The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202221467)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221467

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

3 April 2024


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 reports of noise nuisance from the flat above.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of a 2–bedroom ground-floor flat. She lives in the property with her adult daughter.
  2. The resident has been reporting noise to the landlord from the flat above her for several years. The flat is home to a family with young children and the resident has stated that the noise is having a significant impact on her wellbeing.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 11 January 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 26 January 2023. It stated that there was currently not a neighbourhood lead in place for the resident’s area. It advised that once the landlord had recruited a neighbourhood lead, it would contact the resident to arrange a visit.
  4. The case was escalated to stage 2 on 24 April 2023. The landlord responded on 18 July 2023. It apologised for the insufficient response at stage 1. It advised that in 2021 two officers visited the property. The officers could not establish excessive noise transference. It also advised that the noise recorded by the resident, using the noise app was not considered antisocial behaviour (ASB). It stated that the resident’s daughter had spoken with the landlord and that she considered the noise to be everyday noise. The landlord suggested that the resident swap bedrooms with the daughter as there was less noise transference above the daughter’s room. It also advised of options if the resident wished to move properties.
  5. The resident remains unhappy with the response. She states that no one has visited her property so that they can witness the noise. The noise is having a significant impact on her health and wellbeing. She would like a resolution to this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. Evidence has been submitted to the Ombudsman regarding reports of ASB that is over 6 months before the complaint was raised. This information is useful for context; however, it will not be considered as part of the formal investigation. This is because there is sufficient evidence of activities from the landlord and resident within 6 months of the complaint submission to allow a thorough assessment of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of reports of noise nuisance from the flat above.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy states that reports of ASB should be acknowledged by the landlord within 3 days. If the landlord accepts a case as ASB, it should complete an action plan. If the landlord does not accept the case as ASB, the landlord should inform the resident of this. Any action plan should be kept under review. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence within the 6 months prior to the stage 2 complaint response that there was an action plan or a letter advising that the ASB case was not being investigated. The landlord has failed to follow its own policy and has not kept the resident informed.
  2. The resident reported noise on 18 September 2022. On 30 September 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to apologise it had not called the resident back. The resident contacted the landlord a further 3 times and contacted her MP. The landlord did not contact the resident until the 11 Jan 2023 which was an unreasonable delay. This exacerbated the resident’s distress.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that there had been a change in the neighbourhood lead and that there was currently no neighbourhood lead for the resident’s area. Although the landlord had a staffing gap, it should have ensured that the resident continued to receive a service. It was unreasonable to not provide the resident with a timescale in which she would be contacted with an update on her ASB case.
  4. The landlord acknowledged in an internal email on 1 February 2023, that it should ask for someone to contact the resident in the absence of a neighbourhood lead. It did not contact the resident until 24 March 2023 when the new neighbourhood lead emailed the resident to introduce himself. It was unreasonable for the landlord to not update the resident during this period.
  5. The new neighbourhood lead offered to contact the resident via video call. A time was agreed with the resident, however there is no evidence to confirm this meeting went ahead. This meeting was important to establish contact with the resident and an opportunity to provide the resident with clarity on what actions it would take.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 April 2023 and 23 April 2023 with no response from the landlord. The resident subsequently contacted the Housing Ombudsman to ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. Residents should not need to contact the Ombudsman to get a response from their landlord.
  7. The landlord visited the neighbour on 10 May 2023. It also attempted to visit the resident, although the resident was not available. It was a reasonable action to visit both the neighbour and the resident, however the Ombudsman considers that the landlord took too long in taking this action. The landlord also failed to inform the resident about this visit in advance. Given that the resident had made the landlord aware that she worked full time, it would have been appropriate to inform the resident to ensure this visit was successful.
  8. The landlord requested details to speak with the resident’s daughter who also lived at the property. This was a reasonable action, to establish if there was another witness to the alleged ASB.
  9. The landlord wrote to the resident on the 31 May 2023 to advise it had exhausted its ASB process. The landlord advised that the property above was carpeted and furnished and that it did not consider the reported noise to be ASB. It suggested the resident swap bedrooms with her daughter, as the noise transference was less above this room. It also advised on rehousing options for the resident. The landlord’s ASB policy states that day to day activities cannot be avoided and that “while the behaviour of another family is frustrating it is not reasonable to place restrictions on their usual enjoyment of their home.” The landlord confirmed that there was noise when reviewing the noise app recordings, but that this was not excessive, and was not considered to be ASB. As the noise reported was that of a family, and appeared to be day to day activity, the landlord’s decision was in line with its ASB policy.
  10. While the landlord responded within its policy to close the ASB case, the Ombudsman notes that this decision was delayed significantly. The landlord’s engagement was poor throughout, and this has allowed the ASB case to be open significantly longer than necessary. This has caused distress to the resident and has damaged the landlord tenant relationship. The landlord did not acknowledge these failures in its complaint responses. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of noise nuisance from the flat above.
  11. In considering compensation, the Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy. It states that for low impact stress and inconvenience, £20 a month can be awarded while the issue remains outstanding. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident would consider the impact to be high. However, the Ombudsman also considers that the landlord’s stance on the noise reports not being ASB would unlikely have been any different even if the landlord had responded earlier. We have therefore assessed the impact as low, and awarded £20 per month from October 2022, when the landlord should have responded, until May 2023 when the landlord closed the ASB case. This totals £160.
  12. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s compensation in terms of time and effort. Due to the time the matter was outstanding the Ombudsman considers £80 to be an appropriate award. The total compensation has been assessed as £240.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within 15 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy states it should respond within 20 working days. As such the landlord responded within its timeframes. However, the response was very limited and did not provide the resident with any clarity on what would happen. The landlord has acknowledged that the response was inadequate in its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. The landlord issued the stage 2 response within 58 working days. Its complaints policy states it should respond within 10 working days. As such the landlord was significantly out of its response timeframes.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 detailed in full the landlord’s final position. However, it failed to acknowledge the delays or offer any redress for this. Due to this, and the delay at stage 2, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of reports of noise nuisance from the flat above.
    2. Complaints handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. The landlord is to issue an apology to the resident, acknowledging the delays in responding to the resident’s noise concerns. The landlord should also offer to visit the resident to re-establish the landlord tenant relationship and explore any further support which may be available to the resident.
  2. The landlord is to pay the resident £340 in compensation. This is broken down as:
    1. £160 for the distress and inconvenience in reporting the noise concerns without response.
    2. £80 for time and trouble in having to chase the landlord for a response.
    3. £100 for complaint handling failures
  3. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review its procedures for how residents will be supported when the neighbourhood lead for that area is unavailable.