London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202217681)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217681

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

30 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of structural issues at the property.
2. Request for a temporary move.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house which he occupies with his wife and children. The resident is represented by his wife in bringing his complaint to us. For clarity, we have referred to both the resident and the representative as the resident throughout this report.
The structural issues at the property were first reported in 2018. The landlord’s insurers confirmed the cause was clay shrinkage subsidence. The landlord placed the resident in temporary accommodation while necessary repairs were carried out by the insurers. The resident moved back into the property in the summer of 2021. On 13 June 2022 the landlord recorded the presence of large cracks on the internal walls. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 12 July 2022 and requested further investigation as he suspected the subsidence had reoccurred. The landlord reported the issues to its insurers on 19 July 2022.
On 24 August 2022 the resident made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request to adjust the doors and windows at the property. He said he had been chasing this since the beginning of August but had no response. The resident also asked the landlord to consider a temporary move as he was concerned about the safety of the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 September 2022. It apologised for not managing the repairs and communication more effectively and confirmed it had chased the contractor to arrange necessary repairs. It also offered £350 compensation made up of:
1. £150 for inconvenience and distress
2. £200 for time and effort
The resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 9 September 2022. He asked the landlord to:
1. address the cause of the structural damage
2. make safe the doors and windows
3. consider a temporary move and explain why the landlord hadn’t offered this since he was temporarily rehoused the first time the subsidence required work.
There was a delay in the landlord providing a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. Following our intervention, this was issued on 1 December 2023. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed its insurers’ surveyors were satisfied the property was structurally safe and habitable therefore it would not be able to offer a temporary move. However, the landlord recognised its poor communication, delays in the repairs process and in providing a stage 2 response. The landlord offered the resident £1,720 compensation made up of:
1. £960 for inconvenience and distress
2. £50 for service failure
3. £200 for time and effort
4. 2 x £20 for missed appointments
5. £150 for lack of communication
6. £320 for delays in responding at stage 2 of the complaints process
Unhappy with the landlord’s response, the resident escalated his complaint to us on 15 September 2024. He disagreed with the landlord’s assessment and felt it should consider a temporary move due to the structural issues. He was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. In addition to this, the resident has informed the landlord that he wishes to permanently move from the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The first occurrence of subsidence in 2018 was subject to a separate complaint to the landlord which exhausted its internal complaints process in 2021. Under the terms of the Scheme we expect complaints to be escalated to us no more than 12 months from the date they exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is to ensure there is sufficient evidence available to conduct an effective review of the actions taken by the landlord.
As the previous complaint was not referred to us within those timescales, this report will not consider the issues which were investigated at the time and any references to the previous complaint are for context only.
As the landlord took a joint approach with its insurer in dealing with the subsidence, it is important to note we will not assess whether the insurer’s actions and decisions were appropriate as this would fall within the scope of the Financial Ombudsman. Therefore , we will focus solely on the landlord’s responsibilities, the actions it took and how it communicated with the resident throughout.
Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his and his family’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the structural issues at the property

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord had a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s repair records show it was aware of the cracks in the property since 13 June 2022, but it is not clear from the evidence how this report was made. An operative visited on 29 June 2022, however no action was taken as it was thought the issues related to ongoing works next door. The movement in the front door was first noted on 22 June 2022, but again it is unclear how this was reported to the landlord. The records also show that the resident called the landlord on 24 June 2022 and suggested it should carry out a survey of his property.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 12 July 2022 and requested further investigation due to suspected subsidence. The notes from the surveyor’s visit also confirm the front doors to the property needed to be adjusted and the lounge doors had dropped and were out of line. On 19 July 2022 the landlord appointed its insurers to carry out a further investigation.
It is important to acknowledge that managing and resolving subsidence issues is a complex process requiring the involvement of multiple specialist contractors. The investigation often includes long periods of monitoring before repairs can be undertaken to resolve the cause. We understand such cases can be challenging for landlords to resolve, and that subsidence repairs may exceed the usual timescales set out in its repairs policy. That being said, we would expect that the landlord still follows its repairs policy when it comes to any interim repairs which are needed throughout the period of the investigation.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms it will attend to emergency works within 24 hours. It also aims to complete any routine (non-emergency) repairs in “an average of 25 calendar days”. In terms of subsidence cases, the landlord’s policy confirms these will be managed by its insurers and only emergency work needed to rectify immediate hazards will be carried out without the insurers’ approval.
According to the landlord’s repair policy, insecure external windows, doors, or locks are considered to be emergency repairs. The works order raised on 22 June 2022 confirmed that in addition to the movement in the door frame, the inside lock was coming off and the window above was loose. The landlord’s records and an internal email from the surveyor confirm the front door was adjusted on 12 July 2022 which was outside of the timescales for emergency works and therefore unreasonable.
By 24 August 2022, no updates have been given by the landlord to the resident on the repairs to the lounge doors which were raised by the surveyor on 12 July 2022. In his emails to the landlord, the resident also confirmed he had chased repairs to doors and windows since the beginning of August. There is no evidence of any works being requested by the landlord during this time. The delay in responding to these issues was unreasonable as it fell outside of the landlord’s timescales for non-emergency repairs.
On 31 August 2022, after the resident chased, the landlord confirmed that the insurers’ contractors would be managing the repairs to doors and windows while site investigations were ongoing. It confirmed the contractors would contact the resident directly to arrange this.
On 5 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and confirmed he had been contacted by the insurers’ contractors but was awaiting an appointment date. The resident also advised that he and his family had experienced issues with the doors at the weekend whereby they were stuck in 1 of the bedrooms. The resident also confirmed the front door was sticking and required several attempts to open it with the key.
The landlord chased its insurers regarding the repairs and confirmed this to the resident in its stage 1 response. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord took any action to address the issue with the front door which would be considered an emergency repair under its policy. While the landlord is entitled to utilise its insurers for some of the work, its policy confirms it will rectify any immediate hazards. The failure to do so within the timescales set out by the policy was unreasonable.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 October 2022 and confirmed the front door had been adjusted but he was still waiting for repairs to the internal doors. The landlord responded the same day, apologising for the delay at stage 2 of its complaint process and confirmed it would speak with the relevant team regarding the resident’s concerns. We have not seen any evidence to show it followed up on its promise.
When the resident contacted us on 9 November 2022 he confirmed the issues with doors opening and closing were still outstanding. It is unclear whether these were the same issues as reported to the landlord initially or new problems which occurred due to ongoing movement of the property. However, the resident emailed the landlord separately on 15 December 2022 chasing the progress of these repairs.
There is evidence of further investigations and works being undertaken between December 2022 and December 2023. However, it is not clear from the evidence if and when any repairs to internal doors and windows were completed. While we understand the landlord was relying on its insurers to carry out the repairs as part of the subsidence claim, this does not take away its responsibility to ensure the repairs are actioned within reasonable timescales.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delays in actioning the repairs and offered compensation.
When there are failings which are admitted by the landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The £1,250 compensation offered by the landlord for the impact of the delays in actioning the repairs was appropriate in line with its compensation policy for failures which cause the resident distress, inconvenience, and the need to spend unnecessary time and effort in getting the landlord to put things right.
This level of compensation is also within the range of awards set out in our Guidance on Remedies for instances where there have been serious failings by the landlord.
However, the landlord’s response failed to set out clear, timebound next steps in how it proposed to address the resident’s concerns about the misalignment of doors and windows. Moreover, the landlord has not supplied any evidence to us to show if the repairs have since been completed. This means that the landlord failed to put things right and has not resolved the complaint.
In his communications with us, the resident confirmed he was still facing issues with the doors and windows. It is not clear whether these are new issues or whether they continued from previous reports. However, the lack of a clear plan to resolve this in the landlord’s stage 2 response means the impact of the failures it identified is ongoing. As a result, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the structural issues.
We understand the landlord’s insurers are currently in the process of addressing the cause of the subsidence, which requires the removal of a nearby tree owned by the Local Authority. Once the subsidence is resolved, the insurers will be able to move onto the remedial repairs. In the meantime, as the resident is still living in the property, the landlord is under an obligation to ensure any interim issues are addressed in line with its repair policy. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to inspect the property and resolve any interim issues it identifies.
We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £250 compensation to reflect the impact of not fully addressing the issues at stage 2 of its process. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our Guidance on Remedies for situations where the landlord made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be temporarily moved

The landlord’s rehousing policy defines a temporary move as where a resident must move out for a fixed period of time so that planned repair or improvement work can be completed.
The concerns about the structural integrity of the property were initially raised by the surveyor following his visit on 12 July 2022. The landlord referred the matter to its insurers and requested further investigation by their structural engineer. It is not clear from the evidence when the investigations took place.
The evidence shows the resident raised concerns about the safety of the property as part of his complaint on 24 August 2022, however the landlord failed to comment on this as part of its stage 1 response.
The resident chased a response to his concerns as part of his escalation request dated 9 September 2022.Internal emails show the landlord passed this onto the insurer who in turn confirmed the property was considered to be structurally safe by its experts, meaning that the residents could remain in the property for the duration of the claim. In deciding whether the resident needed to be temporarily rehoused while the work was carried out it was reasonable of the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of the insurer’s structural engineer.
It is not clear from the evidence when this information was passed onto the resident. However in his email to the landlord dated 31 October 2022, the resident referred to the decision which suggest it had been communicated by this point. However, the resident remained concerned and felt the landlord had made the decision due to financial reasons rather than safety considerations.
There are further emails from the resident to the landlord after this date in which he raises concerns about the property being unsafe due to the issues with doors and windows.
In an email dated 15 December 2022 the landlord’s insurers confirmed to the resident that their consultant has reviewed the file twice and did not believe the property was structurally unsafe or unhabitable. The landlord’s stage 2 response reiterated this stance.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 May 2023 raising concerns about the family’s living conditions, but there is no evidence of any response from the landlord.
In conclusion, the landlord’s initial actions and reliance on expert evidence to confirm the property was structurally safe and habitable were reasonable. However, the communication delays or lack of response to the resident’s concerns was not.
As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord admitted its communication had been poor and it apologised for not responding to the resident’s emails. Therefore, it is not disputed there was a service failure. The combination of the landlord’s apology and the £150 compensation for poor communication was appropriate to redress its failings. The landlord also confirmed it had briefed senior managers about the case which demonstrates a commitment to learn from the errors identified. Therefore we have found that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s request to be temporarily moved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the response to the structural issues reported by the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the resident’s request for a temporary move.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must carry out the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to us:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a senior member of staff for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the total sum of £1,970 compensation broken down as:
  1. £1,720 previously offered if not already paid.
  2. Additional £250 for any distress and inconvenience likely caused as a result of its handling of the temporary repairs.
  3. This money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against his rent account.
3. Inspect the property, including the doors and windows to confirm whether any additional interim repairs are needed.
4. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord must share the inspection report and schedule of any interim works identified with us and the resident.
5. The landlord must complete any repairs identified with 4 weeks of the inspection. If the landlord is unable to meet this deadline, it must notify both the resident and us, providing a clear explanation for the delay and setting out its new timescales in writing.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident outlining his housing options and signposting to other relevant organisations where appropriate.