London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202313921)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313921

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

29 November 2024

(Updated following review on 8 May 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) and noise nuisance.
2. The resident’s concerns about retaliation from her neighbour following her reports.
3. The resident’s concerns about earlier reports by former residents involving the neighbour.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 21 February 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a converted Victorian house which has been split into 3 flats. The resident lives at the property with her son. The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
The resident sent several emails to the landlord since moving into the property complaining about noise transference. However the landlord has not responded to these emails or kept records of these reports. The resident emailed the landlord again on 13 March 2023 to complain about her living conditions. She reported concerns about the soundproofing in the property which meant she could clearly hear noise from the flat above her (‘Flat A/Neighbour A’) and from the flat beneath her (‘Flat B/Neighbour B’). The resident stated her issues with Neighbour A had led to conflict, with the police having been called on her by her neighbour. The resident explained she felt she was being victimised and being forced to move from the property.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 28 April 2023. It explained it had visited the property in June 2022 and investigated the noise issue coming from Flat A. It had only observed everyday sounds. It added that it had installed cushioned vinyl in the kitchen and bathroom of Flat A to reduce the noise transfer. The landlord told the resident it had undertaken further inspections at the property, including in the morning, and had not heard any significant noise issues. It said it would make a further visit.
The resident requested the complaint be escalated on 16 May 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 June 2023. It noted the resident wanted soundproofing installed in the property, especially in the flat above her. It explained it had carried out some work to the flooring in Flat A and determined there was noise transference between the properties, but that the noise was considered everyday noise and not ASB. It added that as the property met building regulations at the time, soundproofing was not something it could carry out under its maintenance and repairs responsibilities. It offered the resident £100 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service. She explained that the noise nuisance was having a significant impact on all the residents in the converted house. She wanted carpeting to be installed as well as the insulation to be looked at against the current building requirements, rather than those which were in existence when the property was first converted.
Since referring the complaint to this Service, the resident has continued to communicate with the landlord. In addition to continue raising concerns of noise from Neighbour A, she has also raised concerns about a camera installed by her neighbour, creaking floorboards, and a sloping bedroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has asked this Service to also consider her complaint about her sloping bedroom. This did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord in March 2023. While the landlord has since issued its stage 2 response on the matter, as well as a stage 2 response in relation to the issue of the camera installed outside the property, it will not be considered as part of this investigation. As those matters have since been referred to this Service under different complaint references, they will be addressed under those references.

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

The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. It will review all reported incidents and consider the risk in each case. If it is unable to take action on behalf of the reporting party, it will explain why and signpost residents to agencies or information which can provide support.
2. It will seek to identify if there are any vulnerabilities, support needs or circumstances related to all parties involved and adjust its approach as necessary.
3. It will keep in regular contact with the complainant, provide advice and agree an action plan. It will work in partnership with the police, environmental health team and local authority as appropriate.
4. It will complete a risk assessment matrix (RAM) on high priority cases, or relevant standard priority cases. It takes a holistic approach to assessing the support needs of perpetrators as well as victims. It may refer residents to specialist support.
5. It will close an ASB case where:
  1. It concludes that ASB has not taken place or has ceased.
  2. The reporting party has not engaged with the landlord.
  3. There is insufficient evidence.
  4. Investigations lead it to conclude that no further action is needed.
Examples provided under the landlord’s ASB policy relating to noise include loud music/TV, late night visitors, banging doors/floors/DIY, domestic disputes, mechanical noise/alarms and “other noise”.
The landlord’s ASB policy does not normally consider the following examples of behaviour to be ASB:
1. Noise caused by people going about their daily lives, eg using stairs.
2. One-off events like a birthday or a religious celebration.
3. Minor personal differences or fallouts between neighbours.
The role of the Ombudsman is not to decide if the reported actions amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports reasonably and with reference to its published policies and procedures.
It is acknowledged by the landlord that, due to the type of property, there was noise transference from the property above. It is evident that this noise transference caused distress to the resident and her son, particularly when such noises occurred at unsociable hours.
The resident has explained that she originally raised the issue of soundproofing and concerns about noise nuisance with the landlord shortly after moving to the property in February 2022. The landlord has provided very limited information for the period prior to March 2023. The resident has provided evidence of several emails sent to the landlord complaining about noise transference since February 2022. It is concerning that the landlord has kept no record of these reports which is a serious failure.
Following the resident contacting the landlord on 13 March 2023 concerning the issue of noise nuisance, the landlord spoke to her on 17 March 2023. She advised that by raising her concerns with the landlord, this had caused a conflict with Neighbour A, which had resulted in harassment from that neighbour. The resident explained that her neighbour had called the police to allege cannabis was being smoked by her and her son. While the resident said that they had been smoking, it had not been cannabis but tobacco, and they had stopped smoking near to the open window when asked to by their neighbour. The call to the resident by the landlord was to gain more of an understanding of the nature of the resident’s complaint. This was as the resident had set out in her complaint that the noise nuisance which she could hear included general conversations, snoring, flatulence, coughing, a baby crying, door slamming, furniture being moved around, balls being bounced, taps running and pipes knocking.
The landlord’s approach of calling the resident initially was appropriate to understand the nature of her complaint. Following this it sent an internal email asking for a further visit to be made to the property to try to determine the degree of the noise experienced by the resident. This email was sent to 2 colleagues who had previously visited the resident’s property. The resident had explained during the call that mediation had been previously offered by the landlord, but her neighbour had not attended this.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 28 April 2023 set out that it had conducted a noise test in June 2022 and had not heard anything unusual from Flat A apart from everyday sounds. It added that it had installed cushion vinyl in the kitchen and bathroom of Flat A in August 2022, and that following this it had re-attended the property and did not observe any noise during the visit. This had been scheduled at a time when the children in the flat above the resident would have been getting ready to go to school. While the landlord explained another visit would be undertaken, it noted that the member of staff who would be visiting was on leave and so this would be delayed.
When considering the landlord’s ASB policy, it is apparent that the majority of incidents of noise reported by the resident – including walking, coughing, snoring and banging – would not fall within the landlord’s definition of ASB (as they were noises caused by people going about their daily lives) and therefore would not meet the threshold for an ASB investigation. Despite this, the landlord still considered the impact the noise was having on the resident and took steps to investigate the level of noise transference being reported. This included arranging for another site visit to take place. This was an appropriate use of the landlord’s discretion and demonstrated that it was committed to a resident and solution-focused approach.
The landlord has provided this Service with evidence of 1 incident raised by the resident concerning ASB from Neighbour A prior to her raising the formal complaint. The landlord’s report is undated and sets out that it had attended the property and carried out a sound test. The landlord had concluded that the noises it could hear were everyday noises which could not be avoided. The landlord’s note explained it had also visited Neighbour A, who had 2 young children. It had determined that the neighbour had not been unreasonably loud, and that the incident raised by the resident would not be considered as ASB.
In line with its ASB policy, the landlord liaised with other agencies such as the police in respect of the allegations and counter-allegations made by the resident and her neighbour. This demonstrated a solution-focused approach to try and resolve the ongoing dispute.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that if the flat was above another one, “you must not install any flooring, with the exception of carpet or heavy-duty vinyl, in any living space without our prior permission”. Flat A had vinyl cushioned flooring fitted in August 2022 to the kitchen and bathroom to try and reduce the noise transference, but there is no evidence that the landlord acted on the resident’s suggestion that further heavy-duty cushioning be fitted to the other areas of the neighbour’s property. This is something which the landlord could have spoken to the neighbour about and considered to reduce the noise transference. This has since been highlighted in the Ombudsman’s October 2022 spotlight report, which encourages landlords to consider fitting carpets following reports of noise nuisance. A recommendation has been made in respect of this below.
While the landlord took appropriate action in responding to the resident’s reports of noise, it should have been more proactive in arranging a further visit. The resident had asked for a surveyor to attend in addition to the 2 members of staff who had previously attended to “carry out a subjective sound test”. She had also asked for the previous cases made against the neighbour by former residents over the issue of noise to be considered. She pointed out that this would demonstrate the issue of sound transference had been longstanding and had not been addressed by the landlord before she moved in. Despite making a further request for a different member of staff to attend the property (due to concerns over the original member of staff), the landlord sent the original member of staff to attend unannounced on 1 May 2023. It subsequently carried out a sound test on 24 May 2023 and confirmed though there was sound transference, this was from general living noise. It added that the sound insulation which the resident wanted installed would not be undertaken as the building had met the required regulations at the time of the conversion to flats.
While the landlord was not under any obligation to fully carpet the property above the resident’s, it should have considered this option as a solution to nullify the general living noise. This Service has seen no evidence that it did so and documented its decision. Instead, it concentrated on the issue of sound insulation which it said it was unable to do under its repairs and maintenance policy. Though its position was in line with policy and therefore considered reasonable, there was an overall service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance due to its sometimes delayed and/or unsympathetic handling of her concerns. The landlord offered £100 compensation at stage 2 for time and effort. This was appropriate and in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for issues where there had been a service failure with relatively low impact.
Whilst it is positive to note that the landlord took reasonable steps once it did address the resident’s concerns. It of concern that the landlord kept no records of the resident’s initial reports and complaints of noise transference since moving into the property. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident’s concerns until over a year later after she had made repeated reports. This equates to a serious failing of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about retaliation from her neighbour following her reports

The resident has explained that a consequence of making the report about Neighbour A was a breakdown in their relationship. She added that the neighbour had been harassing her and had complained to the police about her.
The landlord’s ASB policy set out that “we will accept anonymous reports and assess them based on the evidence available, including previous reports”. It also stated, “we would encourage and advise residents to resolve minor issues themselves”. There is no evidence that the landlord divulged the resident’s details to the neighbour about whom she had made reports. However, given the nature of the reports, it would not have been difficult for the neighbour to have guessed who was likely to have made the complaint. The resident also confirmed to the landlord that she had previously left notes for the neighbour, and when this did not have the desired effect, she had then raised the matter with the landlord. This supports the conclusion that the neighbour’s retaliation was not based on the landlord identifying the resident as the reporting party.
The landlord’s ASB policy explained that for counter-allegations, it would open a separate case. However, this would be “linked to the case from the original reporting parties to enable that the investigations and assessments address the full circumstances”. There is no indication that the landlord deviated from this commitment.
While the landlord did have the option of mediation, the resident explained that Neighbour A had not turned up on a previous occasion, thus rendering it unlikely they would be willing to engage in the process. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to preclude this option at the resident’s suggestion. Though the resident has stated there was a breakdown in the relationship with her neighbour, as above, there is no evidence that this was down to the actions of the landlord. The landlord had previously attempted to resolve the matter by installing cushioned vinyl in the neighbour’s kitchen and bathroom. It had then attended the resident’s property and observed no further noise. The installation demonstrated that the neighbour had been willing to allow the landlord to do this to resolve the issue of noise transference between the flats. There is therefore some evidence of effective negotiation and/or mediatory action by the landlord.
The resident explained that the neighbour had retaliated and called the police to allege that she and her son had been smoking cannabis. She explained that they had been smoking tobacco, which had a different smell to cigarettes. This difference in smell appeared to be the reason for the neighbour calling the police. This was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy which noted that “drug or substance misuse” constituted a form of ASB which would be recorded by it. The resident had allowed the police to enter her property and there was no evidence that the police had taken any action against her for the matter. The landlord’s handling of the report, in view of the information available to it, was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.
It is acknowledged that the making of the ASB reports caused both parties a degree of distress and inconvenience and regrettably led to a breakdown in their relationship. The level of upset this would have caused to the resident is not underestimated. However, there is no evidence that this was due to the actions of the landlord. Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by it in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about earlier reports by former residents involving the neighbour

The resident felt that the landlord should have also looked at previous reports made by former residents in addition to her reports about her neighbour. Whilst this Service has noted the resident’s comments on this issue, the Ombudsman is only able to look at the resident’s reports/complaints in our investigation. In addition, this Service is limited in the extent to which we can refer to other parties’ reports. This is due to data protection. However, we can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about previous reports.
The landlord’s ASB policy explains that “where reports are made by different reporting parties concerning the same incident(s) and the same alleged perpetrator, a separate case will be created for each reporting party to address the specific needs of each reporting party”.
In keeping with the above commitment, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about her neighbour independently of any other concern raised by another party. This was because the specifics of the reports made by the resident may have been different to those experienced by another party. It was also clear from the resident’s comments that her request for other reports to be considered related to different incidents to those experienced by her. The resident had moved into the property in February 2022, and she had made the current complaint to the landlord more than a year later in March 2023. Given the length of time since any previous report would have been made by a former resident, it would not have been reasonable for the landlord to have linked any earlier report to this one.
Overall, it was appropriate for the landlord to deal with the resident’s reports involving her neighbour independently of any other reports made. Given the length of time since any earlier complaint by a former resident, it would not have been proportionate for the landlord to link the resident’s reports to those made by other residents. The Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states:
1. At stage 1, residents will receive an acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a full response will follow within 10 working days.
2. If a resident is unhappy with the response, they can request to escalate to the next stage. The complaint will be reviewed by another member of staff and a final written decision will be sent within 20 working days.
3. If there is likely to be a delay, the landlord will explain why and write again within a further 10 working days. Any new deadlines will be agreed with the resident.
The resident made the complaint to the landlord via email on 13 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 17 March 2023, within the timescales contained in the policy. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 28 April 2023, after 32 working days. This was not appropriate and was not in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure.
Following the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 2 May 2023, the landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 9 June 2023. This timeframe of 27 working days again exceeded the stage 2 response timeframe in the landlord’s complaints policy. There is no evidence that the landlord advised the resident that it would need more time to respond at stage 2, which would have caused her frustration and uncertainty. It is reasonable to conclude that better communication would have improved the resident’s experience.
The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for any delay in either its stage 1 or stage 2 response. This was not reasonable and exacerbated the resident’s frustration further. As a result, a finding of service failure has been made. Compensation of £100 has been ordered in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about retaliation from her neighbour following her reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about earlier reports by former residents involving the neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within the next 6 weeks (to allow for the Christmas period), the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £400 in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and noise nuisance (this includes the £100 previously offered in its Stage 2 response, if not already done so).
2. Apologise to the resident for its delays in responding to her complaint.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £100 in relation to its complaints handling failure.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers alternative options to reduce noise transference between the resident’s property and Flat A, including sound proof flooring/insulation of the upstairs neighbour’s property, and lets the resident know the outcome of this. The landlord should also consider the possibility of rehousing the resident if it cannot provide a suitable solution to the noise issue.