London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202306167)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306167

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and homophobic harassment.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord’s records state the resident has mental health issues. The resident told this Service she suffers from depression.
The resident reported her neighbour was verbally abusive on a number of occasions in 2018 and 2019. The neighbour denied the allegations and said the resident had sworn at him and was rude to his wife. He also said the resident was noisy. The landlord asked the resident to keep a record of incidents that occurred and offered mediation. It also asked the resident to provide medical evidence to support her request for rehousing and provided details on how to download its noise app. The police confirmed on 10 December 2019 that no further action was being taken following the resident’s reports of ASB.
The resident told the landlord on 28 March 2020 that her neighbour had sent her a letter which contained homophobic comments. She contacted the landlord again on 24 August 2020 and said she had called the police 3 times about her neighbour in the previous 3 months. She told the landlord on 24 February 2021 that her neighbour had shouted at her partner and slammed the gate 5 times. She asked the landlord to speak to her neighbour and requested a move given the situation was affecting her mental health. She also said the landlord failed to take action after her neighbour sent her a homophobic letter in 2020. The landlord confirmed on 26 March 2021 that it would refer the case to mediation and that it would contact her neighbour about the report of ASB.
The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 14 May 2021. She said the resident found her neighbour was aggressive and he was homophobic towards her at times. She also noted the police had been called on numerous occasions and the situation was affecting the resident’s mental health. The resident wanted to be rehoused given the ongoing problems. The resident asked the council to review her ASB case in July 2021 by evoking the community trigger.
A councillor contacted the landlord on 30 July 2021 on behalf of the resident. She said the resident no longer wished to participate in mediation given previous attempts had failed. She also noted the resident wanted to proceed with a good neighbour agreement or to be rehoused. The landlord responded on 2 August 2021 and agreed to provide the resident with housing options advice. It also said it would look into developing a good neighbour agreement. A draft copy was provided to the resident on 18 August 2021. Amendments were made to the agreement following feedback from the resident and was signed by her on 9 November 2021. Her neighbour signed the agreement on 10 November 2021
The landlord met the resident and her councillor on 18 February 2022 following further reports of ASB. The outcome of the meeting was confirmed on 23 February 2022. This included noting there was insufficient evidence to take action against her neighbour and that counter allegations had been made by him. It also noted:
1. The police had not taken action given they believed there was a ‘’cultural clash’’ between the residents.
2. It would review footage captured by the resident of her neighbour spitting on the doorbell and causing ‘’door noise disturbance.’’
3. The resident did not meet the threshold for a priority move given the police did not indicate she was at risk and needed to move.
4. It would keep her updated on the next steps.
The landlord met the resident’s neighbour on 28 March 2022 to discuss the reports of ASB. Its solicitor sent him a ‘letter before action’ on 21 April 2022. This included noting he was in breach of his tenancy agreement and the landlord would consider taking legal action if further reports of ASB were received. The resident’s ASB case was closed on 24 October 2022 as no reports of ASB had been received in the previous 4 months.
The resident complained on 14 November 2022. She said she had been subject to ongoing verbal and physical homophobic harassment for over 8 years. The incidents were reported to the landlord, but it did nothing to stop the ASB other than speak to her neighbour. She also said her neighbour had breached the good neighbour agreement and there had been no repercussions and that her request for rehousing had been refused, she wanted compensation for the suffering caused.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 November 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint and said:
1. It completed assessments of the reported incidents, offered mediation and visited her neighbour. A good neighbour agreement was signed by both residents.
2. It liaised with the police who confirmed no further action would be taken. The resident withdrew statements she made in February and March 2021.
3. The resident’s ASB case was closed given no reports of ASB were received for 4 months.
4. It offered support with rehousing and her case was considered by its rehousing panel. The resident did not meet the threshold for a priority move.
The resident told the landlord on 29 November 2022 that she did not agree with the landlord’s findings and asked to discuss these with it before escalating her complaint. She asked for her complaint to be escalated on 17 February 2023. Supporting evidence was provided by her representative. This included noting:
1. The resident felt the harassment was homophobic in nature and the landlord could have done more to support her. Its practices were poor and included ‘‘victim blaming.’’
2. The landlord took no action against the neighbour after he sent a homophobic letter. Instead, it referred to a ‘’cultural clash’’ between the 2 residents.
3. The resident was not notified of the outcome of the review of the case by the legal team or told the case was closed.
4. There were delays in drafting the good neighbour agreement and her neighbour breached it without any repercussions.
5. The landlord failed to attend the multi-agency risk conference (MARAC) about rehousing, where it was recommended the resident was rehoused.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 9 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding and said:
1. It issued a warning letter in line with its ASB policy and procedure.
2. The resident’s ASB case was closed because no reports were received from her for 4 months. It did not, however, inform the resident it was closing the case. This was not in accordance with its ASB policy.
3. It provided the resident with rehousing advice, but she did not meet the landlord’s criteria for a management move.
4. It would offer £180 compensation for the failure to close her ASB case in line with its ASB policy.
The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 31 January 2024. She said the landlord had ignored her and taken no action against her neighbour. She noted the homophobic ASB was ongoing and she wanted to move. She also said she wanted an apology from the landlord and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

It is acknowledged the resident has reported ASB for a number of years. Given the passage of time and the gaps in reports of ASB, this Service has focused on events from March 2020, when the resident reported her neighbour had sent her a letter which included homophobic comments.

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and homophobic harassment.

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the reported ASB and homophobic harassment occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances. On receipt of reports of alleged ASB and hate crimes, landlords should gather evidence to establish if the behaviour is unreasonable and if it constitutes ASB or harassment. This ensures landlords meet their obligations and take appropriate and proportionate action, if required. This should include using the powers available to it, including mediation, signposting to other agencies and enforcement action, where appropriate.
The landlord’s definition of hate related harassment is aligned with the Equality Act, 2010. Its hate crime policy says it will treat incidents as hate incidents if the resident perceives them to be so. Enforcement action is taken where attempts at early intervention and warnings have not worked. Where necessary, it engages with partner agencies. Residents are told to report hate crimes and harassment to the landlord and the ‘‘relevant authorities.’’
The landlord’s definition of ASB includes incidents involving harassment, intimidation and hate crimes. Persistent, unwanted conduct towards someone because of their sexual orientation is considered harassment. This includes written and verbal abuse. The tenancy agreement includes a clause stating residents must not commit any acts of nuisance or annoyance. They must also not harass their neighbours on the grounds of sexual preference.
There is no evidence the landlord logged the resident’s report of homophobic harassment on 28 March 2020 following receipt of a copy of the letter written by her neighbour. This was not in accordance with its hate crime policy. This says it will respond promptly to reports of hate crime and carryout a risk assessment. It also says it will agree an action plan with the resident and maintain regular contact with them. The landlord’s failure to do this meant it did not support the resident or use the tools and powers available to it. It also meant the landlord failed to give due regard to its duties under the Equality Act, 2010.
The landlord has provided no evidence in relation to the community trigger that was evoked by the resident in July 2020. Whilst this review was led by the council, the landlord had a key role to play in the process and it would have been reasonable for it to have provided this Service with information on the outcome. In conducting investigations, this Service relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and fair in the circumstances. Given the lack of evidence, it has not been possible to do this.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a call back on 24 August 2020 when she noted she had contacted the police 3 times in the last 3 months. This was not in accordance with its ASB policy. This says it will log and assess ASB cases. High priority cases are logged and assessed within 1 working day, although no definition is included in the policy on what represents a high priority case. Standard priority cases are assessed within 3 working days. The landlord’s failure to engage with the resident was a missed opportunity and meant it did not assess any potential risks, gather evidence or gain an understanding of the nature and extent of the problem. Neither did it use the ASB tools available to it or enforce the terms of the tenancy agreement as set out in its ASB policy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s report that her neighbour was verbally abusive towards her partner and slammed the gate on 24 February 2021. It said it was liaising with the police and would contact her neighbour given the allegations she had made. It also recommended the resident download the noise app. These actions were appropriate. There is, however, no evidence it assessed whether the report was a hate incident even though the resident had previously told the landlord she had been subject to homophobia from her neighbour. There is no evidence it completed a risk assessment or agreed an action plan with the resident. Both the landlord’s hate crime policy and ASB policy say it will do this. The landlord’s failure to do this also meant it did not give regard to its duties under the Equality Act, 2010.
The housing records confirm the landlord contacted the police on 24 March 2021. This was appropriate and demonstrated it was taking a multiagency approach to address the resident’s concerns. The police confirmed no further action would be taken. It was also appropriate for the landlord to confirm it would refer the case for mediation and that it would write to her neighbour. It did not, however, confirm whether it would take any further action against her neighbour given the lack of evidence. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its reply to the MP. It did, however, discuss the case with the councillor on 30 July 2021 and set out its position on 2 August 2021. This included confirming it would draft a good neighbour agreement. This was in accordance with its ASB policy. This says it will use a range of tools to stop ASB problems from escalating. The housing records confirm it contacted the resident and shared a draft of the agreement with her on 18 August 2021. It was reasonable for the landlord to amend the agreement following feedback from the resident. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for her. Final amendments were agreed with the resident on 20 September 2021.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge on 4 November 2021 that it should have kept the resident updated. It was also appropriate for the landlord to visit the resident’s neighbour on 8 November 2021 to discuss the good neighbour agreement given he had refused to sign it. The landlord provided the resident and councillor with an update after the neighbour signed the agreement. There is, however, no evidence the landlord acted on the resident’s report on 12 November 2021 that her neighbour was not observing the agreement. This was a missed opportunity.
The housing records confirm the landlord met the resident and the councillor on 18 February 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm its position on 23 February 2022. This included noting there was insufficient evidence to take any further action against her neighbour. It also noted that he had made counter claims and that no further action had been taken by the police. The landlord agreed to review the video footage captured on the resident’s doorbell and accepted which showed him spitting at the camera and scraping it with a key. It said it would keep the resident updated and asked her to report any further incidents.
The landlord confirmed on 22 March 2022 that it would speak to her neighbour after it had discussed the matter with the police. It also said it would make a referral to mediation and speak to its legal team. It arranged to speak to the neighbour on 28 March 2022, although no record of the conversation has been provided to this Service. There is no evidence the landlord provided the resident with an update following the referral to its legal team. This was not in accordance with its ASB policy. This says it will keep in regular contact with residents and keep them updated throughout the case.
The landlord issued a ‘letter before action’ to the neighbour on 21 April 2022 and set out the grounds of the tenancy agreement he had breached, including harassment. This was in accordance with its ASB policy. This says it will use warning letters to stop problems from escalating.
The housing records confirm the landlord closed the case on 24 October 2022. It said it did this because no further reports of ASB had been received in the previous 4 months. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident it was closing the case or provided her with an explanation why. Its ASB policy says it will do this. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this failure in its final complaint response. It did not, however, identify the other service failures identified in this report. The offer of £180 compensation was not sufficient to put things right in the circumstances.
In summary, the landlord did not follow its hate crime policy when the resident reported homophobic harassment. It did not log the report, carryout a risk assessment or use the tools and powers available to it. This meant it failed to give due regard to its duties under the Equality Act, 2010. It also failed to follow its ASB policy at times. It did, however, later liaise with the police, develop a good neighbour agreement and issue a tenancy warning. It is evident the situation had an impact on the resident, who told the landlord she found the situation stressful and it affected her mental health. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and homophobic harassment.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were limited and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The housing records confirm the resident contacted the landlord on 24 February 2021 and 17 March 2021. She asked to be moved given the ongoing problems with her neighbour. It was appropriate for the landlord to check with the resident whether she was registered for a mutual exchange and to note that further evidence was required if a ‘priority move’ was to be agreed. It said it would contact the police to confirm the level of risk. This is in line with its transfer policy. This says it will offer advice on housing options and investigate claims where residents say they need to move due to harassment. It also says it requires independently verifiable information before reaching a decision to offer a priority move. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 24 March 2021.
Whilst the landlord told the councillor on 2 August 2021 that it would contact the resident to discuss her rehousing options, there is no evidence it did this. It also did not provide this Service with a copy of its response to the MP.
The housing records confirm the landlord contacted the resident on 23 February 2022 to discuss her rehousing options. It said she did not meet the threshold for a priority move. This was because the police did not believe she was at risk and needed to be rehoused. This was in accordance with the landlord’s transfer policy. This says band 3 priority is only awarded where a resident is suffering from very serious harassment and it is dangerous for them to remain in their home. Such cases are referred to its lettings panel for consideration for a direct management offer. Although the landlord offered the resident advice about mutual exchanges and said it would keep her updated, there is no evidence it did this.
The resident’s representative made a referral to the multi-agency risk conference (MARAC) in November 2022, but the case was not heard. The resident’s representative said this was because the landlord did not attend the meeting and the case was closed. The landlord did not provide this Service with any information regarding the referral or its engagement in the MARAC, despite requests to do so.
The housing records confirm the resident’s request for rehousing was considered by its priority needs panel in August 2023. The panel said it was not in a position to make a decision given it could not determine the level of risk posed to the resident. The case was deferred pending a referral to its diversity and inclusion specialist and a representative from its lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender (LBGT) staff network. It said the case would be reheard by the panel on receipt of any recommendations from its specialists. It is unclear from the housing records whether the referral was made or what the outcome was. There is also no evidence the landlord updated the resident. The resident told this Service that the meeting was not reconvened.
In summary, it has been difficult to assess whether the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances given key information was not provided. It is evident it offered the resident advice about her rehousing options and liaised with the police regarding the level of risk posed. It also told the resident she was not eligible for a priority move. It did not, however, provide this Service with evidence regarding its involvement in the MARAC or update the resident on the outcome of the priority needs panel meeting. This caused the resident distress. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

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

The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 14 November 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response the following day. This was in accordance with its complaints policy. This says it will provide a written response within 10 working days. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request to discuss the stage 1 complaint response on 29 November 2022. This was a missed opportunity to gain an understanding about why she remained unhappy and what outcomes she was seeking.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 17 February 2023. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy, it did not issue its final complaint response until 9 June 2023. This was almost 4 months after the resident asked for it to be escalated and only after she chased up the landlord for a response in May 2023.
There is no evidence the landlord sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking prior to issuing its final complaint response. This was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in responding to the complaint. It was also appropriate for it to apologise for failing to close the ASB case correctly. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
In summary, the landlord failed to gain an understanding of the resident’s complaint. There were also delays in responding to the complaint. Whilst the landlord offered an apology, the delays caused the resident distress and inconvenience. She also said it affected her mental health. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB and homophobic harassment.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer an apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £630. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. An additional £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her reports of ASB and homophobic harassment.
2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her request to be rehoused.
3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her complaint.
4. The £180 previously offered by the landlord, if not already paid.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to confirm the outcome of priority needs panel meeting with the resident and if required, arrange for the case to be considered again by the panel, if not already done so.
Within twelve weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its training arrangements for relevant staff to ensure it meets its obligations under the Equality Act, 2010.