London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202507040)

Background

1. The resident told the landlord she was experiencing anti social behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour. She said reported it to the police and did not feel safe. At the time of making her complaint, the resident said she had received no update from the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

5. The landlord failed to response to resident’s initial report of ASB for 2 months. While it apologised for this failing, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to its failings and did not put things right.

Complaint handling

6. There was a delay of 7 working days in the landlord issuing it’s stage 2 response. It apologised and offered the resident compensation in line with its policy. The landlord’s compensation offer was fair and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident has made further reports of ASB since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have not investigated events that occurred after the LLs final response of 27 August 2024.

What we did investigate

8. The resident lives in flat and shares a communal entrance with one other tenant, referred to in this report as the neighbour.
9. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 April 2024 to report she was experiencing ASB from her neighbour. She said:
   1. The neighbour and their guests had threatened her in the past and stolen her motorbike.
   2. The neighbour was part of a gang that sold drugs from their property.
   3. On 9 April 2024 she called the police due to screaming, shouting and banging coming from the neighbours flat.
   4. She felt unsafe and wanted to be given a copy of the landlord’s management transfer policy.
10. The landlord tried to contact the resident the same day by phone and left her a voicemail. The resident chased the landlord on 20 May and 25 June 2024 for an update but received no response. This led to the resident making a formal complaint.
11. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out the action it will take when it receives a report of ASB. This includes logging the report within 3 working days, completing a risk assessment, agreeing an action plan and providing advice and support. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord followed its ASB policy during the first 2 months of the issue being reported.
12. The evidence shows the resident’s case was not monitored during this time as there was no NHL in post to cover the area the resident lived in. The landlord confirmed this in its stage 1 response. However, the landlord was still obliged to follow its policy upon receiving a report of ASB and it failed to do so. The landlord also failed to communicate these delays to the resident, causing her time and trouble in chasing the matter.
13. The evidence shows following the stage 1 response, the landlord took action in line with its ASB policy to deal with resident’s report. This included:
    1. Contacting the resident to discuss an action plan.
    2. Completing a risk assessment.
    3. Writing to the neighbour, informing them of the reports made and reminding them of the terms of their tenancy agreement.
    4. Contacting the police for disclosure on previous incidents between the parties.
    5. Providing the resident with information and advice on the appropriate ways to report different forms of behaviour.
14. When the resident reported a further incident of ASB on 17 July 2024, which required police involvement, the landlord responded quickly by contacting the neighbour and liaising with the police and the council in line with its policy. The police advised the landlord the incident was a neighbour dispute and both parties were given words of advice as to their behaviour. The police also disclosed the resident had been the one “wielding” a weapon.
15. The resident approached a local housing charity as she did not want to return to her property. She asked the landlord to be moved due to the risk posed from her neighbour. The landlord has a published rehousing policy that states tenants may be eligible for rehousing if they are in immediate risk from high level ASB. The police disclosure did not support the resident was at risk. Furthermore, there was no evidence of high risk ASB. It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s decision not to rehouse the resident was in line with its policy and one it was entitled to make.
16. The evidence shows the landlord liaised with the charity and offered the resident safety measures such as a ‘ring doorbell’. It also advised her on the other housing options available to her and offered mediation, which was declined by the neighbour.
17. The evidence shows the resident declined to have her case moved to another employee, when her point of contact took a period of unexpected leave at the beginning of August 2024. She also confirmed she had no further evidence to provide. The case was closed a short time later as the resident made no new reports of ASB
18. In summary, the landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of ASB was not in line with its policy. The vacant NHL post caused a delay of over 2 months to the landlord taking action. However, once it recognised this failing it took steps to resolve the matter by allocating the resident a point of contact and followed its action plan. When the situation appeared to escalate, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the matter further and offered a reasonable level of support in line with its policies.
19. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord 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, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
20. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings within its complaint responses. It offered £60 compensation. Although its offer went some way to put things right, it failed to reflect the full extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in the 2 months were the landlord failed to take action. We have ordered the landlord to pay £200 compensation in recognition of this and we have found service failure.

21. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints: 
    1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint at both stages within 5 working days.
    2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded. 
    3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. 
22. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, in line with its policy. Its stage 2 response was issued 7 working days later than the timescales set out in its policy. The landlord acknowledged this in its response, it apologised and awarded the resident £20 compensation.
23. Our guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £20 may remedy a failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. When considering the length of the delay, the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Communication

25. While the landlord failed to act on the resident’s initial report of ASB, the evidence shows that its communication with the resident following her complaint case was reasonable. It also addressed its poor communication within its responses.