London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202452125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452125

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and deciding 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 sent 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 anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour.
   2. Request for rehousing.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat the landlord owns and manages. It let the property to her under an assured tenancy agreement in 2009.
3. The resident reported ASB and requested rehousing due the impact this had on her. The landlord’s handling of these matters was the subject of her complaint.
4. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 24 November 2024. She said it had not taken adequate action to address her ASB reports in keeping with its duty of care. She said the issues had been ongoing for several years and her neighbour’s intimidating behaviour and his treatment of dogs threatened her family’s safety. She could not avoid her neighbour due to the structure of the building and she felt anxious and unsafe. She wanted the landlord to address these matters, consider rehousing her, and provide a timeline and an action plan about how it would resolve the matters.
5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 November 2024 and sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 27 November 2024. It said it contacted an animal welfare association that visited and said the home was clean and tidy, the dogs looked healthy, and they were not at risk. It said it sent her neighbour a copy of its pets policy. It said because the ASB case was new, it would assess it and   discuss the concerns with her neighbour on 28 November 2024. The landlord also provided information about alternative housing options.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 27 November 2024. She said its stage 1 response did not address her concerns, had no substance, and her housing officer had a bias relationship with the neighbour. She sent a supporting document to add information to the complaint which reported an incident of ASB that took place on 29 November 2024. She said the landlord’s lack of communication caused her concern and it supported her neighbour but not her. She also said it had a legal duty to her and it should investigate her neighbour’s behaviour and her housing officer’s handling of her complaints. She asked it to consider if it provided fair treatment, rehouse her urgently, and provide support when residents report serious issues.
7. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 December 2024, and it sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 9 December 2024. It said it raised the resident’s concerns with the relevant manager to ensure it completed investigations fairly and thoroughly but it had no concerns of bias. It said its enquiry with the RSPCA was ongoing, her ASB case remained open, and it would continue to investigate her reports. It said it visited her neighbour while investigating the ASB and it could visit the resident at home to address her concerns when this was convenient. It explained ASB fell outside its complaint procedure but it was managing the ASB under a separate reference. It advised the resident to contact the police if any incidents threatened her. It said it did not uphold the complaint as it was satisfied with its handling of the ASB and the rehousing advice it provided.
8. Since the resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, she said the ASB incidents escalated and remain unresolved. She asked us to investigate the complaint. She said to put matters right the landlord should apologise, rehouse her family, investigate its handling of her ASB concerns, and offer compensation for distress.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, but we cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. If the resident wishes to pursue a claim she should get independent legal advice.
10. In the resident’s complaint she referred to historical reports of ASB from her neighbour. This assessment looks at the landlord’s response to the issues in the resident’s complaint of November 2024 from around 12 months prior to that complaint onwards. The historical issues provide useful context.
11. Since the landlord provided its final complaint response, the resident reported further concerns about its handling of ASB and rehousing. The landlord did not raise a new complaint as it said it addressed these matters its earlier stage 2 response. The resident was entitled to raise a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB and rehousing since its earlier stage 2 response. We have recommended the landlord records a new stage 1 complaint and respond to the resident about these issues. If she is unhappy with its final response, she could ask us and/or the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) to investigate. We cannot assess the local authority’s decisions about the resident’s homelessness application as complaints about local authorities are matters for the LGSCO. This investigation looks at the resident’s complaint up to the landlord’s final complaint response of 9 December 2024.

The handling of ASB

12. Our role is not to decide if the actions of the neighbour amounted to ASB, but whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably. We also considered the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
13. Under the terms of her tenancy agreement, the resident was entitled to quiet enjoyment of her property. The landlord handled ASB in line with its ASB policy. Its policy says residents have the right to enjoy their home and not experience ASB from other residents. It also says it would take prompt action to prevent and respond to all reports of ASB, such as pet nuisance and harassment.
14. In response to the resident’s reports of ASB the landlord interviewed the resident’s neighbour on 22 March 2024 about his 2 dogs and allegations of recreational drug use. It discussed these matters and emailed him a copy of the agreements it reached which was reasonable. It also gave the neighbour a pet registration form and asked him to complete and return this to the landlord in keeping with its pets policy.
15. The landlord advised the resident to report her concerns to an animal welfare association and record any reference numbers. This advice was reasonable under the circumstances. Advising the resident to record any references was appropriate to gather evidence of the regularity of any reported concerns.
16. The landlord addressed the resident’s allegations the neighbour did not clean up after his dogs on 8 October 2024. It also sent him a copy of its pet ownership guidance documents. This was reasonable to address the resident’s concerns and ensure he understood his tenancy responsibilities. It told the resident it met her neighbour to address her allegations and issued him a warning letter on 21 October 2024. Updating the resident was in line with its ASB policy which says it would provide advice and keep complainants updated throughout their case.
17. The landlord asked to meet the resident on 29 October 2024 to discuss her concerns about the alleged dog abuse. This was appropriate to gather evidence and information and manage the resident’s expectations.
18. On 18 November 2024 the landlord said it would discuss the resident’s reports of pet nuisance with her neighbour the next day. It said it would be mindful to keep the information anonymous and update her of its next steps. The resident’s neighbour may have identified the resident from the allegations. However, the landlord’s reassurance it would not disclose her identity was in keeping with its ASB policy which says it would protect personal information in line with the Data Protection Act 1998.
19. The landlord contacted an animal welfare association to request an independent assessment of the situation following its visit to the neighbour’s property. This was positive given the resident said she reported concerns to the agency but it did nothing.
20. The landlord reviewed the resident’s recordings on 19 November 2024. This was in keeping with recommendations in our 2022 spotlight report on noise complaints which says case handlers should listen to recordings to ensure it completes investigations with a true understanding of the reported noise.
21. The landlord asked the resident to report criminal concerns or threats to her safety to the police. This was in line with its ASB policy which says in cases of serious crime, it required residents to report incidents to the police.
22. However, the landlord:
    1. Did not ask the resident to use diary sheets or share the details of any neighbours who could confirm her reports. This would have been reasonable to gather evidence of the incidents and impact of ASB.
    2. Did not consider using an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) in keeping with its ASB procedure. This says it would do so to prevent problems escalating. It would have been reasonable for it to consider this address the neighbour’s behaviour and pet nuisance.
    3. Did not agree an action plan with the resident in keeping with its ASB policy. This says that landlord will agree an action plan and show decisive action and a prompt timeline for communicating. This caused the resident time and trouble asking the landlord to provide an action plan and a timeline in her stage 1 complaint of 24 November 2024.
    4. Did not offer mediation to the neighbours as a method for bringing understanding and improving their relationship. This was not in line with the ASB policy which says it will take decisive action such as by offering mediation.
    5. Did not keep to a telephone appointment it arranged to take place with the resident on 24 October 2024. This caused her time and trouble seeking contact and further updates from the landlord on 7 November 2024.
    6. Did not confirm it received video clips the resident sent to it by text message on 14 November 2024. This caused her time and trouble chasing the landlord 4 working days later.
    7. Did not seek advice from the police about the resident’s reports of menacing, unsettling behaviour. This was not in keeping with its ASB policy which says it would work with partners, the police, and local authorities to take preventative action.
    8. Did not complete a Vulnerability Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) in compliance with its ASB procedure following the resident’s reports of menacing, unsettling behaviour on 29 November 2024. The ASB policy says it would complete a RAM in high-risk cases or where relevant on standard priority cases. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to assess and respond to any risks to the resident.
    9. Did not explain the level of evidence it would require for it to take enforcement action or rehouse the resident. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to manage her expectations.
23. It is vital that landlords keep clear and correct records to provide an audit trail. Without this we may not be able to understand what the landlord did or whether it followed its policies and procedures. We asked it to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not provide an ASB case file, action plans, case review notes, and communication with the police or other agencies. This is evidence of poor record keeping.
24. The resident said the landlord was bias towards her neighbour. The landlord addressed its staff member’s handling of the ASB case. It spoke to the staff member and   manager about the resident’s allegations. In its final complaint response, it told the resident it was satisfied its investigation was fair. This was reasonable in the circumstances. Employment matters are confidential and we would not assess or comment on any action the landlord may or may not take against its staff.
25. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging and apologising for its mistakes, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again.
26. The landlord did not recognise its failure to complete a risk assessment, case reviews, use an ABC, or agree an action plan in keeping with its ASB policy. It also did not clearly explain the level of evidence it required for it to take enforcement action or provide rehousing. If the landlord decided the ASB was not at a level to need these actions, it should have explained this. This would have more effectively managed the resident’s expectations and her understanding of the landlord’s ASB service. It may also have prevented the case escalating after the landlord sent its final complaint response. As the landlord did not recognise its failings, it did not consider offering the resident compensation in keeping with its compensation policy. This says it may do so if it fails to follow its policies and procedures and this has a negative impact. Taking all matters into account, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
27. We cannot order the landlord to pay compensation for the resident’s experience of the ASB because it was not the landlord’s actions. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation. The compensation recognises the landlord’s failures caused distress and inconvenience which the resident was unlikely to experience if the landlord followed its policy.

The resident’s rehousing request

28. The resident requested rehousing on 26 September 2024 due to distress caused by her neighbour’s treatment of dogs. She requested rehousing again in her stage 1 complaint, 2 months later. The landlord acknowledged her request for it to rehouse her because she did not feel safe in its stage 1 complaint response on 27 November 2024. It explained available mutual exchange, private rental, and shared ownership rehousing options and it provided links to these websites. It also referred her to the local authority’s housing register. This was positive and its advice was in keeping with its rehousing policy. However, it missed the opportunity to explain what it could do to rehouse her directly, such as explaining its internal housing panel procedures. Consequently, it did not manage her expectations which led to her escalating the complaint. It would have been reasonable for it to provide more comprehensive rehousing information sooner, given she reported her concerns 2 months previously.
29. The landlord’s rehousing procedures say it may add a resident to its rehousing list if they are at risk due to ASB. However, it did not provide any information to the resident about this before or in its final complaint response of 9 December 2024. At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response its investigation focused on her neighbour’s behaviour, his mistreatment of dogs, and the distress this caused to her. It advised the resident to report any safety concerns to the police in keeping with its ASB policy. However, it did not assess whether she was at risk and met the criteria for its rehousing panel to consider an internal move. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to request further information from the resident or police and complete a RAM to assess any risks. It would also have been appropriate for it to explain the rehousing panel criteria to consider offering an internal move in the circumstances.
30. The landlord did not identify any failings in its handling of the resident’s rehousing request when responding to her complaints. Therefore, it did not consider providing compensation for its delay providing rehousing information and omitting advice on its internal rehousing procedures. This caused the resident time and trouble pursuing the information. Taking all matters into account, we found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
31. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for its failings. This award is in keeping with our remedies guidance where there were minor failings which did not significantly affect the outcome for the resident.
32. After the landlord sent its final complaint response it took further steps to support the resident with rehousing. The resident raised a new complaint about its handling of her rehousing request which the landlord has not investigated or responded to. These events took place after the resident complaint exhausted the internal complaint procedure. We have therefore recommended the landlord to raise a new stage 1 complaint about its handling of the resident’s rehousing concerns since its stage 2 response and respond to the resident within its internal complaint procedures.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its handling of her ASB reports.
    2. Pay the resident £500 in compensation made up as follows:
       1. £400 for any time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB may have caused her.
       2. £100 for any time, trouble, and inconvenience the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request may have caused her.
    3. Contact the resident to discuss her concerns about pet nuisance and ASB. It must send the resident an updated action plan to address the alleged ASB.
36. The landlord should pay the compensation direct to the resident and not offset this against any arrears the resident may owe the landlord, where they exist.

Recommendation

37. We recommend the landlord to raise, investigate, and respond to a new stage 1 complaint about its handling of ASB and rehousing since its stage 2 response of 9 December 2024. This should address the concerns the resident raised in correspondence dated 10 March 2025, and 19 May 2025 and provide any further relevant, or updated information about these matters.