 with an update on the ASB reports made and advice about reporting ASB to the police. We have not seen a copy of this letter, but the resident did not dispute this. The guidance to report issues to the police is in line with its ASB policy which states in cases of serious crime it usually requires that the reporting party report the incident to the police before it can carry out further action. This was also a reasonable attempt by the landlord to gather further evidence, demonstrating evidence led approach. The landlord also asked the resident to report issues to the police which was appropriate.
In its final response the landlord acknowledged confusion about reporting ASB and that communication could have been more effective. While the landlord explained how it had changed ASB case management since June 2022 to improve its level of service, it failed to identify that it had not followed its ASB policy in response to the resident’s ASB reports. It offered the resident £120 compensation. Its compensation policy says it will consider the seriousness of any unfair impact, and how it communicated when assessing compensation. The amount here was not proportionate to the further failures we have identified.
In summary, the landlord failed to follow its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports. Its complaint investigation failed to identify that it had not opened ASB cases for the resident as the reporting party, updated him as a witness, risk assessed his reports, or provided him with an action plan. As such, its compensation of £120 for distress, time and effort did not go far enough to remedy the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. We have ordered a further amount of compensation in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when a landlord’s offer of action and compensation is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint handling

The resident raised his complaint on 23 January 2022. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 20 August 2022. This was a timeframe of 146 working days. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which stated it would respond within 10 working days. The resident also had to follow up with the landlord on 21 March 2022 for it to raise his complaint. This was despite his email on 23 January 2022 clearly expressing he was making a complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 March 2022. In this letter it said it would respond by 11 April 2022. There is no evidence of the landlord extending the resident’s complaint or providing an update. It failed to follow its policy which says if it could not respond within 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 it would explain why and write within 10 working days.
The resident escalated his complaint on 28 September 2022. The landlord confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint in an email on 6 October 2022. It provided its final response on 2 May 2024. This was an overall timeframe of over 19 months. This significantly exceeded the timeframes in the landlord’s complaint policy of 20 working days for a stage 2 response.
In its email to the resident on 6 October 2022, the landlord said it had a significant backlog of complaints. However, the landlord failed to provide a further update until 5 July 2023. This was despite the resident following up in February, June, and July 2023. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated about the delay in line with its complaints policy and basic customer service principles. As a result, the resident continued to take the time and trouble to chase this and contacted us in March 2024 for help. We contacted the landlord on 25 April 2024 and asked it to provide a stage 2 response.
The delay at stage 2 was excessive and resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident. This delayed the resolution of the resident’s complaint and his access to an investigation by the Service.
In its final response, the landlord offered the resident £220 for its poor complaint handling. Its compensation policy says it will consider the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience, and how it communicated. Its offer here was not enough to account for the excessive delays and distress and inconvenience caused over a prolonged period.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling took too long and did not follow the timescales in its complaints policy. This caused the resident time and trouble to follow up over an extend timeframe. While the landlord’s final response offered the resident compensation for its poor complaint handling this was not proportionate to account for the delays at both stages and the poor communication. Its final responses did not explain the delay or offer an appropriate apology. As such, it failed to fully remedy its poor complaint handling. We have ordered a further amount of compensation in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 4 weeks of this report:
1. apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology must come from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. pay the resident the £500 of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handing of the resident’s reports about ASB. This includes the £120 already offered.
3. pay the resident compensation of £370 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This includes the £220 already offered.
4. provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Service

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident about his current ASB concerns and provide him with an update on the status of his ASB reports.
All staff are trained on its complaint policy and procedure to ensure complaints are processed according to its policy.