London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202016151)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016151

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 April 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 handling of the resident’s reports of anti social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1 bedroom flat located on the 1st floor of a converted house. The neighbour who is the subject of the resident’s ASB reports, lives in the flat directly above the resident’s flat.
  2. In July 2022 the resident reported that the neighbour was tracking her movements and stalking her as she moved around in her flat. Following this she also reported that the neighbour’s flat was overcrowded as the neighbour had relatives living in their flat. The landlord visited the neighbour’s property to investigate the allegations. Following the landlord’s visit, it wrote to the resident confirming that it had found no evidence to support the allegation of stalking. It also confirmed that the neighbour had appropriate floor coverings in place and there were no other occupants living in the property. The landlord informed the resident that based on its findings, it would close the ASB case. The landlord also noted in its correspondence to the resident that she had positioned her video doorbell towards the communal stairs going up to the neighbour’s flat. It explained that this was wrong as the camera needed to be positioned in front of the resident’s door. The landlord initially asked the resident to reposition her video doorbell, and later requested its removal, stating that it could not identify a valid reason for its installation. On 15 February 2023 the landlord issued a formal warning to the resident after it received a report that drumming noises had come from the resident’s flat in the early hours of the morning.
  3. On 10 March 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord and explained her longstanding concerns about being stalked by both previous and current neighbours residing in the flat above. She stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her reports in 2022. She believed it had failed to properly address her allegations of harassment, had not followed through on a promised visit to her flat and had instead focused on commenting about her video doorbell. She felt the landlord’s responses were dismissive and questioned the validity of the noise allegation against her, noting she would have been asleep at the time. She explained that she considered the neighbour’s behaviour amounted to gang stalking and said that it had affected her health, career, and privacy.
  4. The landlord treated the resident’s correspondence as a formal complaint and issued its stage 1 response on 5 May 2023. The landlord confirmed that it had found no evidence to support the resident’s recent allegations and that she had not submitted any new reports since then. Regarding the warning letter that it sent to the resident, the landlord explained that its letter was intended to inform her of the noise report and clarify its expectations as a landlord, not to cause offence. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this.
  5. On 7 August 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint. She stated that she had lived in the property for several years without receiving noise complaints and therefore found the landlord’s warning letter to be insulting. She said that thewarning letter contributed to the harassment that she continued to experience from the neighbour, who she noted was known to mental health services. She requested that the landlord move her from the property as soon as possible.
  6. On 11 October 2023 the landlord issued its final response. It stated that its records showed that it had actively addressed the resident’s ASB reports and maintained communication with her. It reiterated the actions that it took to visit the neighbour’s property and its findings from the visit. The landlord acknowledged the impact of the matter on the resident’s mental health and signposted her to relevant support services. In response to the resident’s request for a move, the landlord advised that the resident needed to actively seek a transfer herself. It suggested Home Swapper as an option. The landlord offered £260 in compensation, comprising:
    1. £100 for distress caused during the complaints process.
    2. £60 for the time and effort spent pursuing the complaint.
    3. £100 for poor complaint handling.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred the complaint to us. She requested our assistance regarding the harassment she reported from the neighbour and its impact on her physical and mental health. She also sought our assistance with window repairs and raised concerns that the landlord was using the building to house residents with mental health conditions. The resident said she struggled to arrange a move through Home Swapper due to the property’s condition and noted that, despite paying service charges, the landlord had not cleaned the communal carpet.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has reported ASB from the neighbour in the flat above since 2013. In 2021 she complained about the landlord’s response to her reports and the landlord provided a final response in November 2021. Residents may refer complaints to us to investigate within 12 months of a landlord’s final response. The resident did not refer the 2021 complaint to us within 12 months of the landlord’s final repsonse. Therefore, we have not investigated the landlord’s response to the 2021 complaint.
  2. The resident also requested our assistance with repairs to her windows. In her complaint to the landlord in March 2023, the resident stated that she had raised the issue of the windows as part of a disrepair claim that was settled in August 2022. However, she did not escalate the matter of the window repairs to stage 2 of the complaints process. As the landlord has not fully considered the complaint regarding the condition of the windows within its complaints process, we are unable to assess its response to this issue in this investigation.
  3. The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord not cleaning the communal carpets. This was not part of the formal complaint that she submitted so we cannot investigate it. The resident may raise a separate complaint to the landlord about this if she wishes to.
  4. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her neighbour’s behaviour. Specifically, the reports that the resident submitted to the landlord in the 12 months leading up to the complaint in March 2023. Evidence confirms that the resident’s first report of ASB to the landlord in 2022 was in July 2022. As such, this investigation will consider the landlord’s response to that report up until March 2023, when the resident submitted her complaint.
  5. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, 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. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB from the neighbour.

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its actions were fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman has a specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.
  2. Between 8 July 2022 and 20 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord on at least 3 occasions to report her neighbour’s behaviour. She reported that:
    1. The neighbour, who the resident said had mental health conditions, was stalking her while she was in her flat. The resident stated that the neighbour would make noise in their flat to make her aware that they were following her.
    2. The neighbour was living in the flat with 2 of their relatives. The resident said that this constituted overcrowding as the flat was 1 bedroom.
    3. One of the neighbour’s relatives had found a way to ‘jam’ her video doorbell.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will maintain contact with the reporting party and provide updates throughout the case. It also states that, where appropriate, it will use available powers and remedies to address ASB. This may include actions such as sending communications to reinforce that it takes ASB seriously and warning of potential consequences for those found responsible. The policy also references the use of prompt, proportionate, and decisive interventions, such as warning letters, mediation, or acceptable behaviour contracts, to prevent issues from escalating.
  4. The landlord’s ASB records show that following the resident’s reports it initially discussed the allegations with the neighbour in July 2022. It later visited the neighbour’s property after receiving further reports from the resident regarding stalking and overcrowding in the property.
  5. The landlord’s actions in first discussing the allegations with the neighbour and subsequently visiting their property were in line with the expectations set out in its ASB policy. The policy highlights the importance of taking appropriate and proportionate steps to investigate reports of ASB. In this case, the landlord’s decision to attend the neighbour’s property demonstrated an inquisitorial approach. It sought to understand the circumstances first-hand, assess the environment, and determine whether there was any evidence to support the resident’s claims. This reflected a reasonable and proportionate response, particularly given the nature of the allegations, which included concerns about stalking and overcrowding. As part of its investigation, the landlord also assessed the flooring in the neighbour’s property. Our Spotlight report on noise emphasises the importance of landlords recognising the impact of flooring choices, particularly hardwood or laminate, in relation to noise complaints. The landlord’s assessment of the flooring during its visit to the neighbour’s property demonstrated a good practice approach. The resident reported that she could hear the neighbour moving from room to room and felt unable to have private conversations, which suggests a potential issue with sound transmission between the properties.
  6. In the complaint the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the communication she received from the landlord in relation to its decision to close the ASB case. The resident explained that the letter was dismissive of her concerns raised about the neighbour and did not provide a breakdown of the actions taken. Having seen the landlord’s correspondence to the resident dated 21 November and 28 November 2022 respectively, we have found that the correspondence provided an explanation as to why it was closing the case and the actions it took to come to the decision to do so. This is in line with the expectations of its ASB policy. The letter explained that the landlord observed all the rooms in the property as well as the floor coverings. The landlord also confirmed the outcome of the investigation into the report of overcrowding in the flat above, and suggested mediation between the resident and her neighbour.
  7. The resident raised concern that the landlord had failed to visit her property as part of its investigation, despite her understanding that it would do so. According to the landlord’s ASB policy, where necessary, it will arrange interviews at a location chosen by the reporting party, including their home, and will consider any relevant personal circumstances when handling a case. While there is no evidence that the landlord agreed to visit the resident’s property, nor any record that such a visit took place, the policy suggests this would have been an appropriate step in certain cases. Given the nature of the allegations, specifically the resident’s reports that she was being stalked and overheard by the neighbour while she was in her flat, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to attend her property as part of a thorough investigation. The failure to do so, without explanation, represents a shortcoming. A visit to the resident’s property could have provided the landlord with additional context and potentially allowed it to observe, or better understand,what the resident reported she was experiencing within her property.
  8. The resident expressed that she found the warning letter that the landlord issued to her on 15 February 2023 insulting. It is not our role to determine whether there was noise from the resident’s flat as the warning letter alleged. Our role is to assess whether the landlord acted in line with its policy. The landlord’s ASB policy states that interventions it can take include prompt and decisive action to prevent any issues from escalation such as the use of warning letters. Therefore, in the circumstances the landlord acted in line with its policy as it sent the warning letter following receipt of a report of noise from the resident’s property.
  9. In its complaint response the landlord clarified that its warning letter was not intended to cause distress to the resident and explained its purpose. We consider the landlord’s explanation to be appropriate. While the landlord acted in line with its policy by issuing the warning letter, it acknowledged that the communication had a negative impact on the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s reassurance was an appropriate response to address her concern, as it provided clarity on the purpose of the warning letter.
  10. In relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident about her video doorbell, we understand that the landlord became aware of the issue during its visit to the neighbour’s property. According to the landlord’s guidance for residents, if a video doorbell captures footage beyond the boundary of the resident’s own property, there must be a valid reason for doing so. The landlord’s guidance says that residents should inform neighbours that CCTV is in use and to display appropriate signage. The landlord found that the resident’s doorbell was positioned facing the communal staircase leading to the neighbour’s front door. In line with its guidance, the landlord raised concerns with the resident about the doorbell’s placement and provided information on its expectations regarding the use of such devices in shared spaces.
  11. After determining that there was no evidence of the neighbour stalking the resident, the landlord made the decision to close the ASB case. It also offered the resident mediation with the neighbour. This was an appropriate offer to help both the resident and the neighbour resolve any tension between them.In response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged the impact that the situation had on the resident and signposted her to appropriate support organisations, which was reasonable given the resident’s concerns.
  12. The resident’s concerns about the occupants of the flat above her monitoring and surveying her movements date back to 2013. While we have not considered the landlord’s historical responses to the concerns, we note that the resident has said that this longstanding issue has had a significant impact on her overall wellbeing. The landlord’s policy suggests that as part of its investigation, it may support residents in gathering evidence. The landlord did this by attending the neighbour’s property to investigate whether there was evidence of stalking in the flat. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to attend the resident’s property, which would have been a reasonable action for it to take as part of its investigation into her reports.
  13. Overall, we have found that there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. The evidence indicates that, in line with its ASB policy, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the allegations. After finding no evidence of the reported stalking within the neighbour’s flat, the landlord offered mediation and explained its decision to close the case. While the landlord for the most part acted in accordance with its policy, the service failure lies in its decision not to attend the resident’s property as part of its investigation into the ASB reports. A visit to the resident’s property may have provided the landlord with more context to the resident’s experience. Therefore, we have found that this constitutes a service failure rather than maladministration.
  14. In its response to the complaint, the landlord did not acknowledge the impact of it not attending the resident’s property as part of its investigation into her reports. In recognition of this service failure, we have ordered that the landlord pay the resident £50. This compensation is in line with our remedies guidance, as the failure did have a negative impact on the resident. However, considering the actions that the landlord did take in response to the resident’s reports, we do not find that this failure significantly affected the overall outcome of the landlord’s investigation into the reported ASB. This is because the landlord did, to an extent, seek evidence through discussions with the neighbour and by visiting the neighbour’s flat. It also took a broader approach to the matter and assessed whether aspects of the neighbour’s property, specifically the flooring, was a factor in the circumstances. Given that the resident’s reports indicated an issue with noise transference between the 2 flats, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider this as part of its investigation into the reports.
  15. The resident requested that the landlord transfer her to another property and believes that the property is unsuitable for her. She also mentioned that the landlord was housing residents with vulnerabilities in the property. In response to a previous complaint, the landlord explained that the resident did not meet its criteria for it to consider her for an internal transfer. According to the landlord’s policy, it may consider a resident for an internal transfer if they meet a specific criteria, such as being at risk due to high levels of crime or ASB, or if the resident has a significant medical need or disability that poses an immediate risk to their life by remaining in the property.
  16. The landlord was unable to find evidence to support the resident’s report of stalking by the neighbour. Given this it is unlikely that the resident would meet the landlord’s criteria for it to consider offering her an internal transfer. The landlord’s allocations policy confirms that it may provide advice to residents who express a desire to move. In this instance the landlord provided the resident with appropriate guidance on how she could pursue a move herself. The resident has raised concerns that the condition of her property, particularly the windows, has made it more difficult for her to successfully swap properties with potential candidates. Given these concerns, we have recommended that the landlord inspect the windows to assess their condition.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders

  1. In October 2023 the landlord sent the resident a cheque for the £260 compensation that it offered to her in its response to the complaint.
  2. We have ordered that the landlord pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the potential impact of its response to the ASB reports.
  3. The landlord should make the payment of compensation that we have ordered directly to the resident within 4 weeks of this report. Once the landlord has made the payment to the resident it should provide confirmation to us.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord arrange an inspection of the windows in the resident’s property to determine what repairs, if any, it is required to complete.