London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202300292)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300292

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

6 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since 2002. The landlord took over from the local authority and has been the freeholder of the building since 2010.
The resident has indicated that tenants in his property have been experiencing ASB from a particular neighbour for over 20 years. The neighbour is a tenant of the landlord. ASB incidents prior to 2010 would have been the responsibility of the local authority to investigate.

Policies and procedures

The landlord has an ASB policy which states that:
1. It will agree an action plan and keep the reporting party updated throughout the case, providing advice and support. This could include making referrals to other agencies that can provide assistance.
2. When considering taking eviction actions, it will ensure the case satisfies the required legal conditions.
3. Cases will be closed where there is insufficient evidence or where the ASB has ceased.
The landlord has a voluntary buy-back policy that states that it will not offer to buy-back for financial reasons alone. It will only consider making an offer of a voluntary buy-back in the following circumstances:
1. Where it is aware the property was un-mortgageable to potential third party buyers.
2. Where remedial works required are likely to take more than 12 months to complete and cannot be reasonably undertaken whilst the property is occupied.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaint process. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Summary of events

Records show that there were reports made about the behaviour of the neighbour made to the landlord from 2011. These included threatening behaviour, assault, homophobic abuse, noise nuisance and putting unsolicited items through the letterbox. Some instances were reported and investigated by the police and several ASB cases were open and later closed. Over a number of years, several tenants gave notice to the resident stating that they could no longer live at the property due to the behaviour of the neighbour. In 2018, the neighbour was issued with a “first instance harassment warning” by the police and the landlord served the neighbour with a notice of seeking possession (NOSP). The police took no further action, no further reports were recorded and the case was closed.
On 9 November 2022 the landlord opened a new ASB case for the resident. He said that the neighbour was keeping an untidy garden. In response, the landlord:
1. Tried to call the neighbour on 2 occasions without success.
2. Sent the neighbour a warning letter about the condition of the garden.
3. Updated the resident and explained it was unable to get in contact with the neighbour. If contact remained unsuccessful, then the matter may need to be escalated to a legal stage. It warned a legal process “could take months”.
The resident stated that he felt that he had no option but to sell the property, and gave notice to his tenant. On 12 December 2022 the resident asked the landlord if it would be interested in acquiring it. The landlord responded and said that it would not buy-back the property and referred him to his solicitors.
On 4 January 2023 the last tenant of the resident’s property moved out and it was put on the market.
The landlord updated the resident that a visit to the neighbour had been scheduled for 31 January 2023. During the visit, the neighbour disclosed he had medical conditions and needed support with the garden. The landlord raised a job for its contractors to attend to a “one time cut back” of the garden.
On 10 March 2023 a letting agent attended the resident’s property to conduct viewings. On attendance, they found rotting meat on the floor which they believed to have been posted through the letterbox by the neighbour. The letting agent noted that they had already experienced several “bizarre issues” with the neighbour and had genuine concerns that he was trying to jeopardise a potential sale. The landlord discussed the issue with the resident and recorded that he sounded “very stressed and concerned”, and was struggling with his mental health. It sent him links to support services and arranged to meet him towards the end of the month.
The landlord visited the neighbour on 14 March 2023 and he admitted to posting meat through the letterbox. The following day, the landlord made a referral to its legal team. Records show that the landlord was in regular contact with the resident, who stated “for the first time in 21 years it actually feels that someone at [the landlord] is listening to this problem and actually trying to help”.
On 21 March 2023 the landlord met with the resident. The resident noted that he felt as though there was genuine concern for his situation and acknowledgement from the landlord that his ASB concerns had been handed poorly in the past. Following the meeting, he wrote a formal complaint which said:
1. The neighbour had done his upmost to put off potential purchasers and had made the viewing experience uncomfortable on several occasions. Even if a buyer was found, he was in a position where he had to answer truthfully that there had been issues with the neighbour as part of the conveyancing process. He felt that there were 2 satisfactory conclusions:
  1. The landlord take ownership of how they had dealt with ASB over 15 years and arrange for the neighbour to be evicted at the earliest opportunity
  2. The landlord buy his property so that the problem was entirely theirs to deal with.
2. On average, he had suffered a 1 month void for every year he had owned the property. The voids were as a direct result of the neighbour harassing his tenants, forcing them to leave. He estimated his loss of earnings to be in the region of £35,000. This did not include the mental anguish and anxiety he had suffered trying to get the matter resolved.
The landlord followed up the visit to the neighbour in writing on 31 March 2023. It reiterated that his behaviour was unacceptable and the matter had been referred to its legal team. The same day, the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 1 of its complaint process. It said:
1. It had received all the evidence he had provided and a number of actions had been taken with the neighbour in the past which included meetings and an agreed behaviour contract (ABC). At the time, legal proceedings had started but his tenant at the time had retracted their statements as they did not want to make the situation worse.
2. Since taking on management of the most recent ASB case, a visit had taken place with himself and the neighbour. Evidence had been reviewed again and it was in agreement that action should have been taker sooner by the landlord. It was sorry for this.
3. A formal letter had been sent to the neighbour and legal proceedings were underway. He would be kept informed of progress.
4. It had not yet had a response about potentially purchasing the property but it would continue to chase. If he was unhappy with the complaint response he could escalate the matter to stage 2 of its process.
The resident responded to the landlord and said that he was not clear what its “legal proceedings” meant. He wanted a thorough understanding of what the outcome of the proceedings would entail. He said that 3 matters remained outstanding to his complaint:
1. He wanted confirmation as to whether it would buy the property so it could deal with the issues with the neighbour itself.
2. When it intended to evict the neighbour, so that any prospective viewers could see the property without disturbance. If the property sold, he wanted to answer honestly about whether there were ongoing issues with the neighbours.
3. Recognition of the loss of income over 21 years as a direct result of the neighbour’s behaviour.
Throughout March and May 2023 the landlord regularly kept the resident informed of progress with regards to its discussions with its legal team. On 3 April 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the sales team would not buy his property. It was unable to evict a tenant without court intervention. Its legal team would be applying for an injunction, and if he breached that, it could potentially apply for an eviction. Only a court could decide whether a case warranted eviction. It would not compensate him for loss of income, but would escalate the matter to stage 2 of its complaint process.
During the same period of time, the resident raised concerns that the garden had still not been cleared and it was putting off prospective buyers. Records show that the landlord had tried to contact the neighbour on several occasions and noted he had refused access to gardening contractors. On 13 May 2022 a warning letter was sent to the neighbour which informed him that that issues with his garden were being added to its case with the legal team.
Within its application to court, the landlord detailed historic incidents dating back to 2012 to provide context to the neighbour’s behaviour. It included pictures of the garden and copies of warning letters that had been sent in an attempt to address the behaviour. It asked the court to consider the amount of time the behaviour had been going on when making its decision.
On 25 May 2023 the landlord updated the resident that a court hearing was due to take place on 5 June 2023. It explained that the ASB was “not at a level for eviction” and that the hearing was for an application for an injunction, to include the condition of the garden. Around the same time, the neighbour was served with a NOSP.
On 5 June 2023 the court agreed the landlord’s application for an injunction. The judge chose not to include the condition of the garden, but put the injunction in place with no end date. Orders were made that the neighbour was forbidden from using or threatening use of violence, or using foul and abusive language in the locality. He was also forbidden from causing a nuisance, including posting rubbish of any kind through the letterbox of neighbouring properties.
The resident was having difficulty in receiving a response from the landlord at stage 2 of its complaint process. The Ombudsman had to intervene on 2 occasions and on 6 June 2023 it was sent a final request for action.
On 7 June 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process. It said that:
1. It recognised that he had been raising concerns about the neighbour since 2011. The reports were inconsistent and there was a lack of evidence to progress matters further. It was sorry for the inconvenience caused to the residents and his tenants at the time.
2. The most recent ASB case raised in November 2022 had been dealt with in accordance with policy. However it recognised there had been a delay in the courts progressing an injunction application. It was pleased to inform him that an injunction was granted.
3. In relation to his request for it to purchase the property, he did not meet the criteria for a buy-back.
4. It acknowledged that he had lost income on the occasions he had been unable to let the property, and was sorry for the inconvenience caused. As it was not the freeholder of the address prior to 2010, and due to lack of evidence it could not reimburse him. However it did note that he had reported incidents in the past which had caused him distress and inconvenience. On review of his complaint it wanted to offer:
  1. £240 for distress, £240 for inconvenience and £100 for time and trouble.
  2. £150 for poor complaint handling, a total of £730.
5. The complaint was closed. If he remained dissatisfied he could contact the Ombudsman.
On 13 June 2023 the landlord explained the terms of the injunction to the resident in depth. It explained “as the case had come to an end” it would close the ASB case.
The landlord visited the neighbour on 29 June 2023 and he stated he would carry out the works to the garden himself. On 5 July 2023 the neighbour was informed that as he had not cleared the garden, the matter would be referred to legal services. The matter was referred to court and an order in respect of the garden was granted in September 2023.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that:
1. He has lost out on rent due to the behaviour of the neighbour. In April 2023 he found a prospective buyer for the property, but when he was legally obliged to answer the question about neighbour disputes, the buyer pulled out of the sale. This put him in a situation where he could not sell nor rent the property through no fault of his own. He eventually sold the property in August 2023.
2. He has 4 statements from different tenants over a 7 year period and felt that the landlord had sufficient evidence pursue eviction of the neighbour. No consideration had been given that his property was empty for a substantial period of time whilst void, therefore the only fresh evidence he could submit throughout 2023 was that which had been provided by his letting agent. The evidence the landlord based its complaint responses on were over a restricted period of time, and not reflective of a strong case of ASB over a 15 year period.
3. He and his family have suffered greatly from the behaviour of the neighbour. He has experienced extreme distress and financial worry over the entire time he owned the property. He was not supported by the landlord in the past and it failed to take the matter seriously. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its past failures and worked closely with him about the ASB after he complained in November 2022, his overall experience has been poor. The landlord failed to follow its complaint process which demonstrated a lack of empathy to his situation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).

This assessment is based on the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. It may help to explain the scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be time-limited in relation to when a complaint was brought to the landlord’s attention. It is noted that the resident reported serious allegations of ASB from the neighbour, on sporadic occasions between 2011 and 2018. There is no dispute that these events took place, however following police intervention in 2018, no further reports were recorded and the ASB case was closed. This assessment is therefore focussed on the events from November 2022 onwards, which is the date from which the resident raised new reports of ASB from the neighbour.
It is acknowledged that the situation has been distressing to the resident. It may help to explain that the role of the Ombudsman is to consider complaints about how the landlord responded to reports of a problem, within the timeframes mentioned above. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the resident’s neighbour amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports appropriately and reasonably.
Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to whether the landlord could have bought back the property to deal with matters relating to the neighbour in-house. Records show that the landlord responded promptly to this query in December 2022. Whilst the landlord’s refusal to buy the property was disappointing for the resident, it was under no obligation to do so as his situation did not meet the criteria in accordance with its voluntary buy-back policy.
When the resident reported that the neighbour was keeping his garden in an untidy condition in November 2022, the landlord acted appropriately. It made arrangements to speak to the neighbour and issued him with a warning letter, reminding him of the conditions of his tenancy agreement. After several failed attempts at contact, the landlord visited the neighbour and raised a “one off cut back” of the garden on 31 January 2023. The offer to arrange this was reasonable, given the medical conditions disclosed by the neighbour at the time.
Despite the landlord’s efforts, it was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s garden on several occasions. The situation also worsened during the time that the property was on the market and there is supporting evidence from the letting agent that the neighbour had engaged in “bizarre” activity which was off-putting to buyers. In response, the landlord visited the property within 2 working days of the report from the letting agent which was appropriate. When the neighbour admitted that he had put rotting meat through the letterbox, the landlord made a prompt referral to its legal team.
It is important to note that when considering legal action, landlords must take all reasonable steps to engage with perpetrators and use early intervention tools to tackle the behaviour. Eviction of a resident would be a last resort. In order to satisfy a court what approach to take, the landlord must showcase all available evidence and demonstrate that its actions are proportionate. Evidence usually includes but is not limited to multiple witness statements and supporting police evidence. In order to make an application to court, the landlord must hold in depth discussions with legal representatives to discuss whether the threshold for a court application is likely to have been met.
Internal correspondence demonstrates that the landlord did engage with its solicitors and provided all the past evidence it had in respect of the neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord’s solicitors were of the opinion that whilst the neighbour had engaged in ASB in the past, the courts were unlikely to consider events before November 2022 because of the gap in reporting and the lack of independent witnesses. Nonetheless, they submitted an application for an injunction which gave full context to the history of the behaviour as well as the reports the resident had brought since November 2022. The application included the concerns around the neighbour’s garden which was appropriate.
The landlord demonstrated empathy with the resident. It acknowledged that there had been failures in the past to address the ASB but there were limitations on what actions it could take based on the events that had been reported between 2018 and 2022. It communicated regularly with the resident whilst the case was referred to court and it tried to manage his expectations of both how long it may take, and the outcome. It explained that eviction was not yet an option which was consistent with the legal advice it had been given. It explained that if once the injunction came into force and there was a breach, it could refer the matter back to court to be reconsidered. The landlord’s explanations of what actions it could take against the neighbour were consistent and reasonable.
Whilst the judge on hearing the injunction application on 6 June 2023 chose not to include aspects relating to the resident’s garden, records show that the landlord continued to pursue the matter. It referred the case back to court and was successful in obtaining a further injunction order in relation to the garden in September 2023. The landlord’s actions demonstrated a commitment to resolving the outstanding issues after the resident’s complaint was finalised.
The landlord has demonstrated a willingness to work closely with the resident and it has shown empathy to his situation. In doing so it recognised that the resident had said he was experiencing a decline in his mental health and it referred him promptly to appropriate support.
It is recognised that the situation has had a considerable impact on the resident where he has reported feeling stressed and anxious, particularly during the periods of time that his property was void. It may help to explain that the Ombudsman cannot consider financial awards related to loss of income or draw conclusions on the impact on health and wellbeing. However it can consider the amount the landlord offered in relation to distress, inconvenience, time and trouble.
As will be explained below, the landlord was not obliged to investigate complaints about how it responded to matters which were over 6 months old. Despite this, it made reference to its previous failings and apologised for the impact on the resident which was reasonable. It’s offer of compensation was sufficient. It demonstrated that it was trying to put matters right for the resident, despite there being no failures in its ASB service from November 2022.
Overall, it is clear that there were failures in the past to address the ASB appropriately and the landlord has acknowledged this. However since the landlord opened a new case in November 2022 it has acted appropriately and in accordance with its ASB policy. It has communicated regularly with the resident, managed his expectations and progressed legal action in a timely manner.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that the landlord’s complaint policy must set out circumstances in which a matter may not be considered and these should be fair and reasonable. Both the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy are consistent. They state that exclusions to accepting a complaint can include issues which occurred over 6 months ago, as was the case in this situation. It was reasonable for the landlord to have excluded events prior to 2022 when investigating the resident’s complaint of ASB.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Records show that it contacted the resident to discuss his complaint and responded to the resident within the expected time frame. The resident has stated he was aware of the 6 month limitation on investigating his complaint, however the landlord’s stage 1 response could have been clearer from the outset as to why that was not the case.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been a failure to take action against the neighbour sooner, which was appropriate. It made assurances to follow up on his query about the purchase of the property and records show that it did this, which demonstrated a commitment to addressing all elements of his complaint.
The resident informed the landlord the same day that he was dissatisfied with the response and had 3 matters outstanding which he wished to be addressed. Whilst records show that the landlord’s housing officer responded to his queries as part of its ASB investigation, it was reasonable for the landlord to escalate the complaint so that the resident could receive a formal response. There were delays responding to the resident and it should not have taken the intervention of the Ombudsman to provide a final response. Its failure to do so caused the resident time, trouble and distress where he felt the matter was not being taken seriously.
A stage 2 complaint response followed on 7 June 2023, 24 working days later than could have been expected within the landlord’s complaint policy which was unreasonable. When investigating complaints, the Code encourages landlords to “be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. In concluding the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged where it had fallen short in its service and it offered appropriate compensation of £150 for the delays. Its response was comprehensive and addressed all that the resident was dissatisfied with. It apologised again for the distress and inconvenience he had suffered in the past and updated him of the outcome of the injunction hearing, which was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the was no maladministration in relation in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to the handling of the resident’s associated complaints prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

Although the landlord recognised that there had been failures to address the ASB in the past, it was limited in what actions it could take given the substantial gap in reporting and lack of fresh evidence. When the case was reopened in November 2022, the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with its ASB policy. It maintained regular communication with the resident and sought appropriate legal advice. In doing so it was successfully able to obtain an injunction against the neighbour which was appropriate action to take.
The landlord excluded historic reports of ASB from its complaint investigation which was reasonable and consistent with its policy and the Code. Despite this, it acknowledged there had been failures in the past and was able to demonstrate it had taken steps to put matters right. The landlord was delayed in issuing a stage 2 response and the Ombudsman had to intervene. It recognised its failure in service and appropriately compensated the resident £150 which was sufficient to put matters right.

Recommendation

In complaints relating to multiple issues, it is recommended that the landlord provide a detailed explanation within its stage 1 response as to why certain elements of the complaint may be subject to an exclusion in line with its complaint policy.