London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202449753)

Decision
Case ID	202449753
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 April 2026

Background

The resident complained that the landlord failed to respond effectively to her reports of excessive noise. She also told it she was unhappy with its handling of her rehousing request. The landlord is aware the resident has chronic health issues that she said were worsening due to the noise.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of excessive noise.
2. Request to be rehoused.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excessive noise.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of excessive noise

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports in line with its policy. It failed to acknowledge this in its complaint responses. This meant it did not offer proportionate redress to her.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused

The landlord apologised for delays and poor communication in dealing with the resident’s request. However, it did not offer redress to her throughout its complaint process.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling that it apologised for. It offered proportionate redress in line with its compensation 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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 27 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of excessive noise £100 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s rehousing request	No later than 27 May 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic
it has due regard to our apologies guidance

No later than

27 May 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows:

£100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of excessive noise
£100 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s rehousing request

No later than

27 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord issues to the resident the £50 shopping voucher, if not already issued, for its identified failings in its handling of her complaint.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 June 2024	The resident complained to the landlord as she was unhappy with its response to her reports of excessive noise. The noise was coming from a neighbouring property as well as the external road. She said the issue was negatively affecting her health. She said in March 2024 she had requested it consider reasonable adjustments to address the noise or to rehouse her. She was unhappy with its communication relating to this request.
3 July 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for poor communication about the resident’s rehousing application. It also apologised for delays in handling her complaint and offered a £50 shopping voucher for this. It said her medical rehousing application did not meet its criteria for priority and provided housing options advice. It also suggested measures to reduce noise, such as noise‑dampening curtains.
1 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not adequately addressed the noise issue. She told it her health conditions had worsened due to her living conditions. She also said it had not met its Equality Act 2010 obligations by considering reasonable adjustments, such as soundproofing, to reduce the impact of the noise on her.
29 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had investigated noise levels and these constituted general living noise. It signposted her to support agencies and said it would visit the resident at home to discuss her concerns. It confirmed she was registered for a mutual exchange. It agreed to continue to monitor the issue.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred her case to us. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to take measures to resolve the noise or rehouse her if it was unable to do so. She also wanted increased compensation.

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

The resident raised concerns about the affect of the noise on her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a claim for any illness caused via the courts. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

Upon raising her complaint, the resident told the landlord that excessive noise in her home was worsening her health. She reported persistent noise from a neighbour, including door banging and shouting. She also said that noise from the street was excessive. She told it poor window conditions and inadequate soundproofing contributed to the problem. She wanted it to consider soundproofing and upgraded windows as a reasonable adjustment for her disability.
The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint set out that it classed persistent noise, including banging doors as ASB. As she had detailed this type of noise in her complaint, the landlord should have contacted the resident to log an ASB case in line with its policy. We have not seen any evidence that it had done so.
In its stage 1 response the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered the resident’s reports of noise by a neighbour raised in her complaint. It instead only referred to noise coming from the street. It did not acknowledge that it had failed to follow its ASB policy relating to the issue. Its failure to address the matter meant it missed an opportunity to demonstrate it was committed to resolving the issue in line with its policy.
During the landlord’s investigation into the complaint, it reviewed its planned works schedule for the resident’s windows. It confirmed in its stage 1 response it did not currently plan to replace them. It suggested measures such as noise‑dampening curtains to address street noise. However, while it explained its position, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s request for it to consider these works as a reasonable adjustment. Doing so would have enabled it to demonstrate awareness of her vulnerabilities and manage her expectations appropriately.
We found no evidence of further noise reports until February 2025, when the landlord opened an ASB case. It did so following reports of noise made by the resident regarding her neighbour. However, its records do not include detail of these reports or of all action it took in response. This indicates a record keeping failure. There is no evidence that it agreed an action plan with the resident, in line with its policy, to manage her expectations.
That said, the landlord took several proportionate steps in line with its ASB policy, to address the issue in March 2025. This included issuing diary sheets to the resident, conducting home visits and reviewing recordings of the noise. On 21 March 2025 it told her it had reviewed evidence and it classed the noise as general living noise. It also signposted her to its support team and said it would arrange mediation between her and her neighbour.
The landlord’s final response summarised the steps it had taken to investigate the noise. It confirmed that neither it nor the council’s environmental health team found the noise met the ASB threshold. It said it would continue to monitor the situation and encouraged the resident to continue to report any instances of noise affecting her. It said it would visit her at home regarding the situation. However, it did not provide a timescale for the visit, thus missing an opportunity to provide her with a measurable plan. It acknowledged that her health conditions were affected by the noise and signposted her to specialist support. This demonstrated a consideration of its obligations under the Equality Act.
We recognise that the resident reports experiencing distress regarding the situation. However, it is our understanding that there is a high threshold of evidence required to pursue legal action regarding ASB or in enforcing tenancy conditions. The landlord is limited in the actions it can take where there is not sufficient evidence to support taking further action, such as the property improvements requested by the resident. The landlord acted reasonably by investigating the noise, managing expectations and committing to monitor the situation.
In summary the landlord’s overall approach to the matter was proportionate. However, it did not acknowledge in its complaint responses its failure to adhere to its policy when dealing with the resident’s reports of noise. This meant it did not provide appropriate redress to fully put things right. With consideration of our compensation guidance, we have ordered it to apologise and pay £100 in compensation to the resident. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings we have identified.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused
Finding	Service failure

It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused. When this is the case, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology) 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 our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The evidence shows the landlord gave the resident reasonable housing advice throughout this case. It provided information on its application process to access medical priority rehousing and explained its criteria to award priority for this. It also suggested the mutual exchange process and offered support to the resident to assist her to access rehousing options.
That said, there were delays by the landlord in assessing the resident’s rehousing application. She had submitted this via her local council and the landlord was responsible for assessing and managing the application. Its communication with her regarding the matter was poor. It failed to keep her updated on its actions which led to her needing to chase it for information. This caused her avoidable time and trouble in trying to resolve the issue.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord appropriately apologised for its poor communication and delays to address the resident’s rehousing application. However, it did not offer redress to recognise the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. Therefore, in line with our compensation guidance, we have made an order for it to pay compensation of £100, consistent with our principles of fairness and putting things right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within its published timescale of 5 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 12 working days later than its target of 10 working days. It apologised for this delay in its response and identified learning to avoid a repeat of delays. In line with its compensation policy, it offered the resident a £50 shopping voucher to recognise the inconvenience caused by its delay.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 within its published timescales.
The landlord’s compensation offer was within the range of awards set out in our compensation guidance where there has been a minor failing in a landlord’s response to a complaint. This, along with its apology and identified learning was proportionate and in line with our dispute resolution principles.

Learning

The landlord could refer to its good neighbourhood management policy when it decides the ASB threshold has not been met. It may also consult relevant guidance on our Learning Hub.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord may wish to refer to our spotlight report on knowledge and information management and consider reviewing its record keeping arrangements to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of actions completed and of resident contact.

Communication

The landlord failed to communicate delays throughout the complaint process with the resident. Effective communication is vital as poor communication leaves residents uninformed leading to frustration. Effective communication ensures landlords manage expectations, even when delays occur, and how they can mitigate the impact of these. The landlord may wish to review our spotlight report on repairing trust.