London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202334349)

Decision
Case ID	202334349
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 February 2026

Background

1. At the time of his complaint, the resident lived in a one-bedroom flat with his wife and children. The landlord was aware he is deaf and nonspeaking. He reported to the landlord that he was physically assaulted at his property. He asked to be rehoused because he did not feel safe returning home. He complained about how it handled the situation and believed it did not take his vulnerabilities into account.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and request to be rehoused.
   2. Concerns his vulnerabilities were not taken into consideration.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB and request to be rehoused.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the residents concerns his vulnerabilities were not taken into consideration.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the residents associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB and request to be rehoused

4. While the landlord did not follow its ASB policy, it acknowledged its failings and apologised. It took reasonable corrective action and offered proportionate compensation.

Concerns his vulnerabilities were not taken into consideration

5. The landlord acknowledged its failings and apologised. It demonstrated learning and said it would update its systems to reflect the resident’s circumstances more accurately. It offered proportionate compensation.

Associated complaint

6. The landlord acknowledged its failings, explained its delay, apologised and offered proportionate compensation.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1,200 offered in its final complaint response. This comprises: £450 for its failure in dealing with the ASB case and time and effort getting the complaint resolved. £600 for distress and inconvenience for the failure to recognise impact due to vulnerabilities £150 for poor complaint handling Our findings of reasonable redress are made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
The landlord should consider providing training for frontline staff on recognising vulnerabilities, identifying required reasonable adjustments, and managing these appropriately.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 September 2023	The resident complained to the landlord via a representative. They said he was forced to leave his home after his neighbour assaulted him. They considered the property no longer suitable and believed it should rehouse him. They said the attack happened in front of his son on 31 January 2023. They provided a crime reference number and explained the police investigated the incident but took no further action and closed the case.   The representative said the landlord knew about the assault but did not provide any support. The resident received emergency accommodation from the council, where he remained at the time he made the complaint. They said it failed to consider his vulnerabilities. They requested its relevant policies but they received no response.
5 October 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
12 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it closed the ASB case because the resident did not want it to contact the neighbour. It explained that without an investigation, it was limited in the action it could take. It said it confirmed this in an email on 12 September 2023.   The landlord said it could consider installing additional security measures and advised the resident how to request these. It said the transfer list was closed and a mutual exchange was the best option for rehousing. It provided links to property‑search sites and offered support with the process. It said it opened a query regarding the policies, which would be handled outside the complaint process. It apologised for the delay in resolving the complaint and offered a £10 e‑voucher.
9 November 2023 and 23 November 2023	The resident escalated his complaint. He was unhappy with the landlord’s response and felt it did not resolve his concerns. He also said the compensation was not proportionate.
9 February 2024	The resident brought the complaint to us because he had not received a response after submitting his escalation request.
12 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request following our intervention.
15 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It explained the delay in providing a response was due to an internal error in raising complaints. It said it would reopen the resident’s ASB case. It would arrange a visit with a British Sign Language (BSL) interpreter, review evidence and conduct a risk assessment. It would refer his case to the priority needs panel to consider rehousing but advised this was a lengthy process. It suggested the best option for rehousing was mutual exchange. It reoffered additional security options.   The landlord confirmed the requested policies were provided on 29 November 2023 and apologised for the delay. It said it would update its internal records to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities more accurately to avoid future misinterpretation. It added that it should have been more supportive following the incident and apologised. It noted he was recorded as the sole tenant and suggested updating this to include his family.   The landlord apologised for its poor communication and delays. It said it showed a lack of urgency around the ASB report, and it should have given the residents vulnerabilities more consideration. It acknowledged the distress and frustration this likely caused. It offered £1,200 compensation comprising:   £450 for its failure in dealing with the ASB case and time and effort getting complaint resolved. £600 for distress and inconvenience for the failure to recognise impact due to vulnerabilities £150 for poor complaint handling
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and asked us to investigate. Although he has since found alternative accommodation, he believes it should have rehoused him and his family and feels the compensation offered was not appropriate.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of ASB and request to be rehoused
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The landlord provided limited information about the reported ASB. This indicates poor record keeping and has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This investigation, has therefore, relied on the evidence available to determine this case.
8. The resident said his neighbour assaulted him in front of his son at his property in January 2023. It is unclear when he reported this to the landlord, but it contacted him in March 2023 to request an update and offered additional security measures. He confirmed there had been no further incidents, and the council had placed him in temporary accommodation. He said he wanted support in finding alternative accommodation.
9. The representative stated that the police had investigated the incident and took no further action. It is not clear from the evidence that the landlordcontacted the police to obtain further information, referred him toany support services or considered his vulnerabilitiesat the time. It did demonstrate that it completed a risk assessment or assign a priority status in line with its ASB policy.
10. The landlord replied to the council’s request for an update in April 2023. It said the resident had not responded to its email asking for an update on additional security measures and for permission to contact the neighbour. That said, we have seen no evidence to show when it asked for permission to contact the neighbour. It should have been more proactive and followed up to confirm whether it had his permission and investigate given it had no response.
11. In June 2023, the landlord told the council it did not have a rehousing waiting list and recommended a mutual exchange. It tried to arrange a meeting in July 2023. The resident was unclear whether the meeting would be in person or online, and the meeting did not go ahead. After meeting with him on 8 September 2023, it contacted the council and confirmed he did not want it to contact the neighbour. It explained it could not progress the case or take necessary action without his consent.
12. The landlord should have attempted to arrange a meeting sooner in March 2023 when it was aware of the alleged assault. There was an unreasonable delay from its initial contact in March 2023, attempted meeting in July 2023 and actual meeting in September 2023, almost 8 months after the incident took place. This likely caused distress and frustration for the resident. It should have maintained regular contact and provided the necessary advice and support, but the evidence does not show it did so.
13. The landlord confirmed its position in its stage 1 complaint response. It said it closed the ASB case because it could not progress an investigation without his consent, which limited any action it could take. While it liaised with the council about rehousing, it did not demonstrate that it contacted the police to find out why they were taking no further action. It would be good practice for it to consider other avenues of investigation before closing the case. This could have given valuable insight to the incident, informing its decision making and help determine next steps. It was not reasonable or in line with its ASB policy to close the case without further consideration.
14. The landlord repeated its offer to consider additional security measures and said a mutual exchange was the most suitable rehousing option, offering support with this. It offered a £10 e‑voucher for the delay. However, it did not show it assessed compensation in line with its policy, which allows discretionary payments for avoidable distress, inconvenience, or poor communication. The incident occurred in January 2023, but the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until October 2023. During this time, it had limited contact with the resident and failed to send the response to his representative. This showed a lack of consideration for required reasonable adjustments and resulted in unreasonable delay. Its compensation offer was therefore not proportionate to its failings and the delays he experienced.
15. The evidence does not show the landlord followed its ASB policy guidance when prioritising the case. The policy says it will assign a high or standard priority and assess cases within one and 3 working days, respectively. Although it is unclear when the resident first reported the incident, the initial response does not show the landlord followed this process. It could have contacted the resident more proactively, and the delay was unreasonable. It did not maintain regular contact with the relevant parties, and it is unclear whether it followed its safeguarding procedures given the identified vulnerabilities.
16. It is unclear whether the landlord made any referrals to support agencies, completed risk assessments or an action plan. It should keep clear records of meetings and calls to support decision making and ensure effective service and case management. No evidence has been provided to show records of these meetings or conversations. This indicates poor record keeping and has affected our ability to accurately assess if any actions were discussed.
17. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay and said it would reopen the ASB case. It said it would arrange a visit with an interpreter to review evidence, conduct a risk assessment and refer to the priority needs panel. It apologised for lack of urgency in dealing with the resident’s case. It offered £150 compensation to recognise its failure in dealing with the ASB case and £300 for time and effort getting the complaint resolved. This was reasonable in addressing its failingsand its compensation offer was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.
18. Although the landlord took some positive measures in its final response, such as providing an interpreter, reopening the case, and completing a risk assessment, these were actions it should have taken at the start of the case. Additionally, it could have referred him to the priority needs panel at an earlier stage, particularly given the residents vulnerabilities and knowledge that he as in temporary accommodation. That said, it recognised these failings and offered proportionate compensation.
19. The landlord explained it did not operate a housing transfer list and advised the resident to register for the mutual exchange scheme to increase his options. It said overcrowding did not qualify for a management move.Although no rehousing policy was provided, this is in line with the information available on its website. It said ASBrelated moves were only considered where there was a threat to life, which would require a full investigation. Without his consent to investigate, it could not progress the assessment. It noted that even with an investigation, a suitable property might take time to become available. It suggested the private rented sector as a quicker alternative. It repeated that it could consider additional security measures at the property. This was a reasonable and a clear explanation of its position.
20. In summary, the landlord missed opportunities to support the resident’s ASB case. It should have communicated more proactively and completed the required assessments. However, it acknowledged its failings, took corrective action, and offered proportionate compensation. It also provided relevant information about his rehousing options and offered support, while appropriately managing expectations about timescales and availability.

Complaint	Concerns his vulnerabilities were not taken into consideration
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The landlord did not fully recognise or make reasonable adjustments forthe resident’s vulnerabilities. He requires a BSL interpreter, yet staff attempted several unscheduled phone calls and home visits. This did not meet his communication needs. It did not acknowledge these failings in its stage 1 response but recognised and addressed them at stage 2.
22. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) 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.
23. The landlord apologised for not providing the level of support the resident should have received and accepted that failing to account for his vulnerabilities was unacceptable. It demonstrated learning from the complaint and ensured a BSL interpreter was present when meeting with the resident. It said it would update its internal systems to record his vulnerabilities and required support more accurately.
24. The landlord offered £600 for the distress, impact and the inconvenience caused. This was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for when there has been a failing which adversely affected a resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

25. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint within the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
26. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued its stage 1 response within its 10 working day policy timeframe.
27. The landlord did not acknowledge the escalation request on 9 or 23 November 2023. After receiving no response, the resident brought the complaint to us on 9 February 2024. Following our intervention, it provided its stage 2 response on 15 February 2024. However, this was 67 working days after the initial request. This was not in line with its complaint policy timescale of 20 working days.
28. The landlord missed the opportunity to escalate the complaint sooner which likely caused frustration and time and trouble for the resident in chasing a response. That said, it apologised for the delay and offered £150 in recognition of poor complaint handling. This was within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.

Learning

General

29. The landlord should ensure it follows its ASB policy and procedures when responding to all cases. This includes keeping accurate records of all visits, meetings, and telephone calls.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord should ensure its records accurately reflect any vulnerabilities and the household composition. It should also review these to determine whether any reasonable adjustments are required or need to be updated. This includes documenting if an authorised representative should be included in communications.
31. ASB case management is a crucial aspect of a landlord’s service delivery. Retaining accurate records also provides transparency to the decision making process and an audit trail after the event.

Communication

32. Overall, the landlord communicated poorly. Effective communication reassures residents the landlord is considering and addressing their concerns. The landlord should ensure it considers any reasonable adjustments or vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and ensure it acts on them appropriately.