London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202426203)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426203

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 July 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. Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy of a 2-bedroom house. Her tenancy started on 5 July 2017. At the time of the ASB reports the resident lived at the property with her children, one of whom is autistic. The resident does not currently live at the property. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident reported ASB to her landlord in March and April 2024. The reports concerned a neighbour (‘the neighbour’) and the neighbour’s partner. The resident reported that on 31 March 2024 the neighbour had pushed her and was verbally abusive. She said that on 2 April 2024 the resident had assaulted her and on 3 April 2024 he had threatened her. The resident then left the property as she felt unsafe.
On 20 August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB. The resident said the landlord had ignored her reports and had not provided support, which meant she had to seek alternative housing. She said the landlord had told her MP it would open a complaint, but had not done so. The resident said she and her family had suffered anxiety and trauma because of the ASB. The resident said she had been financially disadvantaged as she had to pay for temporary accommodation. She said she also had a council tax debt because she had been unable to return to the property to collect post.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 20 August 2024.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 28 August 2024. It apologised for the service the resident had received and stated the following:
1. The resident was on the ‘rehousing list’, however, it could take up to 3 years to be rehoused.
2. It would contact the resident each month to check on her wellbeing. It could not provide an update on the resident’s case as it was currently looking for a new property for her.
3. Due to ‘data protection’ it was unable to say what would happen to the neighbour.
4. ‘Dual’ housing benefit would stop after 12 months. If it had not found a new property for the resident at this time, the landlord would put the resident’s rent account to a “zero” balance.
5. The resident had mentioned a “shortfall payment of £225”, however, it was unable to help with this.
Following the resident’s escalation to stage 2 on 12 September 2024, the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 29 October 2024. It stated the following:
1. It understood that because the neighbour had threatened the resident with knifes, she felt she had to flee the property.
2. The landlord did not offer temporary accommodation. It had, however, provided documentation to help the resident get local authority temporary accommodation. It recognised this was not ideal, but it was to protect the resident and her family.
3. There was an active ASB case, and the landlord was in regular contact with the resident. It’s most recently attempted to contact the resident on 15 October 2024.
4. The resident had provided evidence to the police but had stated she did not want to give evidence in court. The resident had said she did not want to return to the property. The landlord had advised the resident it could provide CCTV and a ring doorbell at her property for extra protection.
5. It recognised the distress the situation was causing the resident and her family. However, it was essential the resident continued to make rent payments. The resident had been advised that she could claim “dual housing benefit”. It provided links to organisations that could provide financial advice.
6. The resident had been approved to be rehoused, but this could take up to 3-4 years.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 24 October 2024 as she was unhappy with how the landlord had handled her ASB reports and felt she was being punished for being a victim of racial harassment. The resident wanted to be rehoused and compensated for the expenses she had incurred, including paying rent on 2 properties.
The resident told us on 26 June 2025 that her and her family remained in temporary accommodation and the issues were unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The purpose of this investigation is for us to decide whether, in response to reports of ASB, the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures. We will also look at whether its actions were fair and reasonable. We will not decide whether ASB took place, or which party was responsible.
During the investigation the resident told us she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her housing application. The resident explained the process and the property she was subsequently offered were inadequate. We are unable to investigate matters that have not been through the landlord’s internal complaints process. As the handling of the housing application was not included in the resident’s complaint to the landlord it is not considered in this investigation.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Ombudsman’s investigation and assessment will focus on the events which occurred between March 2024 until the date of the final response on 29 October 2024. It will not consider the offer of alternative housing made by the landlord to the resident in February 2025.

The landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The resident reported ASB by the neighbour in March 2024. The landlord’s records show the resident contacted the landlord on 27 March 2024 and requested a ‘call back’.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will log and assess all ASB reports. That when logging reports it will identify if there are any vulnerabilities or support needs. The policy states ‘high priority’ cases will be logged and assessed by an ASB case manager within 1 day. ‘Standard priority’ cases will be logged and assessed by a housing officer within 3 working days.
The resident said she made “multiple” ASB reports but the landlord did not respond. On 27 March 2024 the resident told the landlord she had not heard anything since her “original report”. She also said the police had attended her property that day.
The landlord has not provided any contact notes or ASB records prior to 27 March 2024. However, when the resident spoke with the landlord, she was expecting to be contacted about an earlier report. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have provided an update, or if it had not received the earlier report to have logged the details. There is no evidence this happened.
There was an incident between the resident and the neighbour on 31 March 2024. The resident said during the incident the neighbour pushed her and was verbally abusive.
The landlord received an “urgent safeguarding concern” on 2 April 2024. The social worker said the situation had escalated at the weekend, when the neighbour attacked the resident and was arrested. The email said the case required the landlord’s “urgent attention”.
After receiving the report from the social worker, the landlord assigned the resident’s case to its ASB team on 2 April 2024. The landlord’s ASB policy confirms residents, members of the community, the police and agencies can report ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy sets out its ‘case management’ process and states it will:
1. Treat those reporting ASB sympathetically and sensitively.
2. Provide advice and support including referrals to other agencies.
3. Agree an action plan with the resident and keep them informed throughout the case.
4. Complete a ‘vulnerability risk assessment matrix (RAM)’ for all ‘high priority’, and where relevant ‘standard priority’ cases.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 April 2024 and provided criminal reference numbers for 3 incidents. The resident told the landlord:
1. The neighbour had assaulted her the previous day. She had footage of the neighbour threatening her and scratching her face. The neighbour was arrested but released without charge and returned to the property.
2. The neighbour proceeded to stare into the resident’s ring doorbell, spit on her car and was racially abusive. The resident’s friends had gone to the neighbour’s property to support her, and the neighbour appeared with weapons and was arrested.
3. Following the latest incident she and her children fled the property.
An internal landlord email sent on 3 April 2024 asked for the resident to be contacted and for a RAM to be completed if the case met the ‘high priority’ threshold.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 3 April 2024. The ASB case notes do not record what was discussed. After the call, the landlord emailed the resident and set out the actions it would take. It said it would complete a risk assessment and refer the resident’s case to an ASB caseworker. It said the resident would be contacted and an action plan to manage her case completed.
On 3 April 2024 the landlord gave a letter for the resident to present to the local authority to ask for temporary accommodation. The letter said the landlord did not have temporary or emergency accommodation for the resident. It was recommending the local authority assist the resident to be temporarily re-housed. The landlord’s referral was made under the Homelessness Act 2002, where it is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if it is probable this will lead to threats of violence from another person.
Although the landlord told the resident it would carry out a risk assessment there is no evidence it did so. The landlord also did not document its decision making in providing the resident with the letter for the local authority. The landlord’s policy explains the risk assessment is to identify the harm caused to the resident and to guide actions to prevent further harm. The landlord acted inappropriately in not completing the assessment.
On 4 April 2025, the landlord completed a ‘vulnerable residents security scheme request form’. The form confirmed the resident’s eligibility for the works carried out under the vulnerable resident’s scheme and specified a series of additional security measures for her property. The form is unsigned.
On the same date, the landlord wrote to the resident. It listed the options available to the resident to get alternative accommodation and confirmed the following actions:
1. It would contact the resident weekly to check on her welfare.
2. It would request a ‘police disclosure’ to confirm the incident and any risk to the resident if she remained in the property.
3. It would contact adult social services.
4. It had provided the resident with a letter she could use to request temporary emergency accommodation from the local authority.
5. It had offered the resident additional security measures. The resident had confirmed she already had CCTV and sufficient locks on the front door. The landlord would arrange locks for the backdoor.
6. The resident had confirmed she did not want the landlord to contact the neighbour until she had left the property.
7. The resident would send footage of the incident to the landlord.
Although the email listed actions the landlord would take, the landlord has not provided evidence of the ASB ‘action plan’. Furthermore, as the landlord had not completed a risk assessment and it was unclear if the actions were appropriate to the resident’s situation.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 April 2024 to check on her welfare. The resident confirmed she was staying away from the property.
An internal landlord email sent on 10 April 2024 stated that “no manager review” had been created for the resident’s case. The landlord’s ASB policy required ‘P1’ cases be reviewed within 5 days by a regional manager. Although there are no records confirming the landlord’s assessment, this suggests the resident’s case was ‘high priority’ and should have been responded to accordingly.
The landlord called the resident on 11 April 2024 to get an update on the police investigation. The resident said the police were currently unable to provide an update. She said the neighbour told the police the resident’s friends had thrown a bin at her. Because of this, the resident said she was reluctant to provide footage of the incident to the landlord. The resident confirmed she was happy for the landlord to contact the neighbour. On the same date, the landlord wrote to the neighbour to inform her it was investigating concerns about her partner’s behaviour.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 April 2024 to check on her welfare. The landlord’s records said it did not speak with the resident because her phone was switched off.
The landlord’s repair records show it visited the resident’s property on 15 April 2024 to fit spotlights and a lock. The last time the landlord spoke with the resident she confirmed she was staying away from the property. However, this does not appear to have informed its approach to installing the security measures and the landlord was unable to access the property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 April 2024. It provided the following update on the ASB the resident had reported:
1. Report of a physical altercation with the neighbour: The police were taking no further action due to insufficient evidence.
2. Report of the neighbour standing at the resident’s front door and being verbally abusive: This was being monitored by safe neighbourhoods’ officers.
3. Report of racially aggravated harassment: This was currently under investigation.
The landlord said it had not received confirmation from the police that the resident would be in danger if she remained in the property. It said it would tell the resident when it received an update from the police. The landlord said the neighbour had made counter allegations about the resident sending masked men to her door. The landlord asked if the resident would consider mediation.
On 24 April 2024 the landlord contacted the resident about her application for rehousing and the allegations made by the neighbour. It asked the resident where she would prefer to relocate. The landlord said when it received this information it would submit the resident’s application.
The landlord completed a form to request information from the police on any action it was taking against the neighbour. On the form the landlord stated it had put forward the resident to its rehousing panel. It said it needed the information from the police to inform any decision to take legal action against the neighbour.
An internal landlord email sent on 1 May 2024 said the resident’s ASB case had not been updated since 3 April 2024. The landlord’s records also show it had not carried out all the weekly welfare checks with the resident. The landlord ought to have maintained the ASB records and adhered to the contact schedule. This was particularly important in view of the safeguarding concerns around the resident’s case.
The landlord contacted the resident by phone on 2 May 2024 to check on her welfare. The resident was in temporary alternative accommodation. The landlord’s records state the resident was reluctant to provide footage of the incident with the neighbour. The landlord told the resident it had obtained footage from the neighbour and this “paints a different picture”. It told the resident it was therefore very important that it received her evidence.
The landlord sent ‘monthly contact’ emails to the resident on 7 May 2024 and 28 May 2024.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 May 2024 to update her on the outcome of her application for rehousing. It said the resident had been approved for rehousing in a like-for-like property, outside of the borough from which she was fleeing. The landlord said if the resident had “compelling evidence” why she should remain in the same borough, she could provide this for the landlord to consider.
An internal landlord email sent on 27 June 2024 said the resident’s case had not been updated since 30 May 2024.
The landlord contacted the resident by email on 4 July 2024. It said it would check-in with the resident each month while she was awaiting being rehoused. The email does not explain why the landlord is moving from weekly to monthly contact and what this meant for the resident’s ASB case. An internal landlord email later clarified the monthly contact was a welfare check carried out by the ASB team and did not include an update on the housing application.
The resident responded on 14 July 2024. She asked why her case had been transferred to another officer, said she was unhappy with the frequency of the contact and asked for contact details for a manager. The resident restated this request by email on 16 July 2024 and called the landlord and left a message on 25 July 2024. There is no evidence the landlord returned the resident’s call.
The landlord sent a ‘check-in’ email on 7 August 2024 and provided the manager’s contact details.
On 20 August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB and said the following:
1. She submitted “numerous” reports of threatening behaviour by her neighbour to housing officers, but these were ignored.
2. Due to a lack of support from the landlord she had to seek temporary accommodation from the local authority.
3. Her MP contacted the landlord on her behalf, after which she and the landlord spoke about her case. At the end of May 2024, the landlord said it would raise a complaint and write to her with details of the call, but this did not happen.
4. She was unclear why the landlord would only rehouse her ‘out of borough’.
5. She felt unsupported by the landlord. Her children were suffering from anxiety and trauma because of the neighbour’s abuse. She was struggling financially because of the cost of temporary accommodation. She had a council tax debt as she was unable to return to the property to collect her post.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 August 2024. She said although she was able to claim ‘dual housing benefit’ she had to cover the shortfall in rent and was liable for council tax on both properties. She said she also had to pay for her children to travel to schools out of area. The resident said she had been told it could take 3 years to be rehoused and asked what would happen after a year when she could no longer claim dual housing benefit.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 28 August 2024. It apologised for the service not meeting the resident’s expectations and for any distress and inconvenience this caused. The landlord provided a contact for the resident if she had further questions. This was 1 of the officers the resident said had ignored her initial reports.
Following the resident’s escalation requests on 12 August 2024 and 3 October 2024 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 29 October 2024. It said it recognised the distress the situation was causing the resident and the psychological and physical impact on the resident and her children.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its ASB policy and failed to conduct a risk assessment. This was despite the landlord having referred the resident to the local authority on the basis that if she were to continue to live in the property it was probable she would be subject to violence. The failure to carry out a RAM meant the landlord potentially overlooked measures that could have allowed the resident to stay in or return to her home.
Landlords should create and maintain adequate records to effectively manage ASB reports. The resident said she submitted multiple reports prior to the landlord opening the ASB case. The landlord did not establish if it had logged earlier reports, or if the resident’s experiences with the neighbour prior to 31 March 2024 should inform its management of the ASB case.
The landlord did not consistently carry out the weekly welfare check contact. It did not communicate why it was changing the frequency of contact from weekly to monthly. The landlord also did not respond promptly or with empathy to the resident’s concerns about the financial impact of having to leave her property and the effects of this on her children.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay £450 compensation to the resident. This amount is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that adversely effected the resident. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the acts of its tenants, unless it directed, caused, authorised, adopted or encouraged the behaviour. In this case, it is likely the resident felt considerably let down, upset and distressed by the landlord’s failures. The Ombudsman’s award of compensation is to recognise that the landlord caused the resident to feel this way and not for the overall experience of the ASB itself. Therefore, £450 fairly recognises the impact of the landlord’s failures in this case.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must:
1. Acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
2. Give a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement.
3. Give a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
On 20 August 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her ASB reports. The resident said the landlord had not responded to some of the reports she had made and failed to open a complaint when contacted by her MP.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 20 August 2024. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 28 August 2024. The acknowledgement and the response were provided within the timelines set out in the Code.
On 12 September 2024 the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request or provide a stage 2 response. Therefore, on 29 October 2024 the resident restated her request for the complaint to be escalated.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. It provided a stage 2 response on 29 October 2024. This was 34 working days after the resident asked for her complaint to be reviewed. This was 14 working days after the timeline set out in the Code. The landlord acted inappropriately in not providing a complaint acknowledgement and not providing a stage 2 response within the timeframe required by the Code.
The Code states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition.
The stage 1 and stage 2 responses did not address the resident’s concerns the landlord failed to respond to all of her ASB reports and failed to open a complaint after being contacted by her MP. The landlord acted inappropriately in not addressing all the issues raised by the resident.
The Code states landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint.
The stage 1 and stage 2 responses did not state if the landlord had upheld the resident’s complaint or not. The landlord acted inappropriately in not setting out its decision.
In summary, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation request and did not provide a stage 2 response within the timeline set out in the Code. This delayed the resident’s access to a complaint resolution. It also failed to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint and did not state its decision on the complaint. This meant the landlord did not demonstrate it had conducted a robust investigation of the resident’s complaint.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to apologise and to pay £150 compensation to the resident. This amount is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that adversely effected the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £600 compensation. This comprises:
  1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
  2. £150 for the time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The compensation should be paid direct to the resident and should not be paid to a rent or service charge account.