We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202327809)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327809

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

15 October 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 antisocial behaviour (ASB), noise and the resident’s request to move.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 1996. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident including mental health issues.
  2. In February 2022, the resident raised ongoing concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reports of noise (metal work) from her neighbour. In July 2022, the local authority told the landlord that a “live bullet” and threatening letter had been sent to the resident. Following this, the landlord communicated with the local authority about temporary accommodation.
  3. On 13 November 2023, the resident’s representative complained to the landlord about its handling of ASB and noise issues reports. The representative said the landlord had been “dismissive” of her concerns and that she had provided it with evidence from a private investigator.
  4. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 24 January 2024. It identified failings in its handling of the resident’s case. It said more “care and attention” should have been taken to update the resident. It also acknowledged occasions when it had failed to treat or respond to correspondence under its complaints procedure. It awarded her compensation of £4,970. This included a payment of £1,300 for complaint handling failings.
  5. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s investigation of issues and “mechanical” noise. She wanted increased compensation. She also wanted it to move her neighbour or her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman issued a determination in December 2021. This considered the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports, including mechanical noise. Records we have seen show the resident raised her ongoing concerns about ASB/noise issues in February 2022. We have considered events since that date.
  2. The resident said her mental health has been negatively affected by the issues. We acknowledge these concerns. However, the Ombudsman cannot determine causation or liability for personal injury, including health. This matter could be pursued through the court or through the landlord’s public liability insurance. The landlord has previously provided the resident with details about submitting such a claim through its insurer. That was appropriate. The resident may also wish to seek independent legal advice about this. Our investigation has considered any distress and inconvenience caused by any failings by the landlord.

Handling of ASB, noise and the resident’s request to move

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take prompt and decisive action on ASB to prevent it from escalating. It says that it will assign a priority to ASB cases and that it will assess “high priority” cases within 1 working day and “standard priority” cases in 3 working days. It says noise that is “deliberate or persistent”, including mechanical noise, may be considered ASB.
  2. It was appropriate that the landlord’s complaint response acknowledged its failure to respond to contact from the resident in February 2022 as a complaint. It should have done so. It noted she said she was “fed up” about its response to her concerns about noise. Further, the Ombudsman also contacted the landlord around this time setting out the resident’s concerns. By failing to respond it missed an early opportunity to address her concerns and prevent issues from escalating. It noted contact with the resident in mid-February 2022 to arrange to visit about her noise concerns. We have seen no record of this visit. Therefore, we do not know how it responded to her concerns, or whether it did so appropriately. Further there is no record showing how/whether it determined if the matter was ASB, what the priority was, or that it completed any risk assessment or action plan. Doing so would have helped it to identify any vulnerabilities and agree contact arrangements with the resident. That it did not maintain or provide adequate records to demonstrate its actions was a failing.
  3. The local authority told the landlord on 6 July 2022 of police contact about a threatening letter and “live ammunition” the resident had received. It noted the “suspects” lived within the same building. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy says, where there is a threat to life, the local authority has a duty to rehouse a resident. It says the landlord will support a resident in making such an application. It goes on to outline that, if a resident refuses emergency accommodation, it will offer other housing options advice but will not provide temporary accommodation.
  4. The landlord acted appropriately on 7 July 2022 to communicate with the local authority and the resident’s support worker about emergency accommodation. After a number of attempts, it spoke to the resident on 11 July 2022. She said she had been placed in hotel accommodation by the local authority. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with its policy. Further it contacted the police to understand the position with its investigation.
  5. The landlord had recorded it was treating the case as priority 1, and its actions reflect this. However, we have seen no record of any risk assessment by it during this time. Its ASB policy states that it should complete a risk assessment on all high priority cases (and where relevant on standard priority cases). It identified and considered the support required by the resident during this time. However, the purpose of the risk assessment was to assist and guide it on steps to protect a resident from harm. It later contacted the resident in September 2022 setting out actions it had completed. But it should have put in place a clear action plan from the outset. That it did not do so or complete a risk assessment was a failing.
  6. The landlord also made a referral for the resident for priority rehousing on 20 July 2022, and it later noted this had been accepted. This action was reasonable. However, records show she later said she would only consider moving to specific properties in a particular area. This would inevitably reduce the likelihood of finding a property. It was appropriate that the landlord highlighted this to her in its communication of 28 September 2022.
  7. After the resident refused the local authority’s temporary accommodation offer, the landlord funded hotel accommodation for her. This went beyond its responsibilities under its policy. It agreed this action due to its concerns about her vulnerabilities. When it wrote to her on 28 September 2022 it set out that it was unable to extend her stay in hotel accommodation as she had now refused 3 offers of suitable accommodation made by the local authority. We acknowledge the resident said she felt she had nowhere to stay during this period. However, the landlord had noted she had been offered suitable temporary accommodation by the local authority. in line with its policy, its decision not to continue to provide hotel accommodation was reasonable.
  8. The landlord told the resident on 28 September 2022 that it had requested the police provide a panic alarm for her. Records show it contacted the police the same day to make this request. It contacted the police again on 18 October 2022 for an update on its investigation. However, there is no evidence it received or chased a response to its request for a panic alarm. While there is no evidence the resident had requested additional security measures, having made this request, the landlord should have obtained a clear response from the police and updated the resident about this. That it did not do so was a failing.
  9. The resident’s case was reallocated to a new officer in November 2022. It noted then that the conclusion of the police investigation may take several months and that the resident’s neighbours had not been linked with the incident. But we have seen no evidence it attempted to check with the police about the outcome/progress of the investigation until January 2024. The resident said in an email to her representative in March 2023 that the police investigation had concluded due to a lack of evidence. However, without monitoring the case itself, the landlord did not know this. That it did not take adequate steps to do so was a failing.
  10. By 5 May 2023, the police told the landlord that the resident had reported noise concerns and that her neighbour had made a threat to throw acid at her. The landlord should have considered the priority for this report. But there is no evidence it did so. It did not respond to the police’s contact until 22 May 2023, far outside timescales set out in its policy. The delay in its action was a failing. Further, there is no evidence it completed a risk assessment or any action plan. Given the nature of the report, it should reasonably have done so, in line with its ASB policy. We have seen no record of any risk assessment or action plan until October 2023 and January 2024 and that was a failing.
  11. Records provided by the landlord are incomplete. This has made it more difficult for us to understand all the events. It should have provided all evidence to us. That it did not do so was a failing. However, records we have seen show its communication was inadequate following police contact in May 2023. On 10 June 2023 the resident asked that it call her as she did not understand its question about ongoing issues. There is no evidence it did so or attempted to arrange to meet her. That was a failing. The landlord later acknowledged it did not follow up contact from the Citizen’s Advice Bureau (CAB) in May and June 2023 with “due diligence”. The landlord’s inadequate communication was a failing which meant it did not respond to the resident’s reports and concerns appropriately.
  12. The landlord met with the resident on 29 August 2023. However, we have seen no record of what was discussed. That was a failing. Around this time, the landlord’s officer noted communication from private investigators the resident engaged. The resident asked the landlord on 2 and 13 October 2023 to respond to the recordings and the report by the private investigator about mechanical noise from her neighbour. In response it said it would take proportionate action against her neighbour “if and when necessary”. But it should reasonably have determined whether the matter reported amounted to ASB. Its ASB policy says that reports can be made by “other agencies”. Following this, it should have prioritised and assessed the reports. Further, it should have taken action to complete a risk assessment, action plan or update its ongoing ASB case. That it did not take any of these actions was a failing.
  13. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord told the resident it had contacted the Information Commission’s Office (the ICO) for advice about evidence from the private investigator. It said it had also directed its ASB team to obtain legal advice on the matter. The landlord should have done so when it was initially sent the private investigator reports. This would have ensured it considered all appropriate action and was clear on how to proceed. That it did not do so, or respond adequately to the resident’s queries about it, was a failing. We acknowledge the landlord contacted the resident in January 2024 to arrange a joint meeting with her and the police. She declined this meeting. However, there is still no evidence that it has explained the position regarding its review/use of private investigator reports.
  14. The resident wanted the landlord to move her neighbour. We cannot order this. Action such as eviction would be a last resort and, ultimately, a decision for the courts. The resident also wanted the landlord to move her to a specific area and type of property. Again, we cannot make this order. This would be for the landlord to consider under its allocations and lettings policy. It is also dependent on its housing stock. During its complaint investigation in January 2024, the landlord offered to transfer her to a property in an area she had expressed interest. She declined this offer. It would be open to her to approach the landlord again about moving. However, it has appropriately explained to her that it does not own or manage properties within buildings she requested. It also provided her with appropriate information about avenues she could explore for moving. That was reasonable.
  15. The resident has continued to report issues of ASB by her neighbour, specifically concerns about machinery noise. While we have not seen all records of the landlord’s communication, it wrote to her on 19 August 2024 setting out the action plan agreed after visiting her. It said it had agreed to monitor the situation, speak to the neighbour concerned, and visit the neighbour’s property to confirm evidence of any machinery being used. It noted it had received 16 reports from the resident and said there was no evidence to confirm the reports. It told the resident it was closing her complaint. While the agreed actions were reasonable, the landlord should have set out further detail to explain how it had monitored the situation, and action it had taken to investigate her reports. That it did not do so was a failing.
  16. The resident made a further report to the landlord on 11 March 2025. In response it agreed to conduct a unannounced visit to her neighbour. This action was reasonable. Later, at the end of March 2025, it told her it had made the unannounced visit and had found no evidence of a business or of noise nuisance. It wrote to the resident again in April 2025 and said it had fully investigated her concerns and found no evidence of a business being run. It told her it would consider opening a case if she provided “irrefutably evidence to the contrary”.  In response to this the resident said that she considered evidence had been sent by her private investigator. We have seen no evidence the landlord responded to the resident about this. That it did not do so was a failing. It meant the resident was still left unclear about how or whether it had considered evidence supplied by private investigators.
  17. The landlord awarded the resident compensation of £3,670 for failings in its handling of her ASB case, its service and in recognition of her time and effort. Some of this award was to recognise failings in its handling of hot water and heating issues (which is not part of our investigation). It should have stated what part of its award related to ASB issues. However, we have referred to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and considered all the circumstances of the case. Overall, we consider the award already made is appropriate for the impact of the failings identified in this report. We have not ordered increased compensation. However, we have found maladministration by the landlord. This is because of failings we identified in it implementing its ASB policy. It is yet to provide the resident with clarity about its use of information previously sent by private investigators. We have ordered it to provide her with a clear response about this.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response is unclear. It said it had failed to raise an earlier stage 1 after contact from the CAB. It said it considered it was now “fair” to provide a stage 2 response, so the resident did not have to wait for a stage 1 decision. However, its response goes on to say it had provided a stage 1 decision on 10 August 2023, following further contact from the CAB. The landlord did not provide us with a copy of that response. It has not assisted our understanding of events. However, it said it had not responded to a complaint. In these circumstances, it was not reasonable to escalate it to stage 2 of the process. Doing so was contrary to the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It also denied the resident full consideration of her concerns through its complaints process. It was a complaint handling failing.
  2. We have identified positive actions by the landlord during its complaint handling, such as its attempts to arrange alternative accommodation for the resident. However, we also identified other failings. Its response was 7 weeks outside its 20 working day target for responding to stage 2 complaints. It appropriately apologised for the delay, but it should have contacted the resident to agree an extension in advance. That there is no evidence it did so is contrary to the Code.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 response was excessively long. It included lengthy unnecessary information, such as details of its complaint response from 2021 and of a previous Ombudsman investigation. We acknowledge it was attempting to be thorough. Instead, its response was unclear and confusing. This will not have assisted the resident in understanding the failings it had acknowledged. It identified its communication should have been better. But it should also have explicitly acknowledged failings in its communication after it was sent private investigator’s reports.
  4. The landlord awarded the resident £1,300 in recognition of complaint handling failings. We consider this provides appropriate redress in recognition of the impact of complaint handling failings. While we have not ordered the landlord to increase its award, we have found maladministration in its complaint handling. Its response was unclear, did not acknowledge all failings and it failed to respond at both stages of its complaints process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. handling of ASB, noise and the resident’s request to move.
    2. complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. pay her the £4,970 previously awarded for the failings in its handling of her ASB/noise reports and complaints, if it has not done so already.
    3. contact the resident to provide her with a clear response about how/whether it can use information supplied by private investigators she engaged.
    4. contact the resident about any outstanding reports of ASB and apply its ASB policy.

 

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should carry out a review of the findings identified in this report. As part of that review the landlord must set out how it will address the failings to ensure that they do not occur in future reports of ASB and how it will ensure that ASB cases can progress to a final resolution.