London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202452728)

Decision
Case ID	202452728
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	1 June 2026

Background

The resident said smoke and noise from the flat above and ASB in the area had affected him for several years. The landlord was aware the resident was a vulnerable adult. He had a mental health diagnosis and suffered a stroke in 2020 which had left him with a brain injury.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the conduct of an estate agent and solicitor involved in the sale of his property.
2. Buy-back request.
3. Reports of anti social behaviour (ASB).
4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

The resident’s concerns about the conduct of an estate agent and solicitor involved in the sale of his property are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
There was no maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Buy-back request.
2. Associated complaint.
There was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found:

Concerns about the conduct of an estate agent and solicitor involved in the sale of his property

We have no power to investigate the actions of independent third parties which the landlord had no control over.

Buy-back request

The landlord considered and responded to the resident’s buy-back request in line with its policy.

Reports of ASB

The landlord took reasonable steps to reduce the noise and smoke coming into his property from the flat above in 2023 and 2024. It failed to follow its ASB policy by not logging or properly assessing the resident’s reports. It also failed to update the resident on which policy it would apply. It failed to assess the risk in December 2024.

Associated complaint

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales at both stages.

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 provided by a manager. 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 29 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not set off against any debt owed. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 29 June 2026
3	Ongoing ASB reports The landlord must contact the resident to discuss his ongoing reports of noise and drug use and confirm whether a new case will be opened or an existing case reviewed. The landlord must progress the matter in line with its ASB and good neighbourhood management policies, including: Log and assess the reports Confirm to the resident which policy the landlord will use to manage the reports If the landlord decides to deal with the issues under its ASB policy, it must: Complete a risk assessment Agree an action plan with the resident Confirm any agreed actions in writing to the resident Clearly set out what evidence is required from the resident Provide the resident with support in obtaining the evidence required Provide clear timescales for review and follow up The landlord must provide our Service with a copy of its written communication to the resident and confirmation of the actions taken in response to his ongoing reports.	No later than 29 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 April 2025	The resident asked us to help him make a complaint. He said he had asked the landlord to buy-back his property but it had refused. He said noise and smoke from the property above had affected his ability to sell his property. He said an estate agent and solicitor who he had previously instructed to sell his property had scammed him. He said someone had left drugs in the garden which his dog had eaten.
17 April 2025	We sent the resident’s complaint to the landlord and asked it to respond.
24 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
2 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said it had informed the resident he had a right to appeal the decision not to buy-back his property. It needed the resident to sign the appeal form to present his case, which he had refused to do. It had carried out works to the floor of the property above to reduce the noise and stop the smoke. It had offered to provide an air purifier which the resident had declined. The resident had not provided sufficient evidence to support his reports of ASB. It said it had no legal obligation to buy-back the resident’s property or provide him with support. Other than the usual repairs and management obligations under the lease.
12 May 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
13 May 2025	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
4 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It repeated what it had said at stage 1. It asked the resident to engage with the landlord to progress his appeal.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. As an outcome he wanted the landlord to fix the flooring in the property above so he could sell his property. If this was not possible, he wanted the landlord to buy-back his property. He also wanted the landlord to pay him 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	Concerns about the conduct of an estate agent and solicitor involved in the sale of the resident’s property
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We can only investigate the landlord’s actions or omissions. Or what its agents did, or did not do, on its behalf. We have no power to investigate the actions of independent third parties which the landlord had no control over. In this case, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of an estate agent and solicitor who had been involved when he had tried to sell his property. These persons were not employees or agents of the landlord. That means we have no power to investigate this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint	Buy-back request
Finding	No maladministration

In April 2023 the resident asked the landlord to buy-back his property. We have not seen the resident’s request or the landlord’s response to it. This is a recording keeping failure. However, both parties have told us the landlord told the resident it was not buying back properties at that time and advised him to sell on the open market.
In September 2024 the resident asked the landlord to buy his property back again. He said smoke from the property above was affecting his health. On 27 September 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident refusing his request. The letter was inadequate. It said the request did not meet the criteria in its policy but did not explain why. Simply enclosing the policy was not enough. It explained the resident could appeal the decision and provided the appeal form. It said the resident should provide medical evidence about the issue with the neighbours and signposted the resident to Citizens Advice. The landlord’s buy-back policy says it will reconsider its decision where there are exceptional circumstances. The letter should have explained this more clearly.
In November 2024 the resident provided information for the appeal form. He said smoke from the property above was affecting his health and that he had previously been a victim of fraud when trying to sell his property.
The resident provided a letter from his GP. The letter set out the resident’s concerns about the smoke. It also said the resident had complained about noise from the property above and allegations someone had poisoned his dog. Whilst the letter set out the resident’s concerns, it did not give a medical opinion that the smoke was directly affecting the resident’s health.
Between January 2025 and March 2025 the resident and landlord exchanged many emails about what to include in the appeal form. The correspondence during this time included requests for evidence from the resident about his involvement with the police, whom he said had recommended he leave the property. The resident refused to provide this evidence or let the landlord speak to the police. The landlord supported the resident by helping him to draft the form, using the resident’s information. It tried to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining what was relevant and said some issues would not support a buy-back. It suggested the resident obtain legal advice and offered meetings.
It was in an email of 12 February 2025 that the landlord gave a proper explanation to his buy-back request. This should have been provided in earlier correspondence.
In March 2025 the resident accused the landlord’s home ownership manager of lying on the form. The landlord said it could not submit the application without his agreement, asked what needed changing, and offered to have another officer present the case.
At the same time, the landlord became concerned about the resident’s mental health. It sought safeguarding advice and referred concerns to the resident’s GP. This was in line with its safeguarding adults policy which says it can share concerns with relevant agencies.
Our role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. To do this we considered our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Overall, the landlord considered the resident’s buy-back requests in line with its policy. There were shortcomings in its early communications with the resident as set out above. However, in later communications it explained why the resident’s request did not meet the required criteria and explained how he could appeal the decision. It took reasonable steps to help the resident prepare his case for appeal. This included helping him with the appeal form, advice on evidence, and offers of meetings and independent support. It said it would help the resident with the appeal if he engaged with the process. The appeal was not progressed only because the resident refused to sign the appeal form, not because the landlord refused to engage with the process. This leads to a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we will not consider

We are only able to investigate complaints which have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure. When the resident asked us to investigate his complaint in July 2025, he told us his neighbour had verbally threatened him. We have not seen any evidence the resident raised this issue with the landlord either before or during his complaint. So, we will not consider it as part of this investigation. The resident can raise a new complaint with the landlord about its handling of this issue if he wishes to.
The resident told us that the smoke from the flat above had affected his breathing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. 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 injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we will consider

It is not our role to decide if ASB occurred. We consider how a landlord dealt with the reports received, and if it followed its policies and good practice.

Noise

On 28 September 2023 the resident reported creaking floorboards in the flat above. We do not know whether the noise affected the whole flat or specific rooms.
The landlord’s ASB and good neighbourhood management policies set out behaviours which it does not normally consider ASB. The policies say the landlord will log and assess every report to understand the issue and decide how to manage it. The ASB policy says noise from normal daily living is not ASB and the landlord should manage it under its good neighbourhood management policy. When the landlord decides an issue is not ASB, it should explain this clearly and tell the resident which policy it will use.
The landlord inspected the flat above on 10 October 2023. We have not seen the inspection report and therefore cannot say what areas of the flat the landlord inspected or what it found. After this, it installed plywood in the living room to reduce the noise, which it completed around 24 October 2023. This was in line with its policy which says it will focus on improvements to reduce the noise in noise transference cases. It also showed the landlord had considered how the noise affected the resident, including his vulnerabilities.
The resident next raised this issue in November 2024, during his buy-back request and continued to refer to it during his complaint.
The evidence shows the landlord completed works to the living room and not the whole of the flat above. We therefore cannot be satisfied it checked floorboards in all the rooms when it inspected in October 2023. In addition, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord logged or properly assessed the report. It also did not tell the resident which policy it was using. It therefore did not follow its policy which was a failing. There are also failings with record keeping.
The resident said the noise had affected his ability to sell his flat. We do not have sufficient evidence to come to this conclusion.
The resident told us the noise from the flat above continued to affect him up to the date of this report. As a result of the insufficient records we cannot also be satisfied the landlord followed its policy and responded appropriately to the resident’s reports

Smoke

On 3 July 2024 the resident reported smoke entering his home from the flat above. The resident was worried that the smoke may cause him to have another stroke.
In line with its policies, the landlord should have logged, assessed the report, and confirmed to the resident which policy it would use. This did not happen.
The landlord inspected the flat above on 5 July 2024. Although it did not find any gaps in the flooring, it fitted linoleum in the living room, sealed the front door, and checked for smoke leakage. It completed this work by 11 July 2024. This was in line with its policy.
In November 2024 the landlord suggested the resident use an air purifier. The resident said it would not help. The smoke was coming into the resident’s flat from a neighbour’s property which the landlord was responsible for. The landlord should not have put the onus on the resident to resolve the issue. When the resident told it the issue was ongoing it should have investigated again to find a resolution. There is no evidence that this happened.
The resident reported the issue again in October 2025. He said the smoke came from drugs and the landlord was aware of this previously. However, we have not seen any evidence to show this was the case. The landlord’s tenancy enforcement team contacted the resident after this to investigate his concerns. The resident has not engaged with the landlord’s tenancy enforcement team and therefore the landlord has not been able to fully investigate his concerns.

Drug related nuisance

On 15 December 2024 the resident reported that someone threw drugs into the garden. His dog ate the drugs and became unwell.
The landlord’s ASB policy classifies drug-related incidents as ASB, which it categorises as a standard case. The policy says the landlord must log all standard cases, assess them within 3 working days, and complete a risk assessment, where relevant. It also says the landlord will agree an action plan with the reporting party.
The landlord responded within 2 days. It told the resident to report the incident to the police. It explained it would investigate if there was evidence that one of its tenants was responsible.
It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident to report the incident to the police as it was a criminal matter. However, the landlord did not log the case, agree an action plan or complete a risk assessment. Given that it knew the resident was a vulnerable adult, it should have assessed the impact on him. This would have identified if it needed to make any support referrals. This did not happen, which was a failing.

Conclusion

The landlord took some appropriate practical steps in response to the resident’s reports, including inspecting the flat above and carrying out works intended to reduce noise and smoke. It was also reasonable for the landlord to explain that it required sufficient evidence before taking any tenancy enforcement action. However, the landlord did not provide any support with evidence gathering as is set out in its policy.
The landlord did not manage the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. It failed to consistently log and assess reports, did not complete timely risk assessments, and did not clearly confirm which policy it was using. This was particularly significant given the landlord’s knowledge that the resident was a vulnerable adult.
As a result, the landlord did not properly monitor or assess the ongoing impact of the issues on the resident. This is likely to have caused him distress and inconvenience and left him uncertain about how his reports were being managed over a long period of time. These failures amount to maladministration. In line with our Compensation Guidance, an apology, learning, and compensation of £500 are appropriate.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition. Our findings are:
The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the definition of a complaint and timescales.
The landlord acknowledged both complaints within its 5-working day policy timescales.
In line with its policy, it sent its stage 1 response within 7 working days and its stage 2 response within 17 working days.
Both the responses appropriately defined the issues raised by the resident. The content of the responses was adequate to meet the requirements of the Code. The responses were expressed in clear, plain language.
Based on this, we have made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord needs to understand the reasons for its failures to follow its ASB policy and take corrective measures to address them.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records were incomplete. For example, we have not seen the resident’s buy-back request from April 2023 or the landlord’s response. We have also not seen the inspection report of the flat above from September 2023. The absence of clear and complete records made it difficult to understand what actions the landlord had taken.

Communication

The landlord’s communication in this case was good. It responded promptly to the resident’s enquiries and kept him updated throughout.