London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202328409)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328409

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), noise and criminal damage by a neighbour.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that she was originally given priority bidding status and should retain this status.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block and the resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 2013. The landlord has advised us that it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident’s local Member of Parliament (MP) wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2023 and advised that the resident had reported disturbances from noise caused by her upstairs neighbour. The MP said the resident was concerned that the neighbour might not have adequate floor coverings. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 27 April 2023 and asked for a letter to be sent to the neighbour requesting her to be more considerate. The resident said the landlord should enforce its policy for residents to have adequate floor coverings. She also questioned why the landlord had removed her priority bidding status which would allow her to bid for an alternative property.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response on 6 July 2023 and said that it had made an error in an earlier response by referring to an incident that the police had been called to in 2021involving the resident and the neighbour. The landlord confirmed that this had been a mistake and that the incident had not occurred. The landlord apologised for the error and offered the resident compensation of £250.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 October 2023 and said she had been reporting noise nuisance from her neighbour for the past 10 years and had previously been advised by the landlord to make direct contact with the neighbour to try to resolve the issues. The resident said she would therefore write a letter to her neighbour. The resident said that both she and her daughter were unwell and her daughter was suffering from heart problems, which were being exacerbated by the noise as it was affecting their sleep and wellbeing. The resident again mentioned that she had previously been given priority bidding status and she asked when the landlord would offer her alternative accommodation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 October 2023 and reported damage to the gazebo in her garden. She said someone had thrown a bottle full of urine at the gazebo which had damaged it. She confirmed she had reported the incident to the police and that she believed the bottle had been thrown by her neighbour in retaliation for the letter she had sent to the neighbour. The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint on 7 November 2023 stating that the landlord had not responded to her report of ASB/criminal damage within its policy timescales. She asked the landlord to send a warning letter to her neighbour as she had experienced noise nuisance for 10 years.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 23 November 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. It was still investigating the incident that she had reported on 30 October 2023 and had also been reported by her MP on 2 November 2023.
2. It had assigned the resident’s reports of ASB to one of its Neighbourhood Housing Leads on 8 November 2023 and she had opened a new ASB case.
3. The landlord advised the resident that it would not take responsibility for the reported criminal damage to the gazebo and that the resident would need to claim through her own insurance or from the person who caused the damage.
4. The landlord advised the resident that she should report noise nuisance to both the landlord and the local council as they work in partnership. It explained that the council had powers to take action if it established there was a statutory noise nuisance.
5. The landlord attached diary sheets for the resident to complete, a link to contact the local council and information on using the noise app.
6. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling and offered £40 compensation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day (23 November 2023) and said she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. She said that the landlord should have responded within 1-3 days to her report of ASB and criminal damage made on 30 October 2023 and therefore she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said the Neighbourhood Lead had only contacted her on 22 November 2023. She once again requested the landlord to send a warning letter to her neighbour.
The resident wrote to the landlord several times during November and December 2023 requesting the landlord to write to the neighbour warning her about the noise levels and asking her not to approach the resident’s front door. In December 2023, she reported that someone had kicked in her garden gate and also reported that someone had been knocking aggressively on her door since she wrote to the neighbour in October 2023. The resident requested the landlord to place her and her daughter in a hotel over the Christmas period due to the reported noise from the neighbour and because the communal entrance door was not secure. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 12 January 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. The Area Manager apologised that he had not replied to the resident’s various emails and phone calls as he just returned from bereavement leave.
2. The landlord explained that it had initially logged the resident’s report of ASB and criminal damage on 30 October 2023 as a query. However, it was later recognised to be an ASB case and was logged as such. The case was currently being investigated.
3. The neighbour had made counter allegations about the resident and therefore the landlord had to also investigate these. The landlord said its Neighbourhood Lead would contact the resident to interview her.
4. The landlord said that it may arrange mediation or ask both parties to sign a good neighbour agreement.
5. The landlord said that noise nuisance should be reported to the local council as well as the landlord as the council was able to investigate statutory noise nuisance.
6. The landlord said that it was currently only accepting emergency and medical cases for rehousing and that the ASB reported by the resident did not meet the requirements for rehousing.
7. The resident should continue with her search for a mutual exchange partner. It added that the council had a duty to rehouse residents and provided a link to contact the council.
8. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and frustration experienced by the resident and offered her compensation of £735 (£400 was for inconvenience and distress, £300 was for time and effort and £35 was for the delay in escalating the stage 2 complaint).
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 January 2024 and said she was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response. She said she had not had peaceful enjoyment of her home for over 10 years and the problems had caused a significant deterioration in her health and wellbeing. She requested urgent rehousing and again stated that she had previously been given priority bidding status. She then wrote to us on 23 January 2024 and said the landlord had failed to follow its ASB Policy and had not investigated her reports of ASB/noise or sent any warning letters to her neighbour. She also said the landlord had not answered her question about her previous priority bidding status.
Following the stage 2 response, the landlord wrote to the resident in January 2024 and invited her to participate in a meeting at its office to discuss the reports of ASB/noise and to explore solutions such as mediation or conducting sound tests. However, the resident declined to participate in the meetings as she wanted all contact to be in writing. In the months following the stage 2 response, the resident continued to report noise and other ASB, such as damage to the trellis on her garden fence. The resident advised us in June 2025 that the ASB/noise issues were still ongoing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her stage 1 complaint dated 22 October 2023, the resident stated she was complaining about the landlord’s mishandling of the ASB and issues with her neighbour since 2013. Although the evidence shows that the resident submitted various formal complaints to the landlord, we do not consider it fair and reasonable to investigate matters going back that far. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from 2023 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2023 is made in this report to provide context.
In her stage 1 complaint dated 22 October 2023, the resident said that her and her daughter’s health had been affected by the reported noise. She also said that her daughter had a serious heart condition which had been caused by the noise problems and had made her condition worse. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
We have received information showing events that took place in relation to the property after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 12 January 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), noise and criminal damage by a neighbour

The landlord’s ASB Policy states:
1. Day to day activities, such as noise or minor disturbances cannot be avoided, and residents must accept that sometimes, while the behaviour of another family is frustrating it is not reasonable to place restrictions on their usual enjoyment of their home.
2. It will review all reported incidents and will consider the risk in each case.
3. “In cases of serious crime, we usually require that the complainant/reporting party report the incident to the police before we can carry out further action”.
4. The landlord will log and assess cases of ASB within 1-3 days, depending on the priority.
5. The landlord will agree an action plan with the reporting party, victims and witnesses, and keep them updated throughout the case.
6. One of the types of ASB that will be recorded is noise where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted.
It is evident that this situation has been distressing for the resident. However, our role is not to establish whether the resident’s neighbour was causing a noise nuisance or ASB. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
In her email dated 7 November 2023, the resident said she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the reported damage to her gazebo. We do not look at claims the way an insurance provider would, or award financial redress for damage to items which should be covered by insurance. We can, however, assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably responded, applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2023 and asked it not to contact her neighbour as the noise had subsided since she had approached her MP earlier in the year. She said she was concerned that any contact from the landlord might create a neighbour dispute. The resident resent the email on 2 March 2023 and then followed this up with further emails on 8, 13 and 16 March 2023 requesting a response to her email of 1 March 2023 and asking whether the landlord had contacted her neighbour.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 March 2023 and said as part of its action plan it would monitor activity following a meeting with the resident’s neighbour. The landlord’s records show that it interviewed the neighbour on 20 March 2023. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord had agreed with the resident beforehand that it would contact the neighbour regarding the reports of noise, nor that it had acknowledged the resident’s earlier emails requesting it not to contact the neighbour. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not acknowledged and responded to the resident’s emails requesting it not to contact the neighbour. From her emails, it was clear the resident was anxious about the landlord contacting her neighbour.
The landlord’s ASB Policy states that the landlord will agree an action plan with the reporting party. Therefore, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not agreed the action plan with the resident beforehand, including its plans to interview the neighbour. Agreeing the action plan with the ‘complainant’s in line with the Effective ASB Case Management Principles produced in 2010 by the Government in conjunction with police forces and the Chartered Institute of Housing. The principles stated that landlords should: “Develop jointly an action plan with the complainant that is agreed and understood by them. This should include timescales and agreed actions”.
The landlord’s failure to agree the action plan with the resident prior to implementing it and its failure to respond to the resident’s email of 1 March 2023 resulted in the landlord contacting the neighbour against the resident’s wishes. This caused her distress as she was worried that the landlord’s actions might lead to a neighbour dispute.
In its email of 20 March 2023, the landlord sent the resident diary sheets and asked her to complete these over a 2-week period. It also asked her to download the Noise App and to submit recordings from the app or video footage when sending the completed diary sheets to the landlord. Although the landlord had not agreed the action plan with the resident beforehand, in our view, these proposed steps for gathering evidence were reasonable as they would provide information to help the landlord assess the extent and severity of the noise.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 March 2023 and advised her that based on her email sent on the same day, it would close the ASB case. It was reasonable for the landlord to close the ASB case as this had been requested by the resident on 24 March 2023, albeit the resident said she was reluctantly requesting the closure of the case.
In her stage 1 complaint on 9 May 2023, the resident referred to a letter that the landlord had sent to her MP on 21 April 2023. The resident said that the letter had inaccurately referred to an incident involving the police in 2021, which the resident said had not occurred. She said there had been no police involvement in her reports of ASB. The landlord responded on 16 June 2023 and said that it was unable to provide evidence of the 2021 incident it had referred to due to data protection. It repeated this advice in its complaint response dated 6 July 2023.
We are unable to investigate matters concerning data protection as these fall within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office. Therefore, we are unable to decide whether the reason given by the landlord was legitimate or otherwise in the circumstances. However, it was reasonable that the landlord had at least given an explanation as to why it could not provide the information requested by the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 June 2023 and said she was unhappy the landlord had written to her on 29 July 2022 and referred to an incident involving her father. She contacted the landlord shortly after receiving the letter to explain that her father had passed away some time ago. The landlord had then issued a corrected version which had removed the reference to her father. In its letter dated 6 July 2023, the landlord apologised for the error it had made in referring to her father and confirmed that the incident was not recorded on her personal file. It offered the resident a goodwill payment of £250.
As the landlord had accepted it had made an error, it was reasonable that it had issued a correction to the action plan, apologised for its error, confirmed it was not recorded on the resident’s file and offered a goodwill gesture. The resident clearly found the reference to her father upsetting and therefore, in our view, it was right for the landlord to offer a goodwill gesture as part of its apology. The amount offered was reasonable in our view as it was within the range of sums recommended in our Remedies Guidance for situations where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident. Therefore, the landlord had acted reasonably by correcting its error, apologising, reassuring the resident that the details were not recorded on her personal file and offering her compensation to put things right.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 October 2023 to advise that she would be writing to her neighbour regarding noise. She said she had filled out diary sheets but would wait to see the effect of the letter to her neighbour before sending them to the landlord. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 18 October 2023. However, in our view, this was not unreasonable given that the resident had advised the landlord she would be writing to the neighbour and would not be sending in her completed diary sheets for the time being.
The resident sent a complaint on 22 October 2023 about the landlord’s handling of her longstanding reports of noise nuisance in relation to her neighbour. She explained that the reported noise had had a detrimental impact on her and her daughter’s health, particularly as her daughter had serious heart problems. The resident then contacted the landlord on 30 October 2023 to report that someone had thrown a large bottle full of urine at the gazebo in her garden. The bottle had damaged the gazebo and she had reported the matter to the police. The resident said she suspected the bottle had been thrown by her neighbour in retaliation for the letter she had sent the neighbour on 18 October 2023.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report of noise nuisance on 22 October or the reported damage to the gazebo on 30 October 2023, until it wrote to her on 22 November 2023. The landlord’s ASB Policy states it will assess reports of ASB within 1 to 3 days but is not specific about the timescale for contacting the person reporting ASB. However, we consider the time taken to contact the resident was unreasonable. The resident had reported ongoing noise from her neighbour and criminal damage to her gazebo. She was particularly distressed about the damage to the gazebo as shown in the various emails she sent the landlord while she was waiting for a response. For example, she wrote to the landlord on 1, 7, 8, 9, 15, and 17 November 2023.
The resident requested compensation from the landlord for the damage to her gazebo. The landlord explained in its stage 1 reply that it was not responsible for criminal damage to individual property and the resident would need to claim through her own insurance or from the person responsible for the damage. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states: “We expect our customers to take out adequate home contents insurance for their furniture, decoration and personal possessions to insure them against accidental damage, loss, fire or water damage, burglary etc”. In our view, the advice from the landlord was consistent with its policy and was therefore reasonable. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would need to be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 November 2023 and attached further diary sheets. It said it wanted to offer the resident and her neighbour mediation and would be contacting both of them to discuss the reported ASB. It was reasonable for the landlord to send diary sheets to gather further evidence of the reported ASB/noise and to advise the resident that it wanted to offer mediation, which is one of the available tools outlined in its ASB Policy.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response dated 23 November 2023 that the resident should report noise nuisance to both the landlord and the local council as they worked in partnership and would be able to act if there was a statutory noise nuisance. The landlord provided a link for the resident to download the Noise App. The landlord’s advice that the resident could contact the local council and download the Noise App was reasonable as it was consistent with its ASB Policy and its website.
The landlord said in its email dated 22 November 2023 that it would contact the resident and her neighbour to discuss the ASB. This was repeated in its stage 1 complaint response on 23 November 2023. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident during December 2023 to arrange to meet regarding her reports of ASB. This was unreasonable as the landlord had agreed to contact the resident and the neighbour to discuss the reported ASB. The lack of contact created further distress for the resident who wrote to the landlord several times during December 2023 to report that the noise was still ongoing and to request urgent rehousing. For example, she wrote to the landlord on 10 December 2023 to say she had sent completed diary sheets to the landlord some weeks ago and it had not acknowledged receiving them.
On 27 December 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that her back gate had been kicked in and forced open. She said she had reported the incident to the police and provided the landlord with the police CAD number. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to obtain further details of the incident. Although this was a criminal matter and therefore was being handled by the police, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not contacted the resident to obtain further details. The landlord was aware that the resident had reported previous criminal damage to her gazebo and therefore the latest incident might have been linked.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 12 January 2024 and explained that the resident’s report of damage to the gazebo had originally been logged by the landlord as an enquiry, however, it then closed the query and opened a new ASB case. It was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it had initially logged the resident’s report of damage to her gazebo as an enquiry or query. She had clearly reported ASB in the form of damage to her gazebo and therefore it should have immediately been logged as an ASB case. The landlord realised its mistake shortly afterwards and closed the query. It then opened a new ASB case, which was appropriate.
The landlord apologised in its stage 2 reply for the delay in responding to the resident’s emails, which it explained were due to the Area Manager being on bereavement leave. Although there were legitimate reasons for the absence of the Area Manager and the landlord’s records show there was no Neighbourhood Housing Lead in place for the resident’s property, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not arranged for another member of staff to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s emails during December 2023. The emails sent by the resident show that she continued to report noise by her neighbour and was distressed by the reported damage to her gazebo and back gate.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it would arrange for one of its officers to contact the resident to arrange an interview. The landlord therefore wrote to her on the same day and invited her to an interview to clarify details of the reported ASB incidents. It was unreasonable that it took the landlord until 12 January 2024 to contact the resident to arrange an interview. This was 7 weeks after it had It had advised the resident on 22 and 23 November 2023 that it would contact her to arrange the interview.
Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, noise and criminal damage:
1. The landlord did not acknowledge or reply to the resident’s emails at the beginning of March 2023 asking it not to interview her neighbour. As a result, it interviewed the neighbour against the resident’s wishes.
2. Although the landlord produced an action plan in March 2023, it did not agree the action plan with the resident beforehand.
3. The landlord did not send a substantive response to the resident’s report of noise nuisance on 22 October 2023 or her report of criminal damage on 30 October 2023 until a month later on 22 November 2023. This was despite the resident chasing the landlord several times for a response during November 2023.
4. The landlord did not contact the resident until 12 January 2024 to invite her to an interview, despite advising her on 22 November 2023 that it would contact her to discuss the ASB.
5. The landlord did not contact the resident to discuss the reported damage to her back gate on 27 December 2023.
6. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s emails sent to the Area Manager during December 2023, apart from a brief acknowledgement sent on 5 December 2023.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 2 response in January 2024 to acknowledge its failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It sought to put things right by apologising for the inconvenience and frustration experienced by the resident and by offering her compensation. We have also taken into account that on the day of its stage 2 reply, it had invited the resident to an interview to discuss her reports of ASB.
In terms of the level of compensation, the landlord offered £735 in total. £35 of this sum was in relation to its complaint handling, which is dealt with below. The landlord had therefore offered £700 in relation to its handling of the reports of ASB/noise. The landlord’s Compensation Policy says that it will take into account factors such as the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience and the seriousness of any other unfair impact when calculating the amount of discretionary compensation. However, the policy is not specific about the amounts it will award. We have therefore referred to out own Remedies Guidance in assessing the level of compensation offered.
The £700 offered is within the range of sums we recommend where there has been a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. In this case, the resident spent a great deal of time and trouble chasing the landlord for responses to her emails. Her emails show that she experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB/noise. We therefore consider that the landlord’s failings had a significant impact on the resident. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we have concluded that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to put things right.
We recognise that following the landlord’s stage 2 reply, the resident was still dissatisfied with its response to her complaints. However, as we have not investigated the landlord’s actions beyond its stage 2 reply, we have made a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ because the landlord identified and acknowledged its failings prior to our formal investigation, and on its own initiative. It also made an offer of compensation, which in our view put things right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report that she was originally given priority bidding status and should retain this status

The landlord’s Allocations and Lettings Policy states:
1. Properties that are not subject to local council nomination rights will be matched to a resident from the landlord’s own rehousing list.
2. For a resident to be added to the landlord’s rehousing list, their circumstances must meet one or more criteria listed in the policy. The criteria relate to emergency situations or having a medical need.
We would not order a landlord to award a resident priority status for rehousing as this may be unfair on other applicants who are on the landlord’s waiting list. This approach is consistent with our Remedies Guidance, which indicates that such orders would be unfair because there may be other applicants who have a higher priority.
The resident has stated that she was given an indefinite priority rehousing agreement and would not have accepted the property otherwise. The landlord has provided us with a copy of a letter sent to the resident on 25 September 2013 confirming that she had been accepted for bidding through the ‘choice based lettings’ scheme. However, the landlord has said that the letter made no reference to ‘priority bidding’ and we can confirm that there is no mention of ‘priority bidding’ status in the letter. Furthermore, the landlord has stated that in 2019 the bidding process was discontinued and a letter was sent to residents informing them of this.
We are aware that the resident disputes the landlord’s information and believes that the landlord made a commitment that she should retain priority bidding status and therefore it should honour this. We are unable to make a binding decision on whether the landlord is legally obliged to award or reinstate ‘indefinite priority bidding status’ to the resident. This would be a matter for the courts to decide as this may involve deciding whether the landlord had made a legally binding agreement for the resident to be given indefinite priority bidding status. We have therefore focussed our investigation on how the landlord responded when the resident raised this matter. As this matter was raised as part of the complaints process, we would expect the landlord to have addressed it fully in its complaint response and provide clear reasons for its decisions.
The resident mentioned in her email dated 27 April 2023 to the landlord that when she first moved to the property the landlord agreed to give her priority status on its bidding system. However, she said the landlord had permanently removed the bidding system. The landlord did not respond to this point when it sent its complaint response on 16 June 2023. This was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part because although the resident had not expressly stated her dissatisfaction in relation to the removal of her priority bidding status, she had nevertheless raised the matter in her complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 October 2023 and said the landlord had agreed she had priority bidding status when she first moved to the property in 2013. She said the landlord had since removed this status and she asked when the landlord would offer her alternative accommodation. She also raised this point as part of her complaint on 22 October 2023. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this point and therefore the resident wrote to the landlord on 23 November 2023 and asked for a full explanation about the removal of her priority bidding status. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not responded to this element of the resident’s enquiry/complaint as she had specifically raised the matter in her emails in October 2023.
The resident wrote to the landlord several times during November and December 2023 and requested the landlord to rehouse her because of the reported noise from her neighbour and because of safety concerns with the communal door. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 12 January 2024 and said that its rehousing team had advised that the landlord was only accepting emergency or medical cases for rehousing.
The landlord’s advice that it was only accepting emergency/medical cases for rehousing was consistent with its Allocations and Letting Policy. However, the landlord did not specifically address the resident’s concern that she had originally been given priority bidding status when she moved to the property. Therefore, although the landlord provided a response regarding its current rehousing position, we do not consider the quality of the response to have been helpful or appropriate. The response did not provide clear information to show it had properly investigated whether the resident had been given priority bidding status and whether this meant she would now have any increased priority for rehousing. The landlord’s failure to specifically respond to this matter led to the resident continuing to raise the matter after the landlord’s stage 2 response.
We have found there was service failure because the landlord delayed responding to the resident’s emails sent during October 2023 about being given priority bidding status and, when it did respond in January 2024, the quality of its response was unhelpful to the resident. We have ordered the landlord to investigate the resident’s report that she was told she had priority bidding status in 2013 and to write to her setting out its findings and its conclusion/decision regarding her rehousing status. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to reflect the additional time, effort and frustration experienced by the resident due to the landlord’s failure to give a clear response to her on this matter. The sum is in line with our Remedies Guidance for cases where there has been service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and stage 1 complaints are replied to within 10 working days of logging the complaint. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. If the landlord cannot meet either of these timescales, it will write to the resident within a further 10 working days to explain why. In situations where an extension of longer than 10 working days is needed, the landlord will try to agree this with the resident.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 9 May 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 10 May 2023. The landlord had therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 16 June 2023, which was 26 working days after acknowledging the complaint. Although the landlord had sent an email to the resident on 26 May 2023 stating that it would need more time to respond to the complaint, the time taken to send its response was still inappropriate. The landlord had advised the resident on 26 May 2023 that it would respond by 9 June 2023 and it did not adhere to this timescale. The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 May 2023 to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s extension of time. She also chased the landlord for the complaint response on 13 June 2023.
As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord offered the resident £10 for the delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint. The landlord’s Compensation Policy which was in operation at the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint stated: “We will make a payment of £10 for…failure to respond to a formal complaint within the timescales published in our Complaints Policy”. The landlord’s offer of £10 was therefore in line with its policy and was therefore reasonable when also considering that it had written to the resident on 26 May 2023 to say it needed more time to respond.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 June 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 reply and wanted it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 30 June 2023, which was 9 working days after receiving the complaint. The time taken was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part as it was outside the 5 working days stipulated for acknowledging complaints in our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 6 July 2023, which was 4 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The landlord had therefore responded to the complaint within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy.
The resident made a new stage 1 complaint on 7 November 2023 about the lack of response to her reports of ASB. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 November 2023, which was within the 5-working day period stipulated in its Complaints Policy, and was therefore appropriate. The landlord stated that due to a high volume of complaints, it may need to extend the timescale for responding by 5 to 10 days. It was reasonable that the landlord had helped to manage the resident’s expectations by advising her that it might need additional time due to high complaint volumes.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 23 November 2023, which was 11 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. The landlord had therefore taken slightly longer than its 10-working day timescale to respond. This was a shortcoming on its part. However, as it had previously warned the resident that it might need some additional time, it had responded to the complaint within a reasonable timescale.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 November 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response and wanted the complaint escalated to stage 2.It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether it acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, we have concluded that it did not acknowledge the complaint within the required timescale and therefore this was inappropriate.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 12 January 2024, which was 33 working days after it had received the complaint. The time taken by the landlord was inappropriate as it was outside of the 20-working day timescale in its Complaints Policy. During November and December 2023, the resident had contacted the landlord on various occasions requesting a response to her complaint. It is clear that the lack of response had therefore caused the resident distress and inconvenience in having to chase the landlord for a reply.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns, which it said had been due to bereavement leave on the part of the Area Manager. It offered the resident compensation of £35 for the delay in escalating her complaint. The amount offered by the landlord is broadly in line with the range of sums recommended in our Remedies Guidance for service failures over a short duration that may have caused distress, inconvenience time and trouble. Therefore, given the landlord’s apology, explanation for the delay and offer of compensation, we have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress to put things right in terms of the delay in replying to the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), noise and criminal damage by a neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report that she was originally given priority bidding status and should retain this status.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £100 compensation for its response to the resident’s report that she was originally given priority bidding status and should retain this status.
3. Investigate the resident’s report that she was given priority bidding status in 2013 and write to her setting out its findings, conclusion and decision regarding her rehousing status.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £735 offered at stage 2 if this has not already been paid. Our findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that this compensation is paid.