London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202432159)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432159

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

15 July 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 reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Their tenancy began in January 2019. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
4. On 10 July 2023 the landlord opened an ASB case. This related to reports from their resident that their neighbour was damaging their fence.
5. On 1 February 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. They were unhappy about the lack of communication and updates from the landlord. They were also unhappy at the lack of progress in resolving the ASB case.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 May 2024. It accepted there had been failures in its handling of the ASB case. It said it would contact the resident to re-agree about how often it would provide updates. It would also keep the resident updated on the progress of a legal referral it had made. It offered £200 compensation in recognition of the length of time the matter had been outstanding and any distress that may have been caused.
7. On 2 September 2024 the landlord logged a request from the resident to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure.
8. The landlord issued its final response on 25 September 2024. It again accepted there had been failures in its handling of the resident’s ASB case. It indicated this had mainly been due to staffing changes. It said the resident had a new Neighbourhood Housing Lead who had already completed some outstanding actions and would continue to keep the resident updated on a regular basis. It offered an additional £250 in recognition of the failures between the stage 1 and final responses.
9. On 27 February 2025 the resident confirmed they wanted this Service to investigate their complaint. They said they remained dissatisfied with the landlord as it had not been in touch with them since its final response and it had not taken any further actions.
10. We spoke to the resident on 22 May 2025. They advised their issues had still not been resolved. They said the landlord was still not providing regular updates or responding to their contact.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB

11. In cases concerning ASB, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. The investigation is limited to considering the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
12. The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
    1. It will review all incidents and consider the risk in each case. In cases of serious crime, it usually requires the party reporting the incident to tell the police before it could carry out further action.
    2. It will assess reported ASB incidents based on risk and priority. It will log and assess standard priority cases within 3 working days, and high priority cases within 1 working day.
    3. It will complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix for all high priority cases and, where relevant, for standard priority cases. This is to measure the harm caused to the victims and guide staff on the actions to take to protect the victims from further harm.
    4. It will agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated throughout the case. It will update the action plan to reflect new information or new incidents related to the case. It will also show decisive actions (e.g. police disclosure, interview with the other party) and a prompt timeline for communicating delivery.
    5. It will take prompt, appropriate, and decisive action to deal with ASB and will work with relevant partners such as the police to meet its responsibilities. It may use tools such as mediation, good behaviour agreements, warning letters, and enforcement action.
13. The landlord’s evidence indicates that the ASB case it opened on 10 July 2023 was following contact from the resident on 29 June 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any actions before 10 July 2023. It therefore does not appear that it logged and assessed the reported incident within its stated timescales. This was not appropriate.
14. The ASB case record has entries for 10 July 2023 indicating the landlord had spoken to the resident. It also appears it risk assessed the case and put in place an action plan. The records indicate it sent the action plan to the resident on 17 July 2023. While these actions are in line with its ASB policy, the landlord has not provided copies of the risk assessment or action plan. It is therefore not possible for us to determine whether they were appropriate for the reported circumstances or in line with its policy.
15. The resident has stated that, as part of the action plan, the landlord had committed to contacting them fortnightly. The landlord has not disputed this. Entries in the ASB case records also indicate that the landlord and resident had agreed to fortnightly contact.
16. Throughout the ASB cases records the landlord provided to this Service there is little evidence of the landlord contacting the resident at least every 2 weeks. Much of the landlord’s contact, as well as its other actions, appear to have been reactive and only occurring because the resident (or other third parties) contacted or chased it. This was not appropriate as it was not in accordance with its agreed approach.
17. Between June 2023 and the landlord’s final response the resident made multiple additional reports of ASB. These included additional reports that the neighbours had damaged their fence, verbally abused/threatened/intimidated them, blocked their car so they could not move it, and an allegation that the neighbours had vandalised/damaged their car. The landlord was also aware that there were active police investigations into the neighbour’s actions.
18. The landlord’s ASB policy indicates that, for a standard priority ASB case, it would only assess subsequent incidents where the substance of the report justified the need to do so. It states for all cases the decision must be recorded. The only occasion where the landlord appears to have carried out a further assessment was on 2 February 2024. At this time the landlord opened a new ASB case in relation to reports from the resident about verbal abuse which they had also reported to the police. The landlord referred the case to its ASB Specialist Team to review whether it should be considered high priority.
19. While the further assessment of the incident of verbal abuse was appropriate, there is no clear indication as to why the landlord felt this incident justified further assessment while other incidents, which based on the resident’s description could have been equally or more serious in nature, did not. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether further assessment would be appropriate for any other incidents. As its policy suggests that decisions about whether to assess subsequent incidents should be recorded, this lack of evidence was not appropriate.
20. It is also unclear why the landlord opened a new case for this assessment, rather than requesting it as part of the existing case. Taking such an approach risks creating unnecessary confusion about what the landlord is investigating, It could also prevent case handlers from having a full picture of any ongoing ASB or impact on the landlord progressing enforcement actions if incidents are treated as individual matters rather than a continuation of the same matter.
21. In this case it does not appear that the landlord’s decision had a significant adverse impact on its handling of the reports of ASB. Its records show it closed the first case it had opened and moved the handling of the ASB to the new case. It appears there was an understanding that there was an ongoing series of incidents and actions started as part of the first case continued in this new case. Nonetheless, the landlord should be mindful of the potential issues that could have been caused and review these as a point of learning.
22. It does appear the landlord, throughout the ASB cases, considered several actions it could take. There is evidence it considered good neighbour agreements and mediation as possible resolutions. It also advised the resident to report matters to the police where appropriate. These actions were reasonable.
23. On, or around, 18 September 2023 the landlord made a referral to its legal team for advice about actions it could take against the neighbour. During a call with the resident on 20 December 2023 the landlord discussed possibly getting an injunction against the neighbour and that it would update the resident once it had further information.
24. The landlord passed the initial referral to external solicitors on 2 October 2023. The solicitors advised on 11 October 2023 that they would review the file and respond further the following week to provide initial advice and suggested next steps. The next contact appears to have been in July 2024 where, following the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord had chased the solicitors. The solicitors advised that they had previously sent a scope and request for documents but had never received a response. There is no evidence that, by the time of its final response, the landlord had sent the required documents. This delay in progressing this matter was not reasonable.
25. In both its complaint responses the landlord accepted it had failed to provide the resident with regular updates. In its final response it also accepted there had been a delay in progressing the legal referral. This was reasonable.
26. At both complaint stages it suggested the failures had been due to staffing changes. It does not appear it carried out any further investigations to examine why staffing changes caused these delays or whether there were any systemic issues that may have contributed to the failures. This is particularly concerning as the same failures appear to have continued to occur after both complaint responses. In light of this, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s explanation for its accepted failures was appropriate or sufficient.
27. Neither of the complaint responses included clear, time-specific actions that the landlord intended to take to rectify the raised issues. This was not appropriate. Not setting out such actions prevent the resident from being able to hold the landlord to account. It also did not give the landlord a clear measure against which it could assess whether its actions had been successful.
28. As part of their ASB case the resident had requested the landlord carry out works to add a driveway to their front garden as well as provide a dropped kerb for access. The resident stated they wanted this to prevent their neighbour blocking in their car or damaging it. The landlord refused this request but advised that the resident could ask it for consent and carry out the works themselves.
29. The resident asked, as part of both complaint stages, for the landlord to review this decision. The resident indicated they were not able to afford the works and did not consider they should have to pay for an improvement to the property. The landlord’s evidence shows it did review its decision but did not alter its position.
30. While we empathise with the resident’s situation, there is no evidence that the landlord was obliged, either under legislation or any of its policies, to carry out or fund the requested works. The decision to refuse the request was one it was entitled to make and was therefore reasonable. The landlord did provide information about when it would carry out or fund works and explained that the resident’s request did not meet the relevant criteria. It also explained that it did not consider a driveway would prevent the resident’s neighbours from blocking in the car or damaging it. These were reasonable explanations for it to have provided.
31. In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence on which the Ombudsman can reasonably say that the landlord handled the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policy. It is accepted that the landlord acknowledged there had been failures in its handling, but there is insufficient evidence that it carried out sufficient investigations to identify or understand the root cause of those failures. It also did not put in place appropriate actions to rectify the failures or allow it to monitor whether it had been successful. As a result, the resident’s issues remained unresolved after both stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure. For these reasons, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB.
32. The landlord offered £450 compensation (£200 at stage 1 and £250 at stage 2) in recognition of its failures and the distress/inconvenience caused. This offer does not take into account that the failures continued after the final response. The Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £450. This is to cover the period from the final response to the current date and is in line with the awards we can make under our remedies guidance where there has been an adverse impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

33. The landlord’s complaint policy states:
    1. It would send stage 1 decisions within 10 working days of logging a complaint.
    2. It would send final decisions within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint.
    3. If it required extra time it would write to the resident to explain why. It would then write again within a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2. If it required even more time it would agree this with the resident.
34. The landlord took 78 working days to issue its stage 1 response. This was significantly outside its stated timescale. There is no evidence that it contacted the resident to explain why it needed additional time or agree an extended timescale for it to respond. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address or explain the delay. This was not appropriate.
35. It is not clear exactly when the resident requested that the landlord escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s records refer to there being an internal request in August for the case to be escalated but that this did not happen. When providing evidence to us the landlord has identified an email from the resident dated 28 May 2024 as the escalation request. While this email does not appear to specifically state the resident wanted to escalate their complaint we have accepted the landlord’s position.
36. It took 87 working days for the landlord to send its final response. This was also significantly outside its stated timescale. As was the case at stage 1 there is no evidence that it contacted the resident to explain why it needed additional time or agree an extended timescale for it to respond. The final response did not address or explain the delay. This was not appropriate.
37. For these reasons, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.
38. The landlord does not appear to have specifically offered any compensation for complaint handling failures. We consider it would be reasonable for it to pay the resident an additional £150 in recognition of the above failures and their time and trouble in needing to raise a complaint.
39. In its final response the landlord advised it could not consider a recent request the resident had made for it to install security items (wired CCTV and alarm) in their property as part of the complaint. It explained its Housing Team and ASB team would consider the request. It would then let the resident know its decision. It advised the resident could raise a new complaint about this matter after it had made a decision. It said this was in line with its complaint policy which states it cannot add new items into a complaint after a stage 1 response has been issued. This was a reasonable explanation for the landlord to have provided.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB.
41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

42. The landlord must within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £1050. This comprises:
       1. The £450 previously offered in its complaint responses.
       2. An additional £450 in recognition of the failure to adequately resolve the resident’s issues and the likely distress and inconvenience that this would have caused.
       3. £150 for the time and trouble of having to raise a complaint and recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
    2. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
    3. Provide the resident with a clear summary of all their ASB cases. This should identify (as a minimum) when it opened the case, what incidents the case covered, the actions it took to resolve the reported issues, and when and why it closed the case (if relevant).
    4. Clarify with the resident if there are any ASB matters that it has not recorded as part of an existing case. If the resident does identify any matters then it should decide whether it would be appropriate to record these under an existing case or open a new ASB case.
    5. For any currently open (or re-opened) ASB cases, review and re-confirm the action plan with the resident. It must also assess the case to confirm it has been correctly prioritised.
    6. It must create and maintain suitable records to demonstrate it is handling any open ASB cases in line with its ASB policy.
43. The landlord must within 12 weeks of the date of this determination carry out a review of its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This should (as a minimum):
    1. Identify all instances where it cannot satisfy itself from its records that it had acted in line with the ASB policy/procedure in place at the relevant time.
    2. Establish the root cause of the failures identified in its investigation of the resident’s complaint and this report. This should include whether it has appropriate policies and procedures in place to ensure effective handovers of work, either temporarily while staff are on leave or permanently when there are staff changes.
    3. Assess any identified failures against its current ASB policy and procedure (or any other relevant policy or procedure) to determine if similar failures could occur and what steps it could take to minimise this.
44. The landlord must no earlier than 12 weeks and no later than 14 weeks from the date of this determination provide this Service with evidence that it is handling any open ASB cases for the resident in line with its ASB policy.