London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202309874)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309874

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

8 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining 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 submitted 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) in his apartment block and the security of the communal entry door.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated August 2011. The resident lives in the property with his partner and 2 children. The property is a first floor 1 bedroom flat in a purpose-built block. The resident is part of the landlord’s intermediate market rent scheme. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported that a non-resident had broken into the block and tried to break into his property on 15 December 2022.
The landlord received an out of hours call from the resident on 5 March 2023. The resident reported that a non-resident had gained access to the communal area and had defecated and left needles. The resident said this was not the first time this had happened, there were other witnesses, and he had called the police. The landlord called the resident the same day. It said it had opened an ASB case and contacted the relevant staff member to arrange to clear the communal area.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 March 2023 because nobody had contacted him, and he had to clean the communal area himself. He said his children were living in fear. The landlord emailed the resident the following day and apologised for nobody attending to the communal area. It said the relevant people responsible for his area would follow up his concerns.
The resident continued to email the landlord on 23, 26 and 29 March and 21 April 2023. He said:
1. the landlord had not contacted him, acknowledged the situation or offered any solutions.
2. other non-residents had accessed the building and had been setting fires in the communal areas.
3. he had made several reports of ASB to the police.
4. he felt the landlord did not want to resolve anything, and it did not want to help him move because he was an intermediate market rent tenant.
5. the landlord would not give the resident a letter to give to the local authority to rehouse his family and neither of them were cooperating with him.
6. he had lost his job because the landlord had not taken any action to either erect a fence or replace the main communal entry door which was constantly being damaged.
The landlord responded on 21 April 2023. It said:
1. it attended the resident’s property that morning but there was no answer.
2. it was sorry for the lack of response as a staff member had been off sick and was trying to get through a backlog of emails.
3. it had footage of non-residents entering the block and it looked like they were forcibly pushing the door to gain access.
4. the top lock did not look as it should, so it had arranged for a contractor to repair this, and it would inform the resident when it had an appointment date.
5. when both locks were working and engaged, the door would provide security and prevent non-residents from accessing the block.
The resident and the landlord exchanged several emails on 25 April 2023. The resident said that he had lost his job due to lack of sleep and being late for work. He said the issues had been ongoing since December 2022, there had been threats to kill him and his family, and the police had said it was the landlord’s responsibility as the non-residents were homeless. The landlord apologised for the impact the ASB had on him and said it needed a specialist to repair the door. It said it would keep the resident updated, the safer neighbourhood team would carry out additional patrols and it would send CCTV footage to the police.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 and 11 May 2023. He said the ASB was continuing, and the landlord had told him on 25 April 2023 that it would update him on when it would repair the door. He said the landlord had not contacted him and reiterated that he had lost his job because of the landlord’s inaction. He said that he had accrued rent arrears due to this and requested that the landlord cleared them. He also asked the landlord to evict him on the grounds of his family fearing for their safety. He repeated that the ASB had impacted his children and said this had been ongoing for almost 7 months.
The landlord treated the resident’s email of 11 May 2023 as a complaint and acknowledged it the same day. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 May 2023. The landlord said:
1. it was sorry the resident had experienced ASB.
2. it had chased the contractor it had hired to repair the door for an appointment date. The landlord said it had not received a response about the repair, but as soon as it did, it would inform the resident of the appointment date.
3. he should continue to report any incidents of ASB where he felt unsafe to the police.
4. if the resident believed that non-residents entering the block were homeless, he should report them to a partner agency, and they would assist in removing them.
5. regarding the arrears and the resident’s request to be rehoused, it could offer him support services such as pound advice or employment support, but it would not write to the local authority and ask them to rehouse him or clear the arrears. The landlord asked the resident to inform it if he wanted to use those services, and it would provide more information.
6. it had awarded £10 compensation in accordance with its compensation policy for the delay in responding his complaint.
The resident escalated his complaint on 30 May 2023 and continued to email the landlord. The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 19 July 2023 outlined the resident’s issues and said:
1. it was sorry that the resident remained dissatisfied with its stage 1 response.
2. it had raised several repairs regarding the communal front entrance door being forced open and it had ordered a replacement armature plate to realign the door. The landlord said as soon as it arrived, it would inform the residents in the block when the contractor would complete the work.
3. it had enquired about a security gate at the front of the building and the building compliance team were exploring the possibility of fitting this once the contractor had repaired the communal front door.
4. it would work with the door contractor and the building compliance team to ascertain what additional security measures could be implemented to improve the security of the building.
5. it was sorry for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family by non-residents sleeping in the building.
6. in recognition of this and in accordance with its compensation policy it offered a discretionary compensation payment of £80.
When the resident contacted the Ombudsman, he said he wanted the landlord to compensate him for the period from December 2022 as he was struggling financially due to it not taking prompt action. He said the landlord had failed in its duty of care, and continued to fail, as it had a responsibility to protect the property from non-residents. He also said non-residents were still entering the building, there had been a fire, and they were checking to see if front doors were unlocked. He said the landlord had told him it would erect a gate which it had not done, and it had not contacted him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

The resident complained that he lost his job due to the landlord’s inaction regarding the ASB. The Ombudsman cannot determine the causation of, or liability for, the resident’s job loss. However, we can assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and whether it had followed proper procedures and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident raised issues about the landlord’s handling of his reports of theft of a bike from the communal bike shed. The resident did not raise this issue in his complaint to the landlord. Accordingly, this investigation will only consider the issues raised in the resident’s complaint which exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure on 19 July 2023. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if needed.
As part of the complaint the resident has expressed a desire to be rehoused. The Housing Ombudsman can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman the resident indicated that the ASB issues had impacted his health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in his apartment block and the security of the communal entry door

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedures and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
1. it will take prompt, appropriate, and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalated. It will work with relevant partners to meet its responsibilities.
2. it will prevent ASB by carrying out estate inspections to identify and respond to environmental issues on estates and maintain and manage communal areas to minimise crime and ASB.
3. it categorises ASB into 2 categories, high priority and standard priority. In all high priority cases it will complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix and where relevant on standard priority cases to measure the harm caused to the victims and to guide staff on the actions to take to protect victims from further harm.
4. harassment or intimidation, including threats, vandalism, property damage, drug or substance misuse, alcohol related incidents and the misuse of common areas where it was persistent will be recorded as ASB.
5. it will keep in regular contact with the reporting party or as agreed where necessary arrange an interview at the place of choosing of the reporting party and identify any particular circumstances or needs that should be factored into the handling of the case.
6. it will follow safeguarding procedures if there were concerns regarding a vulnerable adult at risk or where children were involved. It may also arrange support from other parties who can help, including the police and local authorities.
7. it will provide advice and support. This could include making referrals to other agencies that could provide assistance and, where appropriate, empowering the reporting party to take positive action, for example support to gather evidence and identifying any appropriate security measures to ensure that residents are safe in their property.
8. it will agree an action plan with the reporting party and keep them updated throughout the case. It will update the action plan to reflect new information or new incidents related to the case. The action plan will show decisive actions and a prompt timeline for communicating delivery.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
1. it is responsible for maintaining common entrance ways, communal entrance doors and frames, halls, passageways, and other communal areas including estate grounds.
2. it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days.
3. for emergency works where there was an immediate danger to residents or members of the public it would attend within 24 hours.
4. for emergency works that occurred out of hours it would attend within 4 hours. The out of hours service would make safe and lower the immediate risk. The follow-on repair would then be completed at the earliest mutually convenient time.
The landlord said the resident had reported that a non-resident had broken into the block on 15 December 2022. The landlord has not provided any evidence of the resident’s report, including any action it took in line with its ASB policy. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the landlord took appropriate action when the resident reported ASB in December 2022. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
On 18 January and 9 February 2023, the landlord raised repairs as the communal door would not close properly because the locks would not engage due to it being repeatedly forced open by non-residents. The landlord completed the first job on 19 January 2023 and the second job on 2 March 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord investigated the cause of the damage to the communal door in January or February 2023. Given the earlier reports that the door was being forced open by non-residents, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated this in line with its ASB policy.
On 1 March 2023 the landlord requested CCTV footage from the previous day of the communal entrance door from the door contractor. This was to ascertain how non-residents were gaining access to the block. It was reasonable for the landlord to request this and shows it was taking action to find the source of the ASB in the resident’s block.
On 5 March 2023 the resident reported that non-residents were accessing the communal area and had defecated and left needles. The landlord raised an ASB case and called the resident that day. The landlord said it would arrange to clear the communal area. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident about his reports of ASB and set out what it intended to do in response. This is because the landlord’s ASB policy states that it would take prompt action and maintain regular contact with the resident.
However, the resident emailed the landlord 4 times between 12 and 29 March 2023 about the ASB as the landlord had not contacted him. He said that he had to clean the communal area himself, non-residents had been setting fires in the communal area, and his children were frightened. The landlord said it would clear the communal area but there is no evidence it did. This left the resident having to clean the communal area of reported biohazards, which would have likely been a risk to his health and safety. Given that the landlord had agreed to take this action, this was not appropriate.
The landlord responded to the resident on 13 March 2023 and apologised that it had not attended to the communal area. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise to the resident. However, it was aware that the ASB had impacted his children. Additionally, the resident’s reports of ASB were becoming more serious as he had said non-residents were setting fires in the block. Other than sending internal emails requesting that somebody reviewed the issue and responded to the resident, the landlord did not take any action in line with its ASB policy. It failed to take prompt action and did not contact the resident to agree an action plan, complete a risk assessment or take any safeguarding action as stated in its ASB policy. This was not appropriate.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs from March 2019 highlights the importance of keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records. The landlord’s repair logs show that it raised further repairs for the communal front entry door on 28 March 2023 and 18 April 2023. This was because non-residents were pushing it open despite the lock being engaged and CCTV footage had confirmed this. The landlord recorded the repair raised on 28 March 2023 as “complete with no action” the same day. However, it is unclear if the repair went ahead, or why the landlord recorded that no action was needed. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord and its contractor inspected the front communal entry door on 20 April 2023. The landlord emailed an engineer’s report regarding the communal front entry door to its building services security team the following day. It said that the door was out of alignment which prevented the locks from engaging and requested that the building services security team made a referral for a door specialist to realign the door.
On 21 April 2023 the resident sent another email to the landlord as he was yet to receive a response or solution regarding the ASB. The landlord responded the same day. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident and said there had been staffing issues. It provided an update to the resident about the communal front door. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this as its ASB policy states it would keep residents updated. However, there was an unreasonable delay in responding to the resident’s concerns, considering he had sent several emails throughout March 2023 about ongoing ASB.
In an email exchange between the resident and the landlord on 25 April 2023, the resident repeated his concerns about the ASB and its impact on his family. The landlord apologised for this and told the resident that the safer neighbourhood patrol would undertake additional patrols. It was appropriate for the landlord to take this action. This is because its ASB policy states that it would carry out estate inspections to prevent ASB and maintain communal areas.
The landlord said it would share the CCTV footage with the police. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took this action. Given the landlord had informed the resident it would take this action and its ASB policy states it will work with partner agencies, this was not appropriate.
The landlord raised a request to disable the trades button on 4 May 2023 as non-residents were using it to gain access to the resident’s block in the early hours. It completed this job the following day. However, the resident had continued to report ASB in his apartment block. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider options to make the building more secure sooner or communicate with the resident about the actions it had taken.
The resident continued to email the landlord on 6 and 11 May 2023 because it had not provided an update on when the door specialist would repair the door as stated in its email on 25 April 2023. The landlord responded on 12 May 2023 and apologised for the delay. It said it had chased the contractor for an appointment date but it had not received a response. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase the landlord for an update because the landlord’s ASB policy says it would regularly communicate with residents about the actions it has taken.
The landlord advised the resident to continue reporting incidents to the police where he felt unsafe. It also told the resident to report the issues to a partner agency if he believed the non-residents were homeless as they would assist in removing them. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this as its ASB policy says it would provide advice to residents.
However, the landlord failed to take any further action in relation to the ASB including agreeing an action plan with the resident, completing a risk assessment or considering any safeguarding action. This was a missed opportunity and was not appropriate as the landlord’s ASB policy said it would take such action.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 16 May 2023 the landlord apologised for the resident experiencing ASB. It also provided the same advice as in its email of 12 May 2023 regarding contacting the police and reporting the non-residents to a partner agency. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns regarding losing his job and his rent arrears by signposting him to organisations who could offer support and advice. This was appropriate as its ASB policy states that it would offer advice to residents where required.
However, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failures in the handling of the ASB case. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to agree an action plan with the resident, complete a risk assessment and consider safeguarding issues. This was not appropriate considering the seriousness of the reports of ASB and that it was impacting the resident’s children.
The resident continued to email the landlord on 16 and 17 May 2023. He repeated his concerns about non-residents accessing the block and causing ASB. He said the landlord’s contractor had been unable to repair the front entry door for the past 6 months. He also said that even though he was an intermediate market rent resident, the landlord had a responsibility to provide a letter for him to take to the local authority to rehouse him as he had lost his job due to its inaction.
The landlord sent an internal email on 17 May 2023 querying the rehousing process for intermediate market rent residents. It received a response the following day saying that it did not re-house intermediate market rent residents. There is no evidence that the landlord provided this information to the resident. Given the resident had contacted the landlord to ask about his rehousing options, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided this information to him.
The resident continued to email the landlord about the ASB throughout the rest of May 2023 and early June 2023 without response. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s ASB policy states it would communicate regularly with residents.
During this time, the landlord’s records show that it completed work to repair the alignment of the communal entry door on 1 June 2023. Although this was outside the timeframes stated in the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord explained that this was caused because of a referral needed to a door specialist. It raised a repair for the maglock at the top of the door on 19 June 2023 and it completed this job the next day. This was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy.
However, the resident sent a further email the following day. He said a non-resident had broken in again and asked the landlord to see photos of the broken lock. The landlord did not respond, and the resident sent further emails on 30 June 2023 and 7 July 2023 reiterating those concerns. The landlord responded on 7 July 2023 regarding his complaint. But it did not address the resident’s concerns about the security of the communal front door. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s ASB policy says that it would keep residents updated about the actions it has taken or intends to take.
The landlord raised a further repair to replace the maglock at the top of the communal front entrance door as it was missing on 11 July 2023. It queried if it could be replaced as soon as possible as there had been several reports of ASB and the lock was required to provide the residents with adequate security. It was appropriate for the landlord to request for this job to be prioritised. This was because its ASB policy says it would act promptly to prevent ASB.
The resident sent another email to the landlord on 13 July 2023. He attached a photograph of a man sleeping in the communal area and charging a laptop and asked the landlord to consider this evidence of continued ASB. The landlord did not respond. This was not appropriate.
The landlord emailed its stage 2 complaint response, dated 19 July 2023, to the resident on 21 July 2023. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and his family by the ASB and offered him £80 compensation for this. It also acknowledged that the issue was ongoing. It outlined the action it would take to improve security in the resident’s block. However, it again missed the opportunity to agree an action plan with the resident, complete a risk assessment and consider any safeguarding issues. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s records show that on 10 August 2023 it had requested that a contractor surveyed for an external gate and raised fencing to prevent ASB. However, it recorded this job as completed “no action” on 10 October 2023. It is unclear why. This is not appropriate as the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs states that landlords should maintain clear records. Additionally, on 27 November 2023 the landlord requested a quote from a contractor to fit a door entry system to an external gate the landlord would like fitted outside the resident’s block. It recorded this job as complete on 27 December 2023.
There is no evidence that the landlord communicated the outcome of the options it had considered to improve security in his block to the resident. Considering the landlord said it would see what additional security measures could be put in place in its stage 2 response, it would have been reasonable for it to do this.
The resident included the Ombudsman in emails to the landlord in which he continued to raise concerns about the security of the front communal door and people accessing the property up until December 2023. The landlord’s records show that there continued to be issues with the communal front entry door as late as March 2024. However, an internal email dated 25 March 2024 indicated that it had resolved the maintenance issues with the communal front door.

Summary and conclusions

The Ombudsman recognises that the repeated damage to the communal front entry door was a factor in the ongoing ASB reports in the resident’s block. The landlord took steps to repair the door in line with its repairs policy. However, the resident reported that this had not resolved the ASB. The landlord failed to take appropriate action in line with its ASB policy to try and mitigate the impact the issues had on the resident and his family.
In summary:
1. the landlord failed to maintain accurate records of the ASB reported by the resident in December 2022.
2. there is no evidence that the landlord investigated the cause of the damage to the communal entry door in January or February 2023.
3. the landlord failed to clean the communal area in March 2023, in line with the actions it had agreed with the resident.
4. the landlord failed to act promptly in line with its ASB policy, as it delayed in responding to the resident’s reports of ASB from 13 March 2023 to 21 April 2023.
5. the landlord delayed in considering what measures it could take to improve the security of the resident’s block.
6. the landlord failed to agree an action plan with the resident or communicate regularly with him. The resident sent numerous emails requesting an update between 16 May 2023 to 7 July 2023. Other than emailing its stage 1 response on 26 May 2023, the landlord failed to respond to him.
7. the landlord failed to complete a risk assessment or consider safeguarding issues despite the resident reporting that the non-residents had set fires, the ASB had impacted his children, and the non-residents had threatened his and his family’s lives.
8. the landlord failed to demonstrate it had taken a multi-agency approach to address the resident’s concerns. For example, there is no evidence that the landlord shared CCTV footage of the non-residents entering the block, in line with the actions it had agreed with the resident.
9. although the landlord has requested a survey and quotes regarding an external gate and raised fencing, the outcome of this is unclear and there is no evidence that the landlord has communicated the result of its enquiries to the resident.
The resident explained to the landlord and this Service that the landlord’s handling of the ASB caused fear, upset and distress to him and his family. For example, in email correspondence the resident informed the landlord that his children were scared to leave the property and go to school. The landlord failed to consider the health and safety risk to the resident and his family as he had to clean needles and biohazards himself and reported that the non-residents were setting fires in the communal areas.
With consideration of our guidance on outcomes, there have been serious failings by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The resident told the landlord that the issue had a serious and detrimental impact on him and his family. The landlord did not acknowledge the above failures in its complaint responses. The £80 compensation offered at stage 2 of the complaint process does not reflect the impact the failures had on the resident. This demonstrated a failure by the landlord to put things right and learn from outcomes.
Considering the failures identified in this investigation and the impact to the resident, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that residents could be compensated for the loss of communal services. It also allows for discretionary compensation to be awarded when its mistake or failure causes a resident distress and inconvenience, although no figures are stipulated.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies allows for compensation payments of over £1,000 when we have found severe maladministration. Having carefully considered this, a fair level of compensation would be £1,200 including the £80 already offered by the landlord. This appropriately recognises the distress and upset caused by the landlord’s failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in his apartment block and the security of the communal entry door.
The landlord should also contact the resident to discuss the issues in the block. It should consider if it needs to agree an action plan, complete a risk assessment or complete any safeguarding action in line with its ASB policy. It should send a written summary of these discussions to the resident.
The landlord should inspect the communal front doors and undertake a review of the security in the resident’s block to ensure it is secure. It should ascertain what further measures it could implement to increase security and stop the ASB reoccurring, as set out in its stage 2 response. It should write to the resident and inform him of the findings of this review, including what further measures it intends to implement to improve security, if any.
The landlord should write to the resident to set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy is compliant with the provisions of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and states that:
1. residents do not have to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such.
2. a landlord should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days.
3. a landlord should respond to the complaint within 10 working days of acknowledgement at stage 1.
4. a landlord should provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
The resident emailed the landlord 8 times between 12 March 2023 and 25 April 2023 including 3 times on 25 April 2023 when they exchanged emails. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB. He continued to do so in his emails dated 6 and 11 May 2023. Although the landlord responded on 12 March 2023 and 21 April 2023 in addition to 25 April 2023, it did not consider the resident’s correspondence as a complaint until 11 May 2023. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s complaints policy says that a resident did not have to use the word complaint for the landlord to raise one.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 May 2023, so it had until 25 May 2023 to provide its stage 1 response. Although the landlord’s stage 1 response was dated 16 May 2023 its records show that it was emailed to the resident on 26 May 2023. The landlord offered £10 compensation for the delay in responding which was reasonable considering the length of the delay.
The resident escalated his complaint on 30 May 2023. Therefore, the landlord had until 27 June 2023 to respond at stage 2. However, the landlord did not take any action, and the resident sent further emails 14 and 21 June 2023 chasing a response. The local authority then emailed the landlord on 26 June 2023 and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The landlord escalated the complaint the following day. This was not appropriate. The Code sets out that the landlord should be able to identify and respond to complaints and escalation requests without the involvement of other organisations.
The resident continued to email the landlord expressing his dissatisfaction and the landlord responded on 7 July 2023. It told him it would investigate his complaint at stage 2 and a response would be sent no later than 21 July 2023. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s complaints policy says it should send an acknowledgement of the escalation within 2 working days of it being logged on its system. The acknowledgement was also unreasonable as the landlord did not outline its understanding of the resident’s concerns.
The landlord sent another stage 1 response to the resident on 19 July 2023 which was not appropriate as it had informed the resident his complaint would be dealt with at stage 2. It also produced a stage 2 response dated the same day. The landlord’s records show that it emailed this to the resident on 21 July 2023 although he said that he did not receive it. This was 38 working days after the escalation request and was therefore not appropriate. The landlord’s stage 2 response was unreasonable as it did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and sending the response.
The landlord has not produced any evidence to show that the delays were outside its control or necessary in order to answer the complaint. There is no evidence that it agreed and extension of time to respond with the resident. On this basis the landlord clearly failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Code. The landlord also failed to raise the initial complaint despite the resident expressing his dissatisfaction in numerous emails.
The Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord unreasonably delayed in raising a complaint and providing a stage 2 response which delayed the resident in seeking redress through this Service.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to the resident inclusive of the £10 offered in the stage 1 response. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB in his apartment block and the security of the communal entry door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. write a letter of apology from a senior director to the resident for the failures identified in this investigation
2. pay the resident £1,300, which must not be offset against rent arrears, consisting of:
  1. £1,200 to recognise the likely distress and upset caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in his apartment block and the security of the communal front door. The £80 offered to the resident in the landlord’s stage 2 response can be deducted from this amount if already paid.
  2. £100 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The £10 offered for the delay in responding at stage 1 of the complaint process can be deducted from this amount if already paid.
3. contact the resident to discuss the issues he has reported in the block. It should consider if it needs to agree an action plan, complete a risk assessment or complete any safeguarding action in line with its ASB policy. It should send a written summary of these discussions to the resident.
4. inspect the communal front doors and undertake a review of the security in the resident’s block to ensure it is secure and ascertain what further measures it could implement to increase security and stop the ASB reoccurring. It should write to the resident and inform him of the findings of this review, including what further measures it intends to implement to improve security, if any.
5. write to the resident to set out what it has learnt from the failures identified in this report and what actions it will take to prevent the same failures from happening again in the future.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.