London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202514409)

Decision
Case ID	202514409
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 January 2026

Background

The resident has said she and her family experienced antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour. In November 2023 and December 2023 there were incidents which involved the neighbour and the resident’s husband. The resident has said that she does not believe the incident in December 2023 would have happened had the landlord taken stronger enforcement action in November 2023. The landlord took action to address the ASB, but the resident expressed dissatisfaction at the adequacy of this and at the level of communication from the landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB

The landlord took several reasonable steps to deal with the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its ASB policy. However, it failed to show that it acted in line with this policy to address the resident’s ASB report in September 2023, her concerns about the communal door, or to provide regular updates between April and September 2024. While it offered compensation this was not fully proportionate to the level of failings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord failed to act in line with the timescales in its complaint policy and delayed logging a complaint for over a year. While it offered some compensation for its complaint handling failures this was not proportionate to the level of failings.

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	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of ASB. This is in addition to the £70 the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response. £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling (less any compensation it offered specifically for complaint handling in it stage 2 response which it has paid). The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 6 February 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Compensation

The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows:

£200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of ASB. This is in addition to the £70 the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
£150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling (less any compensation it offered specifically for complaint handling in it stage 2 response which it has paid).

The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

6 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
21 February 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint after complaining about the time it took the landlord to obtain an injunction against her neighbour. She felt this led to a second and preventable incident.
17 October 2024	The resident asked the landlord if it had provided its final response to her complaint.
Between 18 December 2024 to 31 January 2025	The resident asked the landlord if it had provided its final response to her “formal complaint”.
26 February 2025	The resident raised another complaint and told the landlord that it had not properly logged her previous complaints. The resident complained about her neighbour’s behaviour. She said the landlord had delayed acting, had not communicated, and had acted inadequately.
11 March 2025	The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement of the complaint at stage 1 of its complaint process.
3 April 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response and said: It opened an ASB case when it first received a report of ASB on 27 March 2023 which it resolved on 31 May 2023 It opened a new ASB case after a new report in September 2023 and it closed this on 19 February 2024 It had actively worked on the ASB case in collaboration with its partner agencies and it could not have acted earlier It required the resident to obtain and provide evidence to support further actions and referred the resident to services to help with their mental health It apologised for not acknowledging the complaint on 26 February 2025 which was caused by its confusion over which process to follow It was working to improve its processes to avoid this happening again It had shared the resident’s feedback with management to ensure it addressed the resident’s concerns about communication through future training and monitoring The injunction it obtained would remain in force until December 2025, and it agreed to monitor the neighbour’s behaviour The resident needed to report any further incidents to it so the landlord could review these It agreed to work with its legal team and take appropriate action if the neighbour breached the injunction It offered a ring doorbell camera as a security measure It could not decide if it was appropriate to remove the resident’s neighbour as there were no reports of breaches of the injunction It offered £25 for failing to acknowledge and formally raise a complaint in February 2025, and £25 for the time and effort in getting the complaint resolved. It would offset this against any rent arrears
9 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint.
15 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process.
24 June 2025	The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response and said: It had responded to the video recording the resident provided of an incident on 2 November 2023 in line with its procedures by contacting the neighbour and sending them a letter It made a legal referral after a further incident was reported, and it had worked on building a case to act against the neighbour, but it apologised if the level of communication had not given the resident an understanding of the action it had taken Its stage 1 complaint response referred to the area manager as she was aware of the ASB It needed to follow procedures and monitor the situation closely to ensure that it has evidence to take the strongest possible action, and it had to work through its process before considering eviction It had secured an injunction until 22 December 2025 which prohibited the neighbour from entering the area where her property is or direct any threatening or violent behaviour to the resident or her family It could apply to the court again if it received reports of the neighbour breaching the injunction It could initially ask the neighbour if they were agreeable to a voluntary surrender of their tenancy and if not, it could consider formal possession proceedings if the neighbour resumed ASB It understood the resident felt unsafe which is why it obtained an injunction to offer legal and practical protection to the resident It had offered the resident rehousing advice, and it was willing to provide the resident with a letter to support rehousing through the local council It recommended a mutual exchange if the resident felt unsafe in the property It was unable to alert other residents in the block of flats the resident lives in of the situation as the resident requested but was agreeable to sending them a letter explaining how they could report ASB It was unable to compensate for ASB issues but could compensate for any lack of communication It apologised for the delay in providing a stage 2 complaint response and offered the resident £70. This was made up of £40 for the delay in its stage 2 response and lack of communication and £30 for the time and trouble in getting the complaint resolved It would apply the compensation to the resident’s rent account
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has told us that she would like us to investigate the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. She remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and the amount of compensation it offered. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the communication the landlord has offered since complaint closure.

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 ASB
Finding	Service failure

What we did not consider

The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB have affected the mental health of her and her family. 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. Nonetheless, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident told us that following complaint closure she still experiences poor communication from the landlord and remains dissatisfied with its handling of her ASB reports after this. This investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports up to its final stage 2 complaint response on 24 June 2025. It is open to the resident to raise a new complaint with the landlord about issues which occurred since this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence that the resident has raised her complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB since its final stage 2 complaint response on 24 June 2025. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this.

What we did consider

The resident reported her neighbour shouting or talking to himself, making loud noise, assaulting her husband, threatening her husband using a knife, screaming profanities and threats, urinating off his balcony, spitting at her husband, using intimidating behaviour, making threats, throwing items, and intimidation. We have seen in response to these reports, and in its communication with the resident, the landlord:
1. Contacted the neighbour and wrote to him after the resident reported concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour on 5 April 2023.
2. Closed the ASB on 16 May 2023 after the resident confirmed there were no ongoing issues.
3. Completed a risk assessment on 2 November 2023 after it received a report that the neighbour assaulted the resident’s husband.
4. Secured a “no notice” injunction (court order) following the neighbour’s arrest and bail by the police in December 2023.
5. Told the resident it would attend court on 15 March 2024 and updated her on 3 April 2024 with details of another court hearing on 12 April 2024.
6. Offered the resident “additional safety works” on 17 October 2024.
7. Applied and obtained a final injunction against the neighbour on 30 October 2024 which was in force until 22 December 2025 as referred to in its stage 2 complaint response.
8. Updated the resident on 8 March 2024, 3 April 2024, 2 October 2024, 17 October 2024, and 31 January 2025.
9. Offered the resident rehousing advice on 31 January 2025.
10. Signposted the resident to support services in its stage 1 complaint response.
11. Offered to support the resident with rehousing through the local council in its stage 2 complaint response.
These actions were in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states ASB can include harassment, intimidation, and violence. While we have not seen a written action plan the landlord responded reasonably by completing a risk assessment, addressing the neighbour’s behaviour through a written warning, obtaining an injunction against the neighbour, and offering support to the resident. The resident said on 26 February 2025 the police arrested her neighbour on 14 December 2023 and the evidence shows the landlord obtained an interim injunction on 22 December 2023.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not provided her with a copy of the injunction and had not informed all the neighbours about the injunction. On 23 February 2024 the landlord explained its reason for this. It told the resident what the injunction conditions were. It also agreed in its stage 2 complaint response to write to other residents to explain how they could report ASB. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with data protection considerations. While the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not evicted the neighbour the landlord accurately explained it could not evict a resident without due process.
While the resident expressed concerns about her safety after expiry of the injunction (in December 2025) the landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it would monitor the neighbour’s behaviour but could not take further action without evidence the neighbour had breached the injunction. It also explained to the resident in its stage 2 complaint response how it would deal with the neighbour if he breached the terms of the injunction.
In doing so the landlord expressed empathy for the resident’s situation. Tenancies enjoy legal protection, and a landlord would need a court order to end a tenancy unless a resident tenant agreed to quit the tenancy. A court will only make a possession order where it is satisfied the legal test for possession is met based on evidence. This meant the landlord required significant evidence before it could pursue this option. It was reasonable of the landlord to explain to the resident how it needed to obtain evidence before it could take any further action to comply with its processes and legal obligations.
However, the landlord’s complaint responses failed to address several examples of other poor service. These included:
1. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response the resident reported ASB in September 2023 but there is no evidence of it acting in line with its policy in response to this report.
2. The resident expressed concerns about the adequacy of the communal doors on 7 March 2024 but the landlord did not inspect it until March 2025. This was unreasonable given the concerns the resident raised for her security and was not in line with its ASB policy which states the landlord must ensure residents are safe.
3. There was a gap between 3 April 2024 and 12 September 2024 in the landlord’s regular updates to the resident. This was not in line with its ASB policy which required regular contact with the resident.
Our dispute resolution principles state that landlords should act fairly, put things right, and learn from outcomes when landlords identify failures. The landlord accepted in its complaint responses that its communication was lacking, and it apologised for this. It agreed to address this through training and monitoring. It also offered compensation of £70, made up of £30 for the time and effort in resolving the substantive issue and £40 partly for the lack of communication.
Given the failings in its service it was appropriate and in line with our dispute resolution principles for the landlord to apologise, offer compensation, and to say how it would learn and improve its communication. However, by not acknowledging and addressing the further poor service identified above, its remedies did not fully resolve the complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2024), referred to as the Code. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
While it is unclear when the resident first complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB it is evident the resident complained before 7 February 2024. This is because the resident told the landlord on 21 February 2024 it had responded to her complaint on this day. As the resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of her reports of ASB it would have been appropriate to log a complaint in 2024. It was unreasonable of the landlord to delay logging a complaint until 2025, especially as the resident repeatedly expressed dissatisfaction between February 2024 and 31 January 2025.
Following on from the resident making another complaint on 26 February 2025 it took the landlord:
1. 10 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 11 March 2025, against a target of 5 working days.
2. 27 working days to provide its stage 1 complaint response on 3 April 2025 from when it logged her complaint (26 February 2025), against a target of 10 working days.
3. 51 working days to provide its stage 2 response on 24 June 2025 from when the resident requested an escalation (9 April 2025), against a target of 20 working days.
These delays were not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy. They delayed the resident being able to refer her complaint to us. These failures likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord offered the resident £40 to include compensation for a delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response.
However, it is unclear what proportion of this was specifically for complaint handling. In any event £40 compensation was not proportionate to the level of failure found, and does not account for the failures in logging a complaint in 2024. The landlord failed to acknowledge this failure in its complaint responses or show it had learnt from this. The offer of compensation solely for a delay in its stage 2 response did not fully resolve the detriment the resident experienced in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

While the landlord took several reasonable actions to deal with the resident’s reports of ASB it failed to manage the resident’s expectations in terms of communication. It also failed to keep an adequate record of when the resident first complained or what action it took in response to the ASB report in September 2023. Our learning from severe maladministration decisions special report (November 2024) provides useful guidance to landlords on learning from complaint handling and communication in ASB cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

While the landlord’s records were overall good it is unclear when the resident first complained to it or how it responded to the ASB report in September 2023. This meant the landlord has not demonstrated satisfactory record keeping in places.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was lacking at times, for example by not providing regular updates between April 2024 and September 2024, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations or show compliance with its ASB policy.