London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202415483)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415483

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

18 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. reports of antisocial behaviour.
   2. concerns about fire safety in the block.
   3. reports of the communal front door being unsecure.
   4. concerns about the cleanliness of the communal areas.
2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2- bedroom top-floor flat. The resident lives with her daughter who is autistic. The landlord has a vulnerability for the resident’s daughter recorded on file.
4. On 20 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord about the antisocial behaviour (ASB) of a neighbour. She said the neighbour took drugs in the communal staircase and had left belongings in the communal areas. The resident stated the neighbour used the plug sockets in the communal areas which was a fire risk to the block. She said there was a bad smell coming from the neighbour’s flat. The resident asked the landlord what it was doing about these matters as the issues continued to get worse.
5. The resident made a complaint on 1 November 2023. She said she had not heard back about the matters she raised, and the landlord had not done anything. The resident said the belongings were still in the communal area. She advised there was now a table in the communal area which the neighbour took drugs on. The resident asked how often the cleaners visited as the table had been there for weeks. She felt she was paying for cleaning that was not being carried out. On the same date the resident emailed the landlord again asking for other issues to be added to her complaint. These included constant noise, light bulbs on the staircases being used for drugs, and the neighbour spreading a bad smell.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 December 2023. It said its delay in taking action was caused by the staff member responsible leaving the organisation. The landlord advised that an inspection had taken place on 14 December 2023 and tort notices were put on a bike and a table found in the communal areas. It stated no additional cleaning need was identified but acknowledged some time had passed since the resident had complained about the cleaning.  The landlord said due to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) it was unable to disclose actions taken regarding the neighbour. It said it was actively working to address the concerns raised. The landlord awarded £40 compensation for delays in complaint handling.
7. On 12 February 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She said she had not received responses to her further communication which included concerns about fire safety, the security of the communal front door and drug related ASB. The resident said new issues were occurring and the situation had not improved.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 April 2024. It reiterated that it was unable to disclose actions taken regarding the neighbour but was actively working to address the concerns raised. The landlord asked the resident to continue letting it know about any incidents regarding the neighbour. It advised the resident that the building’s construction supports a stay put strategy in the case of fire. The landlord said because of this the communal alarms were removed. It said before doing so, it made sure the communal alarms were not linked with the alarms in the flats. The landlord said it was carrying out an inspection of the communal areas on 26 April 2024. This was to address the resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning, belongings in the communal area and the communal front door. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and awarded £60 compensation for its complaint handling.
9. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 17 July 2024 because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and the ASB was continuing. On 13 August 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that the fire stay put strategy was inappropriate and dangerous due to the repeated fire risks from the neighbour. She said the communal front door remained unsecure and wanted a long-term solution, the drug related ASB had continued, and the communal cleaning was neglected. The resident wanted her need for alternative accommodation in a safe environment to be recognised. She wanted the distress that had been caused to be acknowledged. The resident also requested compensation, policy reviews and staff training.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident told the Ombudsman that the issues she has been experiencing have affected her and her daughter’s health and wellbeing. It is outside our remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and the effect on the household’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court.
11. In an email dated 13 August 2025 the resident advised us of further issues she had experienced including the size of her daughter’s bedroom, a mice infestation and reasonable adjustments for her daughter. These issues were not part of the complaint for this case. We cannot investigate matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, or were not referred to us as part of a complaint. We may be able to investigate these issues separately.
12. The resident advised us that she had been reporting ASB to her landlord since 2019. We encourage residents to raise formal complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issue arising. This is because as time passes, evidence becomes unavailable, recollections fade, and it is more difficult to validate accounts. This affects our ability to investigate the complaint fairly and to consider all of the circumstances. Therefore, this investigation will consider the matters the resident raised in the complaint we are investigating and were addressed by the landlord in its responses and not prior reports of ASB from previous years.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour

13. The resident reported ASB by a neighbour on 20 October 2023. She stated that a neighbour was misusing the communal area for drug taking and leaving personal belongings there. The resident said the neighbour was using the communal electrical sockets which she stated was a fire risk to all residents. She also advised that there was a bad smell coming from the neighbour’s flat. The resident said there was a bike near the main entry door which the landlord had said it would remove months prior but was still there. She stated the landlord was not doing anything about these problems.
14. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will log and assess ASB cases within 1 working day for high priority cases and within 3 working days for standard priority cases. However, the evidence showed that a case was not created until 1 November 2023 when the resident raised a formal complaint about these matters.
15. An ASB case should have been raised for these matters as the landlord’s ASB policy states that “Drug or substance misuse or drug dealing” and “Common area misuse where it is persistent, deliberate or targeted” are types of ASB that the landlord will record.
16. In response to her email of 20 October 2023, the resident was told the supported living team managed the neighbour’s property. The landlord said it would contact the resident as soon as possible with an update. The Ombudsman has seen a landlord internal email dated 21 October 2023 which shows at this point the correct action was taken to attempt to address the concerns raised. However, the landlord did not contact the resident about these matters and therefore, did not manage her expectations.
17. When the resident was not contacted further about her reports, she raised a formal complaint. The resident should not have needed to raise a complaint to get an update on the ASB matters she had reported. Not receiving any responses to her continued reports of ASB was also a reason why the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. The evidence showed the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for any updates. The resident should not have needed to chase for updates as the landlord’s ASB policy states it will keep in regular contact with the complainant.
18. The resident reported more ASB on 9 November 2023. She sent the landlord a photo of a knife on a table in the communal area which her and her daughter had to pass to access their property. The resident requested the knife and some drug paraphernalia be removed as soon as possible. She said the landlord did not seem to be doing anything about the issues she had raised and that items she had reported previously were still in the communal areas. The resident stated she has a disabled daughter who lives with her and felt this was not a safe environment for a vulnerable person.
19. As the resident had informed the landlord of a vulnerability within her household, in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, it should have completed a Vulnerability Risk Assessment Matrix. However, there was no evidence a risk assessment was completed. The landlord’s ASB policy also states when receiving and logging ASB reports it will seek to identify if there are any vulnerabilities or support needs within the reporting household. The landlord did not do this.
20. In further emails, the resident repeatedly referenced her daughter’s vulnerabilities. The resident also explained in emails to the landlord dated 27 November 2023 and 21 December 2023 that her teenage daughter was having to pass the neighbour sleeping on the stairs. She advised the landlord on 23 January 2024 and 19 March 2024 that she was also concerned for her daughter’s safety returning from college. This was because the neighbour kept his flat door open and the resident was concerned her daughter could be dragged into the flat by the neighbour or one of his associates.
21. Despite the resident expressing these concerns and highlighting her daughter’s vulnerabilities, there was no evidence that the landlord ever addressed these matters. There was also no reference to these concerns in the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will follow safeguarding procedures and provide advice and support. However, there was no evidence to show the landlord had done this for the resident and her daughter.
22. The resident also repeatedly advised the landlord that the neighbour was making a lot of noise throughout the night which was affecting the resident and her daughter’s sleep and health. There was no evidence to show the landlord acknowledged or addressed this problem.
23. There was very little evidence of any action the landlord took regarding the ASB concerns the resident had raised. The landlord’s ASB policy states an action plan is agreed with the reporting party. The evidence showed the resident had asked the landlord for an action plan on a number of occasions. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that an action plan was created.
24. The stage 1 response dated 15 December 2023 showed the communal area was not inspected until 14 December 2023. This was 56 calendar days after the resident had contacted the landlord about the personal belongings in the communal area and even longer since the resident had initially reported the bike being there. The landlord said it had placed tort notices on the bike and table as a result of this inspection. This was appropriate action but the length of time this took to address was unreasonable, especially given the report and photo of a knife and drug use in the communal area.
25. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that the cause of the delay was because an employee given the task of addressing these issues had left the organisation. While the Ombudsman appreciates that delays can result due to staffing shortages, we would have expected reports of a knife and drug use in communal areas to have been a higher priority and to have received quicker investigation.
26. The evidence showed the information the resident was provided with in response to her ASB reports was insufficient. Both of the landlord’s complaint responses just stated that due to GDPR, the landlord was unable to disclose actions taken regarding the neighbour and it was “actively working” to address the matters. While the landlord may not have been able to comment specifically on the neighbour, it could have provided more detail to the resident about how it manages ASB. For example, the processes, the level of evidence required to take action, and the timescales involved. This would have managed the resident’s expectations and may have provided some reassurance the issues she was experiencing were being taken seriously.
27. Despite the landlord advising the resident it was actively working to address the concerns she had raised about her neighbour, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this. In the initial evidence request for this case dated 2 April 2025, the Ombudsman asked the landlord for copies of records relating to the actions taken to address the neighbour. The documents requested included risk assessments, interviews, visits, correspondence and notices, but the landlord did not provide these. The Ombudsman requested these documents again on 7 August 2025, but again the landlord did not provide these.
28. The landlord has only shared a letter it sent to the resident on 14 May 2025. In this letter it advised the resident it had addressed the items outside the neighbour’s property and had contacted the neighbour’s housing officer. The landlord said it was aware of the problems the neighbour might cause and was addressing the issues. It then contradicted itself stating it was not taking further action and would be closing the case.
29. The letter dated 14 May 2025 evidenced that the same issues the resident raised on 20 October 2023 were still present 573 calendar days later. In this letter the landlord said again that it was addressing the issues, but it had told the resident the same thing in December 2023 in its stage 1 response. It is understandable that the resident remains concerned when she has seen no progress and she was told the same thing previously without any evidence of improvement over a long length of time.
30. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. This is because the landlord did not follow its ASB policy in dealing with the resident’s reports. It did not log the case in line with its policy timescales. The landlord did not carry out a risk assessment for the resident’s household. It did not create an action plan. The resident repeatedly had to chase the landlord and did not receive replies to many of her emails. The landlord did not keep the resident updated. It did not manage the resident’s expectations or provide sufficient information or support. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord has appropriately addressed the matters with the neighbour.
31. The landlord is ordered to award the resident £600 compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which indicates that the Ombudsman may require the landlord to award such an amount where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. The landlord is ordered to carry out a number of actions to address the ongoing issues and support the resident and her daughter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety in the block.

32. The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (2005) sets out that the responsible person for multi-occupied residential buildings must carry out a fire assessment in communal areas, making sure precautions and procedures are in place to protect occupants in case of fire.  The landlord’s fire policy acknowledges that it is deemed a responsible person under this legislation.
33. The Ombudsman notes that there are no specific time periods in law for how often fire risk assessments must be carried out or reviewed, the requirement is for the assessment to be reviewed “regularly” to make sure it is up to date.
34. The landlord’s fire policy states the frequency of fire risk assessments can be between 1 or 5-yearly cycles. The resident’s block is 4 storeys. The landlord’s fire policy states properties of this size have a medium/low risk and have a fire risk assessment every 4 years.
35. The evidence shows that in line with the Regulatory Reform Order, the landlord was undertaking regular fire risk assessments of the building to identify and mitigate risks. The most recent inspection was carried out on 1 August 2023.
36. The resident expressed concern to the landlord about fire hazards due to a neighbour’s behaviour in the communal area. The behaviour in the communal area included taking drugs, smoking, starting a fire, storing belongings and using electrical sockets, including leaving the items plugged in unattended. The resident was also concerned about the removal of communal fire alarms and the implementation of a stay put fire policy. She said due to the communal alarms being removed she was no longer alerted to when the neighbour caused smoke or a fire in the communal area. The resident was concerned about this because her property is on the top floor and therefore exiting the property in the event of a fire was problematic.
37. The evidence showed that the stay put fire policy was implemented as a result of the fire risk assessment that was carried out on 1 August 2023 by an appropriately qualified assessor. The landlord was advised to remove the communal alarms if the level of compartmentation within the building was appropriate for a stay put fire policy. The assessor said this was the recommended policy for the block. Before removing the communal alarms, the landlord checked that the communal detection was not interlinked with the alarms in the flats.
38. The assessor identified a “significant finding” in the fire risk assessment which noted burn marks within the communal staircase. The assessment stated these appeared to have been caused by discarding cigarette waste or by holding an ignition source, such as a lighter, against the walls. The recommendation for this finding was that management should remind residents of the dangers of smoking and discarding smoking materials within close proximity of the building. The assessor also recommended frequent checks of the property to ensure there was no further evidence of burn marks within the communal areas. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord reminded residents of this information or that it carried out the recommended checks.
39.  Another significant finding identified in the fire risk assessment was the “unacceptable levels of personal items within the communal area”. This included a bike. It was recommended by the assessor that the landlord operate a zero-tolerance policy in communal areas to minimise the risk of fire and to ensure escape routes remain clear at all times. It was recommended the items be removed. As referenced in the section above of this report, the landlord did not inspect the communal area until 14 December 2023 when a tort notice was put on a bike and a table. This was an excessively long time for this matter to be addressed when it had been identified as a risk in the fire risk assessment.
40. The fire risk assessment stated that the assessor was not made aware prior to the survey of any vulnerable people living in the block. It also stated that there was no evidence that any residents posed a significant risk. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made the assessor aware of the risks posed by the neighbour’s activities in the communal area, but it did not do this.
41. The landlord’s fire policy lists when a person-centred risk assessment should be carried out. The neighbour should have received a person-centred risk assessment due to the type of accommodation he is living in. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that this was carried out.
42. When the resident raised her concerns about fire safety, the landlord did not provide much information and left the resident with more questions than answers. In its stage 2 response the landlord stated the construction of the block supported a stay put strategy and that was why the communal alarms could be removed. However, the landlord did not explain the stay put strategy and how this would protect the resident. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the logic behind the stay put policy was ever explained to the resident.
43. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety in the block. This is because the fire risk assessor was not made aware of the neighbour’s vulnerabilities and his actions in the communal area. This may have informed the assessor’s decision as to whether it was reasonable to remove the communal alarms.
44. There was no evidence the landlord carried out the frequent checks for further burn marks as recommended by the fire assessor. The stay put strategy also could have been explained to the resident.
45. The landlord has therefore been ordered to award the resident £100 compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord is also ordered to carry out a number of actions to address the resident’s fire safety concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the communal front door being unsecure.

46. On 27 November 2023 the resident reported that the neighbour had damaged the communal front door, and it would not close. The repair logs showed that over a number of years, the resident and another resident in the block had been raising the issue of the communal front door being repeatedly vandalised and needing repairing.
47. The resident raised this issue again on 21 December 2023. She explained the lock being tampered with was causing the block to be unsafe as drug users were coming in and out as they please. The resident said sending somebody to fix the lock was not a long-term solution. She suggested a new lock that could not be picked was needed or possibly a fob system.
48. The evidence showed the landlord did not respond to the resident’s email about the ongoing problems with the communal front door. Therefore, the resident raised her escalation request on 12 February 2024, and this matter formed part of the stage 2 response.
49. In its stage 2 response dated 17 April 2024 the landlord said this issue would be looked at during an inspection of the block. It said the inspection had been scheduled for 26 April 2024.
50. The Ombudsman has not been given a copy of this inspection report so was unable to identify what the inspection found. The evidence showed no follow-up communication from the landlord to the resident on this matter. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that showed the resident has continued to raise this matter with the landlord. On 13 August 2025 the resident told the Ombudsman that the communal door remained unsecure and is regularly broken into by drug users.
51. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the communal front door being unsecure. While the landlord has historically carried out repairs to the communal front door, the ongoing problem has remained for a number of years. It was not addressed for some time after being raised by the resident again in December 2023. The landlord has not identified a long-term solution, and this causes the block to remain vulnerable to unauthorised access.
52. The landlord is ordered to award the resident £100 compensation. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the options available to prevent ongoing vandalism of the communal front door lock.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness of the communal areas.

53. The resident’s complaint dated 1 November 2023 stated she was paying a service charge for cleaning which was not carried out and she asked how often the cleaners attended.
54. A landlord internal email of the same date stated that the cleaners attended the block every Thursday. However, this information was not included in the stage 1 response. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that this information was shared with the resident at another time.
55. In its stage 1 response dated 15 December 2023, the landlord said it had inspected the block on 14 December 2023 and had not identified any additional cleaning requirements. The landlord acknowledged that some time had passed since the resident’s complaint, so the caretaker would have addressed the concerns that the resident had raised. The landlord did not acknowledge that the day the inspection was carried out was a Thursday so the inspection may have occurred directly after the cleaners had attended.
56. The landlord told the resident she could send photos of the communal area along with dates it was not cleaned, and it would pass this onto its caretaking team.
57. On 23 January 2024 the resident advised the landlord she had noticed improvements in cleaning standards as the cleaners had started to mop the stairs. She commented that the cleaner’s hard work was ruined by a neighbour.
58. In its stage 2 response dated 17 April 2024 the landlord said this issue would be looked at during an inspection of the block. It said the inspection had been scheduled for 26 April 2024.
59. The Ombudsman has not been given a copy of this inspection report so was unable to identify what the inspection found. More recent inspections have been submitted as evidence for this case and have identified a good standard of cleaning. However, a landlord internal email said some additional areas for cleaning were identified at an inspection that took place on 15 April 2025. The landlord found the walls needed washing down. It stated it had raised this matter with its mobile caretaker and sent photos. The landlord said window cleaning was being addressed by estate services.
60. The internal email also advised that due to unforeseen circumstances a caretaker was off. Therefore, only spot cleaning would have taken place. It advised that it would not compensate for this matter as cleaning was still being provided, just a reduced service.
61. Considering the above, the Ombudsman has determined there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness of the communal areas. This is because when cleaning concerns were brought to the landlord’s attention it carried out inspections and took action when additional cleaning was needed. It also encouraged the resident to send it photos of any cleaning concerns so it could address them.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

62. The landlord’s complaint policy states there are 2 stages to its complaints process. The policy advises the landlord will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
63. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 December 2023. This was 32 working days after the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 1 November 2023. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code which states 10 working days for a stage 1 response.
64. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged the delay in issuing the response. The landlord stated this was because it was dealing with a high volume of complaints. It awarded the resident £40 compensation for its complaint handling delays.
65. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 17 April 2024. This was 45 working days after the resident escalated her complaint on 12 February 2024. It was not clear from the evidence when the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. The landlord’s policy and the Code allow 5 working days for acknowledging a complaint. Therefore, the landlord’s stage 2 response was issued a minimum of 40 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Code which states 20 working days for a stage 2 response.
66. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing its response. The landlord awarded the resident £60 compensation for the delay in dealing with her complaint.
67. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delays in issuing the complaint responses, apologise and award the resident compensation. This was because it had not operated in line with its complaints policy and the Code. These delays meant the resident was delayed in being able to progress her complaint through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, delaying the resident being able to bring her complaint to this Service.
68. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving the complaint handling failures. This is because the landlord acknowledged the delays the resident experienced and awarded the resident compensation which was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord awarded a total of £100 for complaint handling failures. The evidence did not show whether the resident has received the £100 compensation. This must be paid to the resident if it has not been to date.

Determination

69. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
70. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety in the block.
71. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of the communal front door being unsecure.
72. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness of the communal areas.
73. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

74. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £800 to the resident. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account. The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the £800 within 4 weeks of the date of this report by submitting a copy of the remittance advice, or equivalent document, to the Ombudsman.

The compensation is comprised of:

1. £600 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. £100 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about fire safety in the block.
3. £100 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the communal front door being unsecure.

75. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. appropriately log a case for the resident’s reports about her neighbour in line with its ASB policy.
    2. carry out a risk assessment for the resident’s household and how the issues with the resident’s neighbour are affecting her household.
    3. create an action plan regarding the case in line with its ASB policy.
    4. provide the resident with support in line with its ASB policy.
    5. explain to the resident how the landlord addresses ASB in these situations and manage her expectations on what action can be taken including the timescales involved, and the level of evidence needed.
    6. provide evidence to the Ombudsman that all the above actions have been completed.
76. The landlord is ordered to carry out a person-centred risk assessment as per its fire policy for the resident’s household and the neighbour. When carrying out the risk assessment for the resident’s household, the landlord must explain the stay put strategy to the resident so she gets a better understanding of how this protects her household and what she should do in the event of a fire. A copy of these assessments must be sent to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
77. The landlord is ordered to write to all residents in the block to address the problems with belongings being stored in the communal area. It should also remind residents that putting out lit materials on the walls, smoking and discarding smoking materials in the communal area is prohibited. A copy of this letter is to be sent to the Ombudsman and all residents in the block within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
78. The landlord is ordered to schedule frequent checks of the communal areas of the block as per the fire risk assessment. A copy of this schedule must be sent to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
79. The landlord is ordered to ensure the communal front door is currently secure. It must carry out a review of the communal front door lock to identify if there is a long-term solution or alternate mechanism that could be used. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of this review and its decisions on how to prevent the ongoing vandalism of the lock.

Recommendations

80. If not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the £100 compensation offered during the complaints process for its complaint handling failures.
81. It is recommended that the landlord review the resident’s housing options and provide any relevant support and guidance to the resident which may help facilitate her move to an alternative property.