Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202311021)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311021

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

10 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Staff misconduct.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the secure tenant of the property, which is a ground floor flat within a converted period house. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a mental health condition.
  2. On 28 March 2023 the resident called the landlord and said he wanted it to open a new ASB case. He said he was suffering harassment and discrimination from his neighbour who lived in the flat above (the neighbour). The landlord’s notes say it advised him to log this with his named housing officer to investigate. On 16 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident after the housing officer visited him on 11 April 2023. It said it had witnessed lifestyle noise from the neighbour above. It also asked the resident to record evidence using its noise app and said it had been trying to find an independent witness service without success. The resident called it the same day to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. How it, and his named housing officer, had handled his reports of ASB and discriminated against him on the grounds of race, gender and ethnic origin.
    2. The neighbour causing noise, disturbance and criminal damage but that the landlord had “downplayed” it saying it was everyday noise.
    3. He had been reporting ASB, as the landlord had told him to, and provided crime reference numbers, but it had sided with the housing officer’s assessment of it being everyday household noise.
    4. It had suggested he might want to complete a mutual exchange, and he saw this as the landlord colluding with the neighbour to try to force him out of his home.
    5. He asked it to enforce a previous ASB warning he said it had given to the neighbour, to discipline or fire its staff involved, and to pay compensation.
  3. On 19 June 2023 the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It said it would try to respond within 10 working days but may need an extension of time due to high volumes of work. It provided its stage 1 response on 27 June 2023, in which it:
    1. Repeated that it had been unable to find an independent witness service, he should use the noise app to record noise, and it believed the noise was lifestyle household noise. It said without evidence it was unable to take any action.
    2. Explained that it had spoken to the neighbour and asked her to be more considerate. It confirmed that she had carpets in her flat and that it was common for noise to transfer in a house conversion.
    3. Said the neighbour was disabled and would be unable to commit criminal damage. It suggested the damage reported was historical.
    4. Suggested options to move if the resident felt he was unable to live at the property due to noise.
    5. Apologised that its response had been outside of its 10-working day timeframe and offered £10 compensation for this.
  4. The resident called the landlord on 7 July 2023 to report that the private neighbour next door had taken down a fence and said he had called the police. He called it again on 19 July 2023 to complain that the landlord had not been taking his ASB reports seriously. He said the neighbour had given the private neighbour permission to access the back garden, and he wanted a clear boundary. He also said he had been assaulted by the private neighbour. The landlord escalated the complaint, following the call, on 25 July 2023. It noted the resident had a preference on the member of its staff who would investigate the complaint. It emailed him that day to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint.
  5. On 2 August 2023 the resident called the landlord and said he had been assaulted by the private neighbour. He also said he had not been contacted about his complaint. The landlord emailed him on 16 August 2023 to provide his complaint reference number. The resident contacted this Service, and the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 22 August 2023 to ask it to provide its complaint response. The resident called it on 24 August 2023 to report that his neighbour had been throwing liquid and white powder on his door, which he suspected was a “voodoo spell”. He also said the neighbour had been praying loudly and she had many visitors. He also said he refused to use the noise app and in the past the landlord said it could not hear anything on previous recordings.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 September 2023, in which it:
    1. Set out the history of the resident’s ASB reports, and that it had responded to a complaint about its handling of ASB on 31 July 2019. It also said it had issued him with a warning after an incident with the neighbour in 2021.
    2. Repeated that it had visited him and the neighbour following his ASB report in March 2023, and had found lifestyle noise. It said this was to be expected in a converted house.
    3. Said he had reported an altercation with the private neighbour in July 2023 which he believed also involved the neighbour. It said it had written to the private neighbour to warn him. It also said it had a meeting with the police that day to discuss this, and it would update him.
    4. Accepted it had delayed in managing his 2 reports of ASB and not followed its policy, for which it apologised and said it upheld his complaint on this point. However, it had taken appropriate and proportionate action based on the available evidence and had not found any evidence the neighbour had been harassing him.
    5. Said it had found no evidence that it had discriminated against him and that its actions had been based on the facts of the case and not the persons involved.
    6. Offered £520 compensation made up of:
      1. £60 for its delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint.
      2. £100 for its delays in investigating his ASB reports.
      3. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
      4. £100 for time and effort.
      5. £60 for its lack of communication.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident made several reports of ASB, and noise nuisance, caused by the neighbour in 2018, 2019 and 2021. The landlord determined this to be household noise. There were no records of ASB having been reported in 2022. This investigation has solely focused on the events of 2023 set out above due to the lapse of time between the last report of ASB in 2021 and the next in 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB

  1. Within its ASB policy the landlord says it will assign a priority to reports of ASB based on available evidence and harm or potential harm caused. It says that high priority cases will be logged within one working day and standard priority within 3 working days. It will keep in contact with the reporting resident, provide advice and support, and agree an action plan. It says it will work with the police and take appropriate action using a range of measures.
  2. The landlord correctly accepted within its stage 2 response that it had not responded to the resident’s reports of ASB within its policy timeframe. It had delayed in opening a case and investigating his report from March 2023. However, it did visit both him and the neighbour, carried out a sound test, and checked the flooring type in the neighbour’s flat which was the correct approach. It was open to the landlord, via its housing officer, to make a judgement about the level and type of noise occurring. Within its policy it says it will not consider day to day, or lifestyle, noise to be ASB. It explains “Residents must acknowledge that day to day activities, such as noise or minor disturbances cannot be avoided, and…it is not reasonable to place restrictions on [residents’] usual enjoyment of their home.” It also said within its stage 1 response that it had asked the neighbour to be more considerate, which was a proportionate response.
  3. Following its policy, the landlord asked the resident to gather evidence by using its noise app to record noise. However, the resident did not and later told it he would not do this. The landlord also said it had tried to find a professional witness service. This was a positive step and disproportionate to the level of ASB reported. While it could have commissioned a service from a private company, this was not proportionate and so it was reasonable for it not to have done so. Without evidence, or the co-operation of the resident, the landlord followed its policy in taking no further action.
  4. The landlord has not provided any evidence of its investigation of the resident’s report from July 2023 to this Service, which is a failing. While it said it sent a warning to the private neighbour, which is provided for under its ASB policy, it has not provided a copy to the Ombudsman. It also has not provided any evidence of the outcome of its meeting with the police to the resident or this Service which is a further failing.
  5. In accepting its failings within its stage 2 response the landlord offered £460 compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s 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 the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  6. The landlord correctly accepted, apologised for, and offered reasonable compensation for its failings, which is in line with our guidance on remedies. There was reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff misconduct

  1. The resident complained that the landlord had discriminated against him and that it had sided with its housing officer, who he said had “downplayed” his reports of noise nuisance ASB.
  2. Under its code of conduct the landlord’s staff will not “act in a way that discriminates against, or unjustifiably favours, particular individuals, groups or interests, including on the basis of any protected characteristics”. They will “treat everyone…with equal respect, care and consideration.” Under its ASB policy, when investigating and assessing reports of ASB, staff will use their skills, experience and judgement when assessing and agreeing any actions.
  3. The Ombudsman cannot make a determination on whether discrimination took place, as this is a legal decision. However, this Service can consider whether the landlord has had due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. Within an internal email the landlord said that when a complaint about a member of staff is made, the staff member would have been spoken to and the case reviewed, but no notes taken. It would have been helpful if the landlord had taken notes of any conversations or investigations into allegations of staff misconduct.
  4. The landlord within its stage 2 response said that it did not find any evidence of discrimination. There is no evidence to suggest that its finding was incorrect, or that it had not had due regard to its obligations. While the resident disagreed with its assessment about the noise, this did not mean the landlord or its staff members were bias, and it was entitled to rely on its staff member’s assessment. There was no maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. When the resident raised his stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it within its 5 working day timeframe under its complaints policy. While it did give an advanced warning about possibly needing an extension of time to reply, it then provided its response after 7 working days, which was within its policy timeframe. Oddly, within its response it said it had exceeded its timeframe and offered £10 compensation. There was also a number of drafting errors within its response.
  2. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 19 July 2023, but the landlord failed to do so and acknowledge this until 27 July 2023. It did not provide a response, which led the resident to contact this Service. The landlord provided its stage 2 response after the Ombudsman asked it to. It had taken 45 working days, in breach of its 20-working day timeframe under its policy. This was also a breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in use at the time.
  3. Within its stage 2 response the landlord offered £60 compensation for its delayed stage 2 response. However, it failed to apologise for its delay, explain why it happened, or say how it would prevent similar delays in the future. The landlord did not demonstrate the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. There was service failure, which caused additional inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this an order has been made that the landlord pay £50 additional compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance and ASB.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff misconduct.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the service failure detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its service failure.
    3. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay directly to the resident the £520 compensation it offered within its stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    2. Review its policy or practice on not making written notes of conversations with staff members about alleged misconduct.