London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202216196)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216196

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 September 2023

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 antisocial behaviour from a neighbour.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint as part of this investigation.

Background

3. At the time of the complaint, the resident lived in a 3-bedroom ground floor maisonette and held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord.
4. The resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from the above neighbour, particularly noise nuisance and on 1 September 2021, the landlord completed an action plan with the resident and opened an ASB case.
5. The resident logged a complaint with the landlord on 19 December 2021 following a number of noise nuisance reports since 2020. He complained that he continued to experience issues from the above neighbour and was dissatisfied with the case handler’s responses to his ASB reports. He advised that his partner had recently been attacked.
6. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 4 February 2022. It said:
   1. It opened an ASB case on 1 September 2021, but noise recordings had been received since 23 February 2020.
   2. There was a delay in the landlord locating the resident’s noise app recordings as they had been sent to the wrong neighbourhood. In total, the landlord had received 334 recordings from the resident.
   3. The recordings submitted since August 2021 had been reviewed and 3 were identified as being of particular concern.
   4. Case handlers did not respond in a timely manner due to staff leave and the landlord apologised for the delays the resident experienced.
   5. The resident was in temporary accommodation provided by the Council.
7. The resident requested escalation of his complaint on 5 February 2022 as he was dissatisfied that the landlord only identified 3 recordings which met the ASB criteria. He advised that he had deleted the noise app and started again at the landlord’s advice, which resulted in historical recordings being lost. In addition, he was unhappy that he did not receive contact from the landlord every 2 weeks as agreed in the ASB action plan.
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 25 July 2022. Which outlined:
   1. When the action plan was agreed to, there was a monitoring period where the officer made regular contact with the resident.
   2. The ASB case was closed following a reported incident in the communal area, a new high priority ASB case was opened.
   3. The case manager was on leave between November 2021 until December 2021. The landlord apologised his case was not reallocated.
   4. All reported incidents were brought to the attention of the neighbour and investigated.
   5. It offered £100 compensation comprised of £50 for complaint handling and £50 for a late stage 2 response.
9. The resident advised he moved to a mutual exchange property with assistance from the Local Authority on 28 April 2022.
10. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 19 December 2022. He felt that the landlord’s responses did not take into account the level of distress which the family went through when experiencing the ASB. He also remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of action in response to his ASB reports. As a resolution he would like the landlord to acknowledge that it should have taken further actions and apologise to the family for their experience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

11. In the resident’s correspondence with this service, he included concerns about flooding in his property and leaks from the above neighbour’s property. The landlord advised this service that these matters form part of a separate complaint with the landlord. There is no evidence that a complaint about these issues has exhausted the complaints procedure. The Ombudsman will therefore not consider these matters as part of this investigation.
12. In the resident’s complaint to this service, there has been reference to historical reports of ASB which have not been progressed through the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents can be referenced to provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focusses on events 6 months prior to the complaint being raised (June 2021) and the elements of the complaint that the landlord has responded to. The landlord’s response to reports of ASB in 2020 have therefore not been considered as part of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from the above neighbour, particularly noise nuisance

13. The landlord’s ASB policy outlines that all reported ASB incidents are assessed based on risk and priority. Standard priority cases are logged and assessed by a case manager within 3 working days, and high priority cases are logged and assessed by a case manager within 1 working day. In accordance with the policy, ASB includes noise that is persistent, deliberate, or targeted. In response to ASB reports, the landlord will keep in regular contact with the complainant as agreed, follow safeguarding procedures where appropriate, provide advice and support, and agree an action plan with the reporting party, keeping them updated throughout the case.
14. The resident submitted a number of noise app recordings to the landlord reporting noise nuisance. This extended to his above neighbour running the washing machine in the early hours, singing loudly throughout the night, playing loud music, and children using scooters in the property. As per the landlord’s ASB policy, these reports would satisfy its definition of noise ASB. However, the landlord did not open an ASB case until 1 September 2021. It is evident the resident had been reporting noise nuisance for a significant time prior to this. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy whereby standard priority cases should be opened within 3 working days.
15. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that noise app recordings had been made by the resident since 23 February 2020. It continued that there had been a delay in some recordings being located due to them being submitted to the incorrect team. This service would expect the landlord to ensure its system was set up correctly so it could effectively monitor the incoming noise app submissions.
16. The landlord completed an assessment and action plan with the resident on 2 September 2021. It was agreed the resident would log further incidents, email these to the landlord on a weekly basis, continue to use the noise app to record excessive noise from the neighbour’s property, and report any aggressive behaviour to the police. In addition, it offered mediation which records show the resident refused at the time. The landlord said it would keep in contact with the resident every 2 weeks. These steps were appropriate and in line with the landlord’s ASB policy.
17. Shortly after the ASB case was opened, the landlord maintained regular contact with the resident. It advised him on 8 October 2021 that it issued a breach of tenancy warning letter to the neighbour. On 18 October 2021, the landlord explained to the resident that the last resort would be to serve notice on the neighbour which would be a lengthy process. The landlord took action in response to the ASB reports and set the resident’s expectations at an early stage.
18. However, following October 2021 the landlord did not contact the resident again until 20 December 2021. This service’s Spotlight report on noise complaints (available at: Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)) highlights the importance of landlords providing ongoing, and consistent communication, particularly where timescales are set out. The landlord was in breach of its ASB policy whereby regular contact with the resident should take place as agreed, in this case every 2 weeks.
19. When the landlord contacted the resident on 20 December 2021, the resident had complained highlighting that, ‘if the officer had done what they said they would do in August, it would have prevented my partner from being attacked’. This service’s Spotlight report on noise continues that, “by setting an expectation and failing to deliver, residents are understandably going to raise this as an issue and feel they are not being treated fairly”. This was evident in this case. Further, the ASB had escalated with the report of a physical attack. It was unacceptable that the landlord did not regularly update the resident as agreed.
20. The landlord apologised to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response for delays responding to his reports of ASB between November 2021 until December 2021, attributing this to staff leave. However, it did not acknowledge the full extent of the delays identified above. The landlord should have taken a proactive approach, keeping the resident updated to reassure him it was addressing the ongoing noise nuisance. The landlord did not attempt to put things right for delays the resident experienced or acknowledge it had failed to apply its policy.
21. The landlord incorrectly advised the resident in its stage 2 response that it had sent the neighbour 3 warning letters. Records show the landlord sent 1 tenancy warning letter to the neighbour on 8 October 2021. This service asked the landlord for confirmation of when further warning letters were sent. It responded that although the case handler recalled drafting a second letter, it could not locate further warning letters on its system.In the absence of clear records, this service can only conclude that only 1 tenancy warning letter was sent to the neighbour.
22. This service’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)) says that failing to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely actions, and can cause a real detriment. This was the case for this instance where the landlord provided the resident with incorrect information and did not take proportionate action to address the noise nuisance.
23. The landlord noted in its stage 1 response that the resident submitted a total of 334 noise app recordings since 2020. This service is unable to establish how many of these were submitted from June 2022 and therefore which fall within the scope of this investigation. However, it is evident that the resident was submitting noise app recordings and emailing the landlord to report noise occurrences during this time.
24. The landlord did not create records of what noises had been heard from the resident’s submitted recordings. This Service would expect the landlord to retain clear and detailed records of what it heard to inform its response to the ASB. The landlord noted in its complaint response on 4 February 2022 that there were 3 noise recordings of particular concern. It did not expand on this or explain what the concerns were. Further, no additional records were maintained about the landlord’s interpretation of other noise app submissions.
25. The landlord continued in its stage 1 response that there had been issues with some of the resident’s submitted recordings due to apple device recordings not being compatible with its system. If the landlord experienced issues with the quality of the recordings, it should have communicated this to the resident at the time and retained clear records to reflect this. Overall, the landlord evidenced poor record keeping of the resident’s noise recordings and did not take any action to put this right through its complaints process.
26. The resident raised concerns that the landlord had lost his historical recordingsand felt that using the app was a waste of his time and effort. In turn, he raised a subject access request asking for copies of his noise recordings.
27. At stage 2, the landlord said its data protection department would respond to the resident’s subject access request (SAR). However, the resident advised this service that it is still outstanding. If it has not done so already, the landlord should ensure it responds to the resident’s subject access request.
28. The landlord opened a new ASB case on 29 November 2021 following a report of the resident’s partner being attacked by the neighbour.It did not update its action plan, as per its ASB policy, to reflect the new information or take any action in response to the report according to its records. Due to the absence of information, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide records relating to this new ASB case. The landlord responded that it referred the resident to the Local Authority for a homeless assessment and met with the neighbour. However, it did not provide records to evidence these steps were taken. Although it appears a new case was opened, the actions which the landlord said it took were insufficient to safeguard the resident and household.
29. The resident advised the landlord throughout the complaints process that the ASB affected his and his family’s sleep, physical, and mental health. However, the landlord failed to respond to these concerns or consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the family from the reported ASB over a protracted period. The impact on the family would have been exacerbated by the landlord’s lack of actions in response to the reported ASB.
30. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, the landlord apologised for how the ASB case had been handled but did not offer a remedy to put things right. The landlord did not acknowledge the extent of the failings highlighted in this report. It evidenced poor communication with the resident, poor record keeping which impacted its ability to effectively resolve the ASB, failed to consistently apply its ASB policy, and did not take sufficient action. In light of this, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. To put things right, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £850 compensation in line with this service’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint

31. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
32. Landlord records show the resident logged his original complaint by completing the landlord’s complaint webform on 19 December 2021. Within the complaint, he expressed dissatisfaction with the case officer’s handling of the matter and made reference to a recent attack from the neighbour on his partner. The landlord received this, as it responded to the resident asking whether the matter had been reported to the police. However, the landlord failed to log this as a complaint.
33. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 February 2022, almost 2 months after the original complaint had been logged. Within this response, it said the resident had raised his initial complaint on 24 January 2022. This service was not provided a copy of a complaint from this date. However, it is evident the resident raised a formal complaint prior to this. The landlord did not acknowledge its failure to log the resident’s original complaint, or the subsequent delays experienced at stage 1.
34. The resident escalated his complaint on 5 February 2022 and the final response was issued on 25 July 2022, over 5 months later. Within its final response, the landlord apologised for the delays at stage 2 and explained that there had been a delay for the case to be allocated. In light of this, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation.
35. However, prior to the final response the landlord did not inform the resident of a revised timeframe when he could expect to receive the response. Additionally, he was not provided with a reason for the delay until the stage 2 response was issued. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy whereby it should write to the resident if a response is likely to take longer than 20 working days.
36. Although the landlord acknowledged the delays in its response and offered compensation to ‘put things right’ for the resident, it failed to acknowledge the extent of the delays. Further, it did not apply its complaints policy when handling the resident’s complaint, nor did it demonstrate any learning from its failures. The Ombudsman, therefore, considers that the £50 offered for this failure does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident.
37. The landlord offered the resident a further £50 to reflect staff members dealing with her case being on extended leave. The landlord acknowledged that this would have caused confusion by the resident not being clear on who was handling his case. The compensation offered as a remedy for this failing was appropriate.
38. In light of the above, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, inclusive of the £100 already offered. The additional compensation is to account for the landlord’s failure to log the resident’s original complaint, and to account for the 5-month delay at stage 2.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour from a neighbour.
40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Orders

41. A senior member of the landlord is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
42. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £1,050 compensation comprising of:
    1. £200 for its poor communication with the resident in response to the ASB reports.
    2. £150 for the landlord’s failure to apply its ASB policy when responding to the ASB.
    3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s lack of action in response to the reports of ASB.
    4. £200 for the landlord’s poor record keeping when handling the resident’s ASB case.
    5. £200 compensation for the landlord’s failure to log the resident’s original complaint, and delays at stage 2. This amount is inclusive of the £100 already offered.
43. The landlord is ordered to review its existing databases to ensure it can capture required information, and train staff on using the systems in line with this service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)). The landlord should share its findings with this service.
44. If it has not done so already, the landlord should respond to the resident’s SAR as per its commitment in its stage 2 response.
45. Evidence of compliance with the above orders should be shared with the Housing Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

46. If it has not already, the landlord is encouraged to review this service’ Spotlight report on noise complaints.
47. If it has not already, the landlord is encouraged to review its complaint handling in this case and reflect on improvements it can make for its handling of future complaints.