London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202401288)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401288

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti social behaviour (ASB).
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. His property is a flat located within a block. The landlord’s records show it has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, as he struggles with reading and writing.
Between March 2023 and May 2023, the resident reported incidents of ASB to the landlord, mainly related to noise disturbance. In response, the landlord opened an ASB case to investigate the reports and took several different actions during the period. On 25 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to explain it had closed his ASB case and the reasons for this.
The resident complained to the landlord on 27 June 2023. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling and response to his ASB reports. He complained that his neighbour’s dog barks all the time. The resident explained the impact the issue was having on his health and requested to be moved, or for the neighbour to be evicted.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 August 2023. It explained what actions it had taken and what actions it would take going forward regarding ASB. It said it had sent the resident a letter on 28 June 2023 explaining why it rejected his request to be rehoused. The landlord apologised for the delay in its complaint response and offered compensation totalling £110.
The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord through us on 6 June 2024. His complaint was that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 June 2024. It explained what actions it had taken in response to the resident’s ASB reports. It said it considered it had handled his case correctly and it had taken the actions it agreed at stage 1. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He asked us to investigate his complaint. He was unhappy with the landlord handling of his complaint about the neighbour’s dog barking. He requested the landlord move him to a new property, or for the dog to be removed from his neighbour’s property. The resident told us in September 2025 the issue remains unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his complaint to us, the resident has raised other ongoing issues with noise disturbance. The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given an opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. Any new or ongoing issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses to his new complaint, he can ask us to investigate.
As such, this investigation centres on the events that took place between March 2023 and June 2024.
It is our role to assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB. This does not include establishing whether any party was responsible for ASB or noise nuisance. Our investigation is limited to considering whether the actions of the landlord was in line with its policies and procedures and what was fair in the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti social behaviour (ASB).

The resident first made a report of ASB on 16 March 2023. He said he was disturbed by shouting, swearing and music from his neighbours flat between 1am and 7am. He said the police attended for noise disturbance around 3am but after the police left the noise disturbance continued. The landlord told the resident it would investigate his reports and provide an update.
The resident reported a further incident on 19 March 2023, which also involved the police attending. The landlord’s records noted the resident called its crisis helpline every day since his initial report of ASB. It recorded on 8 April 2023 the resident had attended hospital due to the impact on his mental health from the ongoing ASB. The landlord visited the neighbour on 11 April 2023 to discuss the reported ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalates. It says it will review all reported incidents and consider the risk in each case. It also says it will assign a priority for the case based on the type of ASB reported, which will either be high or standard priority. It says in all cases, it must record the decision in the case.
There is no information to show the landlord considered the risk or assigned a priority to the resident’s case after his initial report or after it was evident the issue was impacting his mental health. This was not in line with its policy. In addition, it is unclear why it took the landlord 26 days to discuss the reported ASB with the neighbour. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy to take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with ASB. The delay in addressing the reported ASB caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The evidence shows that in May 2023 the landlord contacted other residents to ask if the neighbour had disturbed them. It also sent out block letters to the residents, which made them aware of the ASB reports and police involvement. It explained the reported behaviour was not permitted, was against the terms of the tenancy, and warned it may take further action if residents engaged in ASB failed to comply with the terms of their tenancy.
The landlord closed its ASB case on 25 May 2023 and sent a letter to the resident. In its letter it explained what action it had taken and that it was closing the case because it had investigated the noise nuisance reports. The landlord told the resident as part of managing the situation it explained to the neighbour that it would continue to monitor their behaviour. It also said the resident could report any further instances if they occurred.
The landlord’s ASB policy states during an investigation, it will keep in regular contact with the complainant, interview witnesses, and work with perpetrators of ASB. Its policy also states it will always try to contact a resident before closing the case to discuss it with them, but if it is unable to make contact, it will write to them to explain why it is closing the case. Its policy says it will close a case in certain circumstances, such as when it has delivered the actions that are appropriate, and it considers no further action necessary.
The landlord’s overall response and its reasons for closing the case were in line with its ASB policy. However, there is no information to show the landlord attempted to contact the resident to discuss why it was closing his ASB case, in line with its policy. This was a failure in the landlord’s handling, especially when it was aware the resident struggled with written communication. In these circumstances, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord would be able to demonstrate it had considered the additional steps that were reasonable in order to inform the resident of its decision and future course of action. This is because written communication was not the best way for it to inform the resident it was closing his ASB case.
The resident complained to the landlord on 27 June 2023 by phone. He said he did not consider the landlord had done enough to resolve the reported ASB. He explained his concerns about why he felt he could not resolve this issue directly with the neighbour. He complained that the neighbour’s dog barked all the time. He said the landlord had told him the neighbour had permission to have a dog at their property. The resident requested to be moved or for landlord to evict the neighbour.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 August 2023. It explained all the actions it had taken regarding the resident’s reports of ASB. It said it understood its actions initially improved the situation, but he had since reported further concerns to its Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL). The landlord said it understood the importance of resolving this matter. Therefore, it had agreed its NHL would continue to monitor his case for any further incidents and keep in weekly contact. It said its NHL would discuss any further ASB reports with the neighbour and take appropriate action should this continue. It said it was aware the resident was receiving support from a mental health service, and it would continue to inform them of any further developments with the ASB case.
The landlord acknowledged the resident had requested to be rehoused. It explained it had sent him a letter on 28 June 2023 explaining why it had not approved his request. It recommended he consider seeking a mutual exchange as a more effective route of being rehoused. A mutual exchange is a way in which tenants of social landlords can swap properties with each other on a voluntary basis.
The landlord’s stage 1 response addressed most aspect of the complaint. The response explained the actions the landlord had taken and what it would do going forward. However, it failed to address any concerns the resident had raised with the neighbour’s dog or acknowledge any failures in its handling.
The landlord stated in its response that the resident had reported further concerns to its NHL following the closure of his ASB case in May 2023. An internal email between the NHL and the landlord in September 2025 shows the resident raised concerns on 19 June and 3 July 2023. However, we have seen no information that shows what concerns the resident raised or how the landlord responded to the concerns raised. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the landlord responded appropriately and in line with its policy as a result of what the resident reported.
The landlord’s transfer policy states a resident will only be eligible for rehousing if their circumstances meet one or more of its criteria. The evidence shows the landlord sent the resident a letter on 28 June 2023 explaining why he did not meet the criteria for its rehousing list. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request was in line with its policy and it was a decision it was entitled to make when balancing the competing priorities of requests to be housed within its available stock. Its advice for the resident to seek a mutual exchange as the best chance to be rehomed and achieve a move was reasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence shows the landlord attempted to contact the neighbour regarding their dog in August 2023. We do not have evidence that shows the landlord was successful in contacting the neighbour or what happened in regard to its case management between September 2023 and 29 January 2024. However, the evidence it provided to us shows the landlord sent the resident another ASB closure letter on 30 January 2024.
In the letter, the landlord explained it investigated the resident’s reports of noise from the neighbour’s dog, which he reported on 19 October 2023. It said it had kept in contact with the resident regarding his ASB reports and had put a plan in place. It explained since it had opened the case, no new incidents had occurred or been reported to it. It said it understood the noise issue was not associated with ASB and it had decided to take no further action, as there was not enough evidence to support doing so. The landlord requested the resident report any new incidents that occurred to it and make the police aware of any alleged illegal activity. It said it would not be taking any further action, as the resident had reported no new incidents.
The landlord’s ASB policy states it will close a case where it concludes that no ASB has taken place or there is insufficient evidence. The landlord’s reasons for closing the resident’s ASB case appear to be in line with its policy. However, we have seen no information that shows what actions the landlord took to investigate the resident’s report that substantiate the conclusions it reached, or how it attempted to contact his social worker as part of its case management.
In addition, we have seen no information that shows the landlord supported the resident by providing him with assistance and practical ways in which to gather evidence. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will provide support and advice to residents, which includes support to gather evidence. Therefore, given the resident’s situation, his vulnerabilities and the nature of the noise reported, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to be able to demonstrate how it provided this type of support. There is no evidence which shows how the landlord expected the resident to gather evidence given his difficulty with reading and writing.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 7 June 2024 after we contacted it to make it aware the resident was unhappy with its handling of his reports of ASB.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 10 June 2024. It reiterated the information it provided in its stage 1 response. It added to this that it had investigated the allegations the neighbour’s dog was a banned breed. The landlord said it could confirm the neighbour submitted all the proper paperwork and it approved them to keep a dog. It said the dog was not on the banned breeds list.
The landlord said it had implemented all the actions it had explained at stage 1. It said it considered it had addressed all issues correctly. Due to this, it did not uphold the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s response did not address any ASB events or actions it took between its stage 1 and 2 responses. Its response only reviewed the actions it took to resolve the complaint at stage 1. This was unreasonable, as the landlord did not demonstrate it had investigated its handling of the residents reports after 1 August 2023.
In its response, the landlord said it implemented all the actions it agreed at stage 1. However, we have seen no information that shows the landlord discussed the residents reports from October 2023 with the neighbour or that it kept in weekly contact with the resident. These were actions it agreed to take in its stage 1 complaint response.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of its record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. The landlord only provided limited information, which did not include significant items such as records of all its contacts with the resident and its follow up actions as highlighted earlier in this report.
Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, we are unable to conclude that the landlord acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time.
In addition to the lack of evidence demonstrating the landlord acted in line with its obligations, the evidence it provided shows several failings, such as an initial delay to contact the neighbour to discuss the reported ASB. Also, the landlord has not demonstrated that it assisted or provided the resident with the means of obtaining evidence.
The landlord’s failures lead to a determination of maladministration. An order for £500 compensation has been made for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident which the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident complained on 27 June 2023. In line with the landlord’s policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days. It should have then responded within 10-working days of its acknowledgment. However, it did not respond to the complaint until 1 August 2024, 25 working days after the resident first complained.
The landlord apologised for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response. It did not provide an explanation for the delay, but it offered compensation totalling £110 for the delay and for any distress this may have caused.
The resident contacted us in April 2024 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB. We emailed the landlord on 6 June 2024 to make it aware the resident was unhappy with its handling of his reports of ASB. We asked the landlord to log a complaint and respond to this at stage 1 of its process.
The landlord replied to us on 7 June 2024 and said it had responded at stage 1 in August 2023. It said it had not received an escalation request from the resident, but it would now escalate and respond to the complaint at stage 2 of its process.
The landlord sent the resident a letter on 7 June 2024 advising it had tried to call him but was unable to reach him. It said the purpose of its call was to discuss his complaint and understand the reason for escalation. It explained it would respond at stage 2 of its process by 4 July 2024 and asked the resident to contact it if he had any further information.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that residents must not be required to explain their reasons for requesting a stage 2 consideration. Landlords are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response.
The landlord made one attempt to contact the resident by phone before sending him a letter. This was in circumstances where it was aware the resident struggled with written communication. The landlord then provided its stage 2 complaint response 3 days later, on 10 June 2024. This timescale did not reasonably allow the resident enough time to receive the letter, seek assistance in reviewing its contents and then allow sufficient time to respond.
While the landlord was aware the resident was unhappy with its handling of his ASB reports, it was unaware what period or events this related to or whether it was a new complaint. This resulted in the landlord re-reviewing its stage 1 response, without it considering its handling after this period. This was unreasonable and a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The failure meant the resident’s complaint remained unresolved, as the landlord only reviewed its stage 1 response and not its subsequent actions.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to 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 the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge, apologise and compensate for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord offered the resident compensation of £110 for the failures it identified. However, its offer of compensation was not proportionate for all its complaint handling failures. as a result of its failure to consider events post its stage 1 response.
This leads to a determination of service failure. An order for £150 total compensation has been made for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which adversely affected the resident, which the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and anti social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation totalling £650. The landlord may deduct any amount already paid as part of its internal complaints process. The balance of compensation due must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears or a rent account. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of reports of ASB and noise disturbance.
  2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
2. Provide an apology to the resident in writing for the failures identified within this report.
3. Contact the resident by phone or in person to discuss the ongoing issue he is experiencing with ASB and noise disturbance. The landlord must investigate the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy and make the resident aware of any tools or assistance it can provide him with to capture incidents of ASB or noise nuisance. It must provide the resident with an action plan outlining the actions it has agreed to take and provide a copy to the Ombudsman.
Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to this Service within their respective deadlines.

Recommendations

The landlord should continue to advise and support the resident with his housing options if he still wishes to move from the property.