London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202425402)

Decision
Case ID	202425402
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 January 2026

 

Background

1. The resident reported noise nuisance from his neighbour in May 2024, and the landlord opened an ASB case. The resident later raised a complaint about the attitude and behaviour of his Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL) who investigated his reports.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that there was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

 

Summary of reasons

Staff conduct

5. The landlord fairly and proportionately investigated the resident’s concerns and found no evidence the member of staff had acted inappropriately.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not handle the resident’s stage 2 complaint in line with the Complaint Handling Code or its complaints policy.

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £75 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not done so already, the landlord should consider whether the resident may benefit from advocacy support and to discuss this with him.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 May 2024	The resident received a letter from the landlord informing him that it had closed his ASB case due to insufficient evidence. The resident called the landlord to raise a complaint about the “unhelpful attitude and behaviour” of his Neighbourhood Housing Lead (NHL). He said the NHL told him he was “making up the noise nuisance”. He asked the landlord to listen to his call with the NHL on 28 May 2024 as he felt this demonstrated they were biased in favour of his neighbour.
6 June 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: it had discussed the complaint with the NHL who denied saying the resident was “making things up” the NHL wrote to him on 28 May 2024 with their findings and decision to close the ASB case. They stated that if the resident wanted to discuss the matter further, he could contact them his NHL was best placed to manage all housing and tenancy related issues relating to ASB. They were experienced in dealing with neighbour disputes and had previously worked with him on other matters.
10 June 2024	The landlord called the resident to discuss the stage 1 response. The resident told it the NHL had lied, and he did not want them to work with them anymore.
24 October 2024	The resident contacted the landlord again to say he was liaising with the Ombudsman and wanted to escalate his complaint.
6 November 2024	The landlord called the resident to discuss why he remained dissatisfied. The resident said: his NHL spoke to him “like a child” he felt the NHL was trying to “trap” him into saying something that would get him into trouble he wanted the landlord to replace his NHL.
6 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint and issued a stage 2 response. It said: it had spoken to the Area Housing Manager (AHM) who managed his NHL it was sorry for the delay in responding to him at stage 2 the AHM had reviewed the notes and information provided by the NHL, and accepted their findings regarding his wish for it to replace his NHL, it understood the resident’s frustration. However, it reiterated they were best placed to deal with neighbour disputes. In addition, it did not have the capacity to change the NHL at that point his NHL was happy to continue working with him.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He wanted the landlord to move him to another property.

 

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	The handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

7. The resident raised concerns about his interactions with his NHL and how they had handled his noise reports. He said the NHL gave incorrect information in the ASB closure letter dated 28 May 2024 and that they were “biased” towards his neighbour.
8. It is not our role to comment on how a landlord deals with staff failings, such as disciplinary or employment matters. However, we have looked at whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the NHL was appropriate, fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
9. The landlord could not speak to the resident by phone during its stage 1 response. It explained the attempts it made and why the resident may not have been able to reach the investigating officer. As part of its investigation, the landlord spoke to the NHL and reviewed case notes and the NHL’s own notes. It explained the actions the NHL had taken in response to his reports in line with its ASB policy, and the reasons why they had closed the ASB case. This was reasonable.
10. During the stage 2 investigation on 6 November 2024, the landlord discussed the resident’s concerns about the NHL. It said it had spoken to the NHL’s manager and explained why it could not agree with his request to replace them. It also tried to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining why his NHL was the most appropriate person to manage reports involving neighbour disputes. Its response showed empathy and understanding and assured the resident the NHL was willing to continue working with the resident in a positive way.
11. In his stage 1 complaint the resident asked the landlord to listen to his call with the NHL on 28 May 2024, saying it showed bias. The landlord did not address this request. It should have said whether the call was recorded. If it was, the landlord ought to have explained why it did not listen to it. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s request was a shortcoming.
12. However, the landlord found no evidence the NHL had acted inappropriately or that they failed to follow its code of conduct. This states that staff must maintain high standards of professionalism, fairness and courtesy in all their dealings with residents. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was fair and proportionate.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

13. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how landlords should handle complaints. The landlord’s published policy meets the timescale requirements of the Code (2024 version).
14. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within 7 working days, in line with the Code. However, on 13 June 2024 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response. There is no evidence the landlord offered escalation at that time. This was not in line with the Code which states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2.
15. It logged a stage 2 complaint 95 working days later and took another 9 days to acknowledge it. The response was issued the same day as the acknowledgement. This was not compliant with the Code, which states that escalation requests should be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt. This likely caused distress and inconvenience.
16. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in responding at stage 2. However, it did not take steps to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. We have therefore ordered it to pay compensation for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy for failures where there has not been significant impact.

 

Learning

17. The landlord should consider listening to calls when residents raise concerns about staff. If they are unable to follow a specific request to do so, it would be good practice to explain why and what it will do instead to investigate reports about staff.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord did not provide us with evidence of the conversations the investigating officers had with staff. However, this did not largely impact our ability to complete our investigation. The landlord could consider how it records, retains and makes this information available with reference to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).

Communication

19. The landlord communicated with the resident via his preferred method of communication and was able to demonstrate it was keeping records of the telephone discussions.