London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202408974)

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat. The resident told the landlord she had a history of mental illness, and addictions. The resident reported to the landlord her neighbour in the flat above making noise and burning incense.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour, including noise (ASB).
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB, including noise.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right in relation to the substantive complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of ASB including noise

4. While the landlord completed several actions which were consistent with its ASB policy it failed to provide an action plan as it promised. There was also an unreasonable delay in it reviewing the resident’s recordings and it failed to tell the resident under which policy it was dealing with the reports.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. While there was an unreasonable delay in it dealing with the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process it offered an apology and compensation to acknowledge this.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident complained about the landlord allegedly breaching confidentiality in its handling of the ASB reports. This aspect of the complaint raises data protection issues which fall within the remit of the Information Commissioners’ Office (ICO). As this falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body we have not addressed this. The resident may wish to contact the ICO to see if it can accept a complaint. Instead, we have addressed how the landlord handled the resident’s reports.
7. The resident reported her neighbour screaming, shouting, roaring, slamming doors in the communal area, burning incense, setting off fire alarms, and telling residents they would “burn in hell.” During the landlord’s complaint process it told the resident the neighbour had mental health issues. We have seen in response to these reports, and in its communication with the resident, the landlord:
   1. contacted mental health professionals supporting the neighbour
   2. offered to assess the safety of the resident’s house
   3. said it attempted to call the resident twice on 11 March 2024 and 3 times on 12 March 2024
   4. attempted to arrange a professionals’ meeting involving the neighbour’s mental health worker and family between 8 and 18 April 2024, and arranged this for 18 April 2024
   5. updated the resident 7 times between 12 March 2024 and 10 July 2024.
8. These actions were in line with both the landlord’s ASB policy, which states that persistent noise can amount to ASB, and its good neighbourhood management policy in force at the time. The good neighbourhood management policy deals with issues that the landlord regards as not ASB, but which may cause a nuisance. Both policies support a multi-agency approach to addressing reports. The resident acknowledged in her complaint escalation that the landlord offered her extra door locks to make her feel safe. It also told the resident on 7 March 2024 that she could approach the local council for temporary accommodation if she felt unsafe. The landlord took reasonable steps to improve the resident’s safety. It appropriately signposted her to the council as it was under no obligation to offer alternative accommodation.
9. We note the resident disputed the landlord called her multiple times between 11 March 2024 and 12 March 2024 in contradiction with the landlord’s account. She also said the landlord did not proceed with a meeting on 10 April 2024 or 22 April 2024, although the landlord’s evidence is silent on this claim. The landlord held a meeting to discuss the situation on 23 April 2024. While the landlord’s actions referred to in the paragraphs above were reasonable, we note it:
   1. failed to make it clear to the resident if it considered the reports as ASB and whether it would deal with them under its ASB policy or its good neighbourhood management policy. This was not in line with the latter policy.
   2. did not agree an action plan with the resident for dealing with the ASB after it promised her one on 27 September 2024
   3. did not consider any of the numerous recordings the resident provided it with until 27 November 2024, which was after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints process.
10. The landlord was aware from the resident’s complaint escalation that she said the situation had affected her sleep and caused her “high levels of anxiety, distressed relationships and depression.” The landlord’s failings likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience and amounted to maladministration considering her vulnerabilities. Our dispute resolution principles require landlords to act fairly, put things right, and learn from outcomes. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging communication failures.
11. The landlord offered £150 compensation. While the level of compensation was proportionate to the communication failures, we have found that the landlord also failed to complete an action plan following its final response after it promised to. This likely added to the resident’s distress. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 (on top of the £150 it offered during the complaint process) to reflect the detriment caused to the resident (£250 in total).
12. This is in line with our remedies guidance which allows for payments of this amount where the landlord made an offer of compensation, but it is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. As the noise is continuing and the resident has told us she has not received an action plan we have made an order in relation to this too. The resident told us that she would like the landlord to relocate her neighbour. This is not an outcome we can order as this would relate to a third party.

13. While the resident told us she complained to the landlord in December 2023 we have not seen that the resident formally complained before 4 March 2024.The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 March 2024 (within 6 working days) which was in line with the timeframes in its complaint policy (10 working days). In contrast it took it 129 working days to respond at stage 2 (from 19 March 2024 to 23 September 2024) of its complaint process against a target of 20 working days.
14. The delay  involved the resident incurring time and trouble in chasing for a complaint response. When we have identified a failure, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
15. The landlord apologised for its complaint handling and offered £200 compensation. This offer amounted to reasonable redress, having regard to our remedies guidance. The landlord demonstrated it sought to act fairly and put things right. We have therefore recommended the landlord re-offer this and our determination is made on this understanding.

Learning

16. The landlord’s failure to explain how and how often it would communicate or what policy it would apply in dealing with her reports meant it did not manage the resident’s expectations. Had it offered an action plan with an agreed frequency of updates and monitoring it may have avoided a complaint. The landlord should consider recommendations 5, 25, 28 and 29 of our Spotlight Report on noise complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. While the landlord’s records were overall good the evidence was silent on the resident’s claims that the landlord failed to attend meetings on 10 April 2024 and 22 April 2024.

Communication

18. The landlord communication was lacking at times, by not providing an action plan, including on how it would provide updates, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations.