London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202326783)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326783

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

Provisional Report 16 January 2024

Final Report 3 February 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:
    1. Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and vandalism in the communal area.
    2. Handling of reports about its staffs conduct.
    3. Complaint Handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant in a 1-bedroom ground floor property and her tenancy started in November 2005. She lives with disabilities to her arm and leg.
  2. There was a history of ASB between the resident and her neighbour. The Housing Ombudsman has previously determined another complaint in relation to ASB between the parties.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 July 2023 to raise her complaint. She said she came back home after being away for 2 months to find that the communal area had been vandalised. There was spray paint everywhere in the bin store, and she reported that her neighbour had thrown her plant pots across the communal area.
  4. The landlord informed the resident that it had logged the issue as a new case and assigned the case to an ASB caseworker. On 2 August 2023 the caseworker sent the resident an introductory email and spoke with the resident later that day. The phone call was followed up by an email confirming what action would be taken and asking the resident to send any evidence to assist with the ASB investigation.
  5. Throughout the beginning of August there was a number of emails between the resident and the landlord in relation to the alleged vandalism. The resident informed the landlord that she was sure her neighbour was responsible. The landlord responded to the resident and confirmed that it was investigating the resident’s reports, however at the time it did not have any evidence that the neighbour was responsible. The landlord confirmed that it would continue to investigate the allegations.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 August 2023. She said she wanted it to take her concern of 27 July 2023 as a new complaint. She understood it had 21 working days as of 15 August 2023 to provide a stage 2 response.
  7. On 15 August 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and provided her with an update regarding the ASB the resident reported between 26 July 2023 and 11 August 2023.  The landlord confirmed that it had interviewed the neighbour in question and that it had spoken with the police who were also involved.
  8. On the same day the resident responded to the landlord and detailed her dissatisfaction with the outcome of the landlord’s investigation into the alleged ASB. The resident said that she would be referring her case to the Ombudsman and that she would no longer deal with the investigating officers.
  9. On 17 August 2023 the landlord visited the local area to speak with the resident and other neighbours. It followed up with an email to the resident and reiterated the resident’s issues regarding the markings on the bin store floor (reported as graffiti). The landlord further confirmed that it was continuing to try and obtain doorbell and CCTV footage and will respond accordingly.
  10. On 24 August 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ASB and confirmed that it will be monitoring the reports over the next 3 weeks and that if there were no new incidents then the case would be closed. The resident responded to the landlord and reiterated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the ASB and that it had missed the deadline to respond to her complaint.
  11. On 24 August 2023 the landlord sent the resident a formal response regarding the reported ASB. The response was over 10 pages and provided the resident with a comprehensive timeline of the reports the landlord had received and the actions the landlord.

 

  1. The landlord confirmed that as the videos provided did not prove who had damaged the resident’s plants, it had contacted a neighbouring property to review their CCTV, however the resident of that property confirmed that the footage was not available.
  2. The landlord also visited a separate neighbour, who confirmed that they were aware of issues between the resident and her neighbour but did not want to provide any further information so it was unable to gain a witness statement.
  3. The landlord confirmed that it was unable to evict the resident’s neighbour without conducting an investigation and that there was no substantiating evidence to prove the resident’s allegations.
  4. The landlord confirmed that it had offered the intervention of mediation as well as the acceptable behaviour contract, to both the resident and her neighbour.
  5. It had made disclosure requests to the police in relation to the alleged ASB, who confirmed that no further action had been taken following the reports of vandalism.
  6. The letter confirmed that the landlord had exhausted all lines of enquiry to try and capture all possible evidence. It would monitor the case for a further 3 weeks and if no further allegations were received, it would close the case. It also sign posted the resident to NHS mental health team and Samaritans for support.
  1. On 3 October 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and provided the resident with an update. The landlord said that given the resident’s concerns it had extended the 3 week period to the starts of October. It confirmed that it had not received any new reports of vandalism or graffiti and therefore the case would be closed. The landlord confirmed that there was few actions that it could take to ensure the bin placement and use of communal space issues between the resident and neighbour were resolved and detailed the steps it could take to benefit both parties:
  1. In relation to the bin placement, the landlord had spoken to the neighbour who agreed to remove the markings on the floor within the communal bin store, but due to 4 bins being chained together she was unable to do so. The landlord had therefore agreed to get its maintenance team to resolve and asked the resident to unchain 4 bins within the store so that the work could be completed. It had also agreed to adjust the bin store by marking the area with A & B to distinguish where both neighbours could put their bins.
  2. In relation the use of the communal area, any items left within the communal area have been referred to the fire risk team and neighbour housing lead. It would continue to communicate to all residents for possible further actions.
  1. The resident responded on the same day and detailed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. The resident explained that no more incidents had been reported because she had chained the bins together, which the landlord was aware of and that once the 2 surplus bins had been removed (which was what ignited the situation) the chains would be removed. The resident further detailed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ASB and that she did not want the ASB caseworker to contact her anymore as she felt bullied.
  1. The resident raised concerns on 2 November 2023 with the landlord about a member of staff. She said they left her unsupported and did not communicate with their team. As a direct result of not doing what they discussed with her in August 2023 she continued to be a victim and forced out of her home. She said she did not feel safe in her home and would only move back there permanently when she did. She also raised concerns that someone else had deleted 2 of her complaints about the member of staff.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 November 2023, and addressed the alleged ASB reported in July, as well as additional events that had occurred since. In relation to the July 2023 events acknowledged that the use of the bin store was the catalyst for the issues between the neighbours and the impact this was having on the resident. In relation the alleged ASB in July 2023, the landlord said that it was satisfied that it had investigated the matter appropriately and provided the resident with a full update. A job had been raised to remove the markings on the bin store floor, but it was unable to provide a date for when it would be completed. It had asked for a note to be left on the job for the resident to be informed when the job will be completed so that she could remove any belongings or her vehicle prior.
  3. The landlord concluded by explaining that it recognised the resident’s email dated 15 August 2023 was ‘stage 2 escalation’, but it was unable to consider it at stage 2 of the process as it had not completed the stage 1 response. It apologised for the delay in its complaint handling and offered her £50 compensation, made up of:
  1. 2 x £10 for each month the complaint response was delayed.
  2. £30 inconvenience.
  1. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 December 2023, where it acknowledged that the ASB in July 2023 was part of a wider issue and that there multiple ASB cases open in relation to the bins.
  2. As part of the response, the landlord summarised a telephone conversation it had with the resident, which confirmed that she believed the response she received on 24 August 2023 was her stage 1 response and that the letter in November was her stage 2 response. The landlord explained the difference between the 2 responses and again acknowledged that it had delayed the resident’s stage 1 response.
  3. It further explained that as there was no clear evidence that her neighbour had caused the damage to her plant pots, or that it was a deliberate act. The response also acknowledged that the resident’s neighbour was aware that she should interfere with the bins and that her service put in place to assist with the resident’s disability should be respected. It upheld its stage 1 decision and offered the resident compensation of £125. It said £50 was for the time and effort she took in getting the complaint resolved, and £75 for its complaint handling delays. The landlord also confirmed that it had signposted her to a mental health support network as it was clear that the situation was highly emotive and draining and wanted the president to have support.
  4. The resident explained to the Ombudsman between February 2024 and September 2024 that she continued to have ASB concerns with her neighbour. She said that the police were also involved. She raised her concerns about the landlord’s staff conduct. She explained she wanted its member of staff to fulfil their obligations they promised to her in August 2023. She also said she wanted compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has raised further ASB issues with the landlord about her neighbour. These involve concerns in relation to them obstructing the communal area, in turn trapping her in her property. The resident raised these matters following the landlord’s stage 2 response of 7 December 2023. They are also subject to another complaint, with a stage 1 response provided on 1 May 2024. As such these concerns fall outside the scope of this investigation. The Ombudsman will only consider issues which the resident raised in her complaint of July 2023 until the landlord’s final response of 7 December 2023.
  2. The resident has also raised concerns about the conduct of 2 members of the landlord’s staff (communication and deleting complaints). She raised these concerns prior to the landlord’s stage 1 response in November 2023. The landlord has addressed the concerns in relation to 1 member of staff (deleting complaints) in its stage 1 response of 1 May 2024. As such the Ombudsman will not consider this aspect of her complaint within this investigation. It however has not demonstrated that it addressed the resident’s concerns about its other member of staff’s communication.
  3. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale. The landlord addressed 1 aspect of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct in its response of 1 May 2024. It has not shown that it addressed the other issue. As such this is a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman will consider the issue within this report.

Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and vandalism in the communal area.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that:
    1. It will review all incidents and consider the risk in each case. In cases of serious crime, it usually requires the party reporting the incident to tell the police before it could carry out further action.
    2. If after considering the complaint, it is unable to act on behalf of the resident, it will explain why. It will also point them towards agencies or to information which may be able to offer advice and support.
    3. It will assess ASB reports using the evidence available, the harm or potential harm to the reporting party, victims, witnesses, other residents, local community, and the apparent motivation.
    4. It categorises ASB into 2 categories, high risk and standard risk. In all high-risk cases, it will complete a vulnerability risk assessment matrix and where relevant, on standard priority cases. This is to measure the harm caused to the victims and guide staff on the actions to take to protect the victims from further harm.
    5. 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. It will also show decisive actions (e.g. police disclosure, interview with the other party) and a prompt timeline for communicating delivery.
  2. Following the resident’s reports on 26 July 2023, the landlord took many appropriate steps around the matter. It explained in its letter of 24 August 2023 that it interviewed her neighbour. It also signposted her to obtain support because of the effects of the situation on her mental health. It appropriately told her to contact the police with any further issues. It also looked to obtain evidence to allow it to reach a decision around the issues with the plant pots but was unsuccessful in obtaining this.
  3. The landlord then explained why it was unable to act against the resident’s neighbour (lack of evidence of responsibility for the damage to her plant pots), and why it could not take the actions she had requested against her neighbour (such as eviction). It looked to employ tools such as a good neighbour agreement, and mediation to try to resolve the issues between the parties. It is important to note that the landlord’s letter of 24 August 2023 confirmed that the although the neighbour agreed to both mediation and the acceptable behaviour contract as a way of resolution, the resident confirmed that she would not participate in these offers.
  4. The landlord also signposted her to mental health support in its stage 2 response. This was because it recognised the situation was highly emotive for her. The landlord’s actions were in line with good practice and its policy. It took appropriate action to investigate the matter and reach a conclusion.
  5. While the landlord has not completed a specific risk assessment, it is clear from the communication with the resident that the landlord considered the alleged ASB and took into consideration that effect it was having on her.
  6. Furthermore, given that the reported ASB was low level, it was appropriate for the landlord to not complete a specific risk assessment.
  7. The landlord also said that it attended the resident’s property unannounced in its letter of 24 August 2023. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord was in the area and took the opportunity to visit the resident. Its intention was to explain its approach and update on the situation. Whilst appropriate that it wanted to keep the resident updated, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident prior to visiting, given the fact she had explained the impact on her mental health. Providing her with an appointment time would have allowed her an opportunity to prepare for its visit.
  8. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the relationship between the resident and her neighbour has been troublesome for an ongoing period of time. However, the Ombudsman has only investigated the way in which the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of ASB in July 2023. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident remains dissatisfied with the way in which the landlord handled her reports of ASB, however based on the evidence provided the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies.
  9. The landlord conducted a through investigation into the resident’s reports, which included interviewing resident’s from neighbouring properties, viewing CCTV footage and liaise with the police. The landlord offered mediation and an acceptable behaviour contract, both which are tools available to try and assist with resolving neighbourhood disputes. It also appropriately followed up with the resident with a thorough and detailed response regarding the action it had taken and what the next steps were.
  10. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the impact this was having on the resident and sign posted the resident to various agencies for support.

Handling of reports about its staffs conduct.

  1. The resident raised concerns on 2 November 2023 about a member of the landlord’s staff not acting to support her. She also said that they did not communicate with their staff. They had also failed to act on what they agreed in August 2023. It is unclear to the Ombudsman what the agreement in August 2023 was, as such we cannot comment on this. However, the landlord has not shown that it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about its member of staff, and this was unreasonable.
  2. The landlord should have explained to the resident how it would be dealing with her correspondence (i.e. as a new and separate complaint or including it within her current complaint). It has not shown that it did, and this was unreasonable. This is especially concerning as it included the resident’s further concerns of 25 October 2023 within its stage 1 response. This added to the resident’s concerns that she was being ignored by the landlord.
  3. Following the resident’s reports, the landlord has also not demonstrated that it investigated her concerns. It provided documents to the Ombudsman to evidence its investigations into the matter. However, the documents provided demonstrate investigation into previous and separate issues. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. Its failure to demonstrate that it appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns also form part of its complaint handling failings. This also contributed to the resident’s concerns and belief that it was trying to mix her complaints with others.
  4. In summary, the landlord has not demonstrated that it acknowledged the resident’s concern. It also did not show that it explained how it would deal with the matter or that it appropriately investigated her concerns. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure. The Ombudsman has ordered for the landlord to pay the resident compensation.

Complaint Handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. The resident raised her complaint on 27 July 2023. Its response was due on 10 August 2023. The landlord did not provide its stage 1 response until 6 November 2023. This represents a delay of over 2 months, and this was inappropriate. This would have added to the resident’s frustration and belief that it was not taking the matter sufficiently serious.
  2. The landlord has also not evidenced that it kept the resident informed around the delay in its complaint handling. It has not shown that it requested an extension to provide its response late. Its actions were unsatisfactory and raise concerns with its communication with the resident. Its actions were also not in keeping with its policy.
  3. The landlord provided the resident with a response on 24 August 2023. It was however unclear whether this was a response to her ASB complaint, or its stage 1 response. This caused the resident confusion, as she believed this was a response to her formal complaint rather than the outcome of her ASB complaint. The failure to be sufficiently clear in its ASB response raises concerns with the landlord’s communication. This led to her attempting to escalate to stage 2 prior to it providing its stage 1 response.
  4. The landlord appropriately investigated concerns the resident reported in October 2023. Although it said it would not normally investigate such issues as ASB, it demonstrated a customer focused approach by deciding to do so. This was because it took appropriate consideration of the history between the resident and her neighbour and provided her with an appropriate response.
  5. In summary the landlord did not appropriately consider the resident’s concerns about its staffs conduct. There were issues with its communication, and it delayed in the provision of its stage 1 response to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider discretionary compensation where its mistake or failure causes a resident distress and inconvenience, or they need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting it to put things right.
  6. The landlord’s policy also states that it will consider the seriousness of any other unfair impact, and how it had communicated with the resident. The landlord has offered the resident compensation at both stages of its complaints process. Its offer takes into consideration the delays and inconvenience to the resident at stage 1. It also considers the time and effort she took at stage 2. However, it is unclear whether its offer at stage 2 is inclusive of the stage 1 offer. This means it is unclear if the landlord’s total offer of compensation is £125 as identified in its stage 2 response, or £175 across both its responses. This raises further concerns with its communication due to the lack of clarity around its offer.
  7. Further whilst the landlord’s offer does go some way in addressing its failings, it does not take proper consideration of the seriousness of the unfair impact on the resident. This is because it does not consider its communication issues, or its failure to show that it considered all her concerns appropriately (e.g. issue of staff conduct). Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration. The Ombudsman believes the level of failing by the landlord warrants a compensation offer between £175 to £200. As such the Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of Antisocial behaviour and vandalism to the communal area.
    2. Service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around staff conduct.
    3. Maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must provide the resident with a written apology around the failings found in this report.
  2. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £300. This is inclusive of any previous compensation and comprises:
    1. £100 for the failure to consider and respond to the concerns raised about its staff conduct, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
    2. £200 for its complaint handling failings.
  3. The landlord is to comply with these orders within 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance. For the compensation it must provide evidence that it credited the payment to the resident’s bank account. It can do this by providing an invoice or screenshot to the Ombudsman of its system.