London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202524014)

Decision
Case ID	202524014
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	13 January 2026

Background

1. The resident reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the landlord in 2023. The landlord undertook a risk assessment but did not investigate the matter further. The resident reported further ASB to the landlord and outlined her dissatisfaction that it had not responded to her earlier reports.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of ASB.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

ASB

5. The landlord did not act in accordance with its ASB policy. It failed to reallocate the resident’s ASB case during a time of staff absence. This led to her case not being investigated. Following further reports of ASB and information about the resident’s health, the landlord failed to undertake a up-to-date risk assessment or consider if external signposting for support was appropriate. The landlord did not provide clear communication in respect of legal advice it was taking about the options open to it.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded at both stages of its complaints procedure in line with the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handing Code (The Code).

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 10 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,600 compensation. If it has already paid £1,020 compensation it offered as part of its complaints process, it should pay the remaining balance of £580. The landlord should provide documentary evidence that it has paid the compensation to the resident.	No later than 10 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 October 2024	The resident made a complaint to the landlord and said as follows: She had reported ASB caused by her neighbour’s son in October 2023. This incident had involved the neighbour’s son having a knife and damaging her front door. She said the landlord had not contacted her about her report or updated her about the action it was taking against the neighbour’s son. She believed the neighbour’s son had spent time in prison following the incident and she was fearful for her life. She advised she was under hospital care. She requested compensation for the impact on her physical and mental health and asked the landlord to evict the neighbour’s son.
29 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
7 November 2024	The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 and said as follows: In a “high harm” ASB case, such as this, it should have responded promptly and robustly to the allegation. It apologised that it had let the resident down in its handling of the matter. When the resident first reported the ASB, it had assigned a caseworker. This staff member subsequently had a long-term absence. In such circumstances, their manager should have reallocated the resident’s case. This had not happened. The manager had also been absent for periods of time and this had become a sustained period of absence. It apologised the ASB case had not been reallocated or investigated. It acknowledged it had not contacted the resident about her concerns of ASB since December 2023. It confirmed it had allocated the case to an experienced caseworker. The caseworker would contact the resident and agree the frequency of contact going forward and an action plan setting out the next steps. It explained it did not have the power to evict the neighbour and this would be for a court to decide. It could not bring the matter to court without being satisfied that it had explored all avenues to prevent the behaviour reoccurring. It offered a total of £540 compensation made up of £440 for distress and £100 for the resident’s time and effort.
10 February 2025	The resident escalated the complaint. She said as the neighbour’s son had been convicted of a criminal offence, the landlord should evict them. She said although a caseworker had been assigned, they had not met with her about the ASB. She told the landlord there had been another ASB incident in December 2024 and the neighbour’s son was currently in prison.
17 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
7 March 2025	The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 and said as follows: It reiterated that eviction was a court decision. It explained eviction was a lengthy process and outside of its complaints procedure. It said it was taking steps in respect of the neighbour’s son but could not disclose this. It increased the offer of compensation to £1,020, made up of £680 for distress and £340 for time and effort.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the ASB had not been resolved. She said the landlord was seeking an injunction against the neighbour but had not updated her about the progress of this application.

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 response to reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

7. The resident believes that her physical and mental health have been affected by how the landlord responded to the reported ASB. We do not investigate complaints where it would be fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through a court. In this case, we cannot make a determination as to whether the landlord’s actions or inactions impacted the resident’s health. This is a matter only a court has the ability to decide upon. For this reason, we have not investigated the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health of the landlord’s actions or inactions in respect of reported ASB.
8. It is our role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB and the reasonableness of its response. This does not include establishing whether the neighbour’s son was responsible for ASB. Our investigation is limited to considering whether the actions of the landlord were in line with its policies and procedures and what was fair in the circumstances.

What we have investigated

9. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and staff involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Our Scheme states we may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
10. Although the resident did not formally complain to the landlord until October 2024 the evidence shows the landlord was made aware of reported ASB from July 2023. It engaged with the issue and the resident from that point onwards.
11. As such we have exercised our discretion, and it is appropriate for this investigation to focus on the landlord’s response to reports of ASB since July 2023. This is because the landlord’s subsequent actions and complaint responses were linked to the actions it had taken at the beginning of the ASB process in July 2023.
12. The landlord’s records show the resident reported ASB to the landlord in July 2023. The landlord subsequently liaised with the police, who advised they would not take action due to a lack of evidence. The landlord noted, within its internal records, that it would meet with the resident and visit to the block to see if additional security measures could be put in place. Although this was a reasonable suggestion, we have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that this meeting or inspection took place, or the outcome of any meeting or inspection that took place.
13. The resident reported ASB by her neighbour’s son on 2 October 2023. This incident included a report of the neighbour’s son had badly damaged the resident’s front door and was in possession of a knife. In response to this report, the landlord carried out a risk assessment with the resident one working day later. This was in line with its ASB policy. The ASB policy says the landlord will carry out a risk assessment on all high priority ASB cases. This is with a view to understand the harm caused to the victims and to guide staff on how to protect victims from further harm.
14. The risk assessment recorded that the resident felt in fear for her safety as she lived alone. It also noted the resident said that ASB was occurring most weeks and getting worse. Despite the risk assessment identifying that the reported ASB was having a significant effect on the resident, and that she was vulnerable, we have not seen any evidence  the landlord considered any practical or emotional support for her as a result. The landlord missed the opportunity to consider the option to signpost the resident to external support services. This was an option which was available to it, as stated in its ASB policy.
15. The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 response of 7 November 2024 that it had not handled the resident’s report of ASB from 2023 appropriately. It acknowledged the behaviour reported would be categorised as a high priority ASB case. The landlord’s ASB policy says that it will log and assess high priority cases within one working day and keep in regular contact with the resident. Our investigation confirmed that, in line with the landlord’s acknowledgement of the failure, this ongoing communication did not happen until the resident raised her complaint.
16. The landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to the resident’s report of ASB made in October 2023. It explained this was due to a staff member being absent and the case not being reallocated in their absence. We understand that staff absence, including periods of long term absence can be outside of a landlord’s control, however, its customers will reasonably expect it to have robust systems in place to monitor its outstanding caseload to ensure matters are effectively reallocated. It was of particular concern, that the landlord had identified the case as high risk but it did not realise the matter was outstanding.
17. Given the failures identified during the stage 1 investigation, it was appropriate for the landlord to allocate the ASB case to an experienced member of staff to investigate. It committed to create an action plan and it subsequently agreed it would contact the resident weekly going forward. We have seen evidence that the landlord called the resident on a regular basis in line with its agreement.
18. Following the stage 1 investigation we have seen evidence from 12 November 2024 that the landlord liaised with the police to ascertain if they were taking any action in respect of the neighbour’s son. The landlord also sought to ensure it had a full record of the alleged perpetrator’s behaviour by asking the police if any other reports had been received since October 2023. It noted internally, that following the information being received from the police it would take legal advice. It was appropriate for the landlord to seek legal advice in order to inform its subsequent course of action given the potential for the alleged perpetrator to be convicted of a criminal offence.
19. Although we have not seen the resident’s report of ASB from December 2024, the evidence shows the landlord kept in regular contact with her during this time. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the landlord was aware that the neighbour’s son had been arrested following an incident in December 2024 which resulted in the alleged perpetrator being imprisoned.
20. Although there is evidence the landlord kept in regular telephone communication with the resident during this time, we have not seen any evidence that it assessed this newest report as it was required to do as set out in its ASB policy. There is also no evidence that it updated the action plan or carried out a further risk assessment in light of this new reported incident. As such, there is no evidence the landlord followed its ASB policy following the report from December 2023. This was a failure to consider the effect of this new incident on the resident and consider if any referrals for external support were required.
21. The landlord wrote to the neighbour in January 2025 about their son’s arrest in October 2023. It asked the neighbour to ensure visitors did not carry out ASB and if they did it could be a breach of tenancy. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to contact the neighbour, it was not clear if this was intended as a written warning. The letter did not refer to the more recent incident from December 2024. Given the lack of clarity about what this communication was and that it was sent around 15 months after the first behaviour was reported, it had limited value as a timely measure to ensure inappropriate behaviour was not repeated.
22. The resident provided a medical letter to the landlord in February 2025. This said the ASB had made their anxiety and stress worse and she had a heart attack in January 2025. We have not been provided with any evidence to show the landlord responded to this or carried out a further risk assessment in light of the change in the resident’s vulnerability. This was a missed opportunity for it to demonstrate it had considered the new evidence and the effect of the situation on her.
23. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 February 2025 as the ASB was ongoing. She also said the landlord’s caseworker had not met with her. Following this, the landlord made a referral to its legal team in respect of the reported ASB on 5 March 2025. It was appropriate for the landlord to involve its legal team given the further arrest of the suspected perpetrator. However, we have not seen any evidence that it had advised the resident about the possibility of it taking legal advice prior to this as part of its case management approach. This was a missed opportunity to be transparent with the resident as to the steps available to it and to provide confidence to the resident in its handling of her reports. We note that at the time of writing this report, the landlord is in the process of applying for an injunction against the alleged perpetrator.
24. Within its stage 2 response the landlord reiterated the eviction process and said it was taking action which it was not able to disclose to the resident. it is reasonable that the landlord did not disclose the advice it had been given by its legal team, it could have provided the resident with an expected timeframe within which it hoped to be able to clarify the situation and outline its general approach to how it planned to manage the situation. As it was, the response was vague and unhelpful to the resident. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concern that she had not met with the ASB caseworker within its response.
25. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to a total of £1,020. This was to acknowledge the distress caused by its failures and the time taken to bring the complaint.
26. When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the 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.
27. Although the landlord’s offer of compensation went some way to try to put things right, the landlord did not acknowledge all of its failures, particularly in respect of the resident’s vulnerabilities and its failure to offer her support or conduct further risk assessments in light of further reports of ASB. As such, the compensation offered cannot be said to have put things right for the resident. The additional failures together with the failure to put things right, leads to the determination of maladministration. To acknowledge the impact of the additional failures we have identified, we have ordered an additional £580 compensation. This brings the total compensation to £1,600.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

28. The landlord’s complaints policy says that at stage 1, it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then aims to respond at stage 1 in 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days. If more time is needed it will keep the resident informed.
29. The landlord responded at stage 1 in 6 working days and at stage 2 within 14 working days. Both responses were provided in line with the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaints policy and The Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. The landlord’s initial record keeping of the reported ASB was poor. This led to failures identified above. The landlord should consider how it is able to provide contingency in support of its policies and plans to manage staff absence. It must take learning from the failures it identified and always be able to ensure it has sufficient resilience to monitor open ASB cases to ensure they are being progressed in line with its ASB policy. It should ensure it is able to reallocate cases should the allocated staff member have a period of absence as per its policies.

Communication

31. Once the landlord was made aware that it had not investigated the ASB case, it contacted the resident on a regular basis in respect of the ASB case as agreed. Its communication was generally effective although it could have been more transparent and proactive in respect of the legal options open to it and the process it would need to follow. It should draw learning on this case to ensure its communication retains a customer focussed lens which keep residents informed about the progress of matters which affect them, where the landlord is unable to give full disclosure of what it is doing.