London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202428005)

Background

1. The resident lives with her adult son in a 3-bedroom house. She has physical and mental health problems (including memory issues) and receives support. She reported ongoing issues with external and internal cracks in her property in the years leading up to her complaint. She believed the cracks were due to her neighbour’s property subsiding. She said the cracks were causing draughts and mice to come into her property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Cracks in the resident’s property.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of cracks in the resident’s property.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of cracks in the resident’s property

4. The landlord did not treat the potential safety concerns with the urgency they required. It acknowledged delays in handling the issue and offered compensation. This was not proportionate, considering the distress and inconvenience the resident said she had been caused. The landlord failed to complete the resident’s repairs and did not take steps to proactively address the third-party issue. It did not therefore resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor and not in line with its policy, or our Complaint Handling Code. It did not address all points of the resident’s complaint, including her pest control concerns. Its stage 1 and 2 acknowledgements and responses were unclear. Its response to her escalated complaint was excessively delayed. 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The landlord’s insurers surveyed the resident’s property on 14 June 2022. They said the neighbouring property had significant structural cracks and may be subsiding as it was “pulling” on the resident’s property. They said the neighbour’s chimney looked unstable, and potentially unsafe. They suggested the owners sought “urgent independent advice”. They confirmed the resident’s property was likely to be stable because of structural works the landlord did in 2011. However, they recommended it repaired the cracks inside her property. They suggested the landlord could claim back the cost of doing the repairs from the neighbouring property’s owner.
7. This was an unusual situation involving repairs to a privately owned building which affected the resident’s property. Although this was a complex issue the landlord was responsible for ensuring the resident’s home was safe and free from hazards. Its repairs policy confirms this. It says it must repair cracks (unless hairline) in a property and resolve uncontrollable pest issues (where a resident’s attempts have failed).
8. The landlord did not take prompt action to mitigate the potential hazards. This was unreasonable, especially as the resident previously complained about the issue 17 months before, around June 2022. We contacted the resident during our investigation, and she told us the issues are unresolved. We therefore ordered the landlord to inspect the resident’s property to assess the current situation and whether it must do works.
9. The landlord’s internal communications in November 2023 show it had no clear procedure for handling the third-party issue, as it was unsure which department was responsible. This was apparent in its stage 1 complaint response, when it failed to offer a clear resolution to the problem. It said it would “only be involved with next door if we are looking to pursue a recovery claim against them for damage to ours” and it would need “evidence of their negligence”. Its service failed as it did not outline its plans to repair the resident’s property in line with its policies or consider any other measures it could take.
10. The landlord did not pay due regard to the resident’s age and health conditions when responding to her complaint. When her MP wrote to the landlord on her behalf on 9 May 2024, they explained she was 68 years old and disabled. They asked when it would do the works. The landlord responded to the MP, but we have not seen its response. However, despite this intervention there is no evidence it scheduled any repairs in line with its policies or pursued the third party. This was unreasonable, and the resident spent more time and trouble chasing the landlord, including on 18 July and 7 August 2024. 
11. The landlord failed to resolve the resident’s repair issues through its complaints process. In its final response on 14 August 2024, it reiterated the findings of its survey in June 2022. It said it chased the neighbouring property’s owner, but they did not respond. We found the landlord did not promptly chase the third party, as the last communication was on 6 December 2023. The landlord did not treat the potential safety issue with the urgency it required. This was not in line with its policy or legal obligations. As 2 years had passed since it last inspected her property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange another inspection to check if the problem had worsened.
12. The landlord acknowledged its delays had frustrated the resident in its final complaint response. It offered her £200 compensation for “inconvenience for failure to recognise the impact due to vulnerabilities”. The compensation it offered was not proportionate to the scale of our findings and the significant impact on the resident. She spent time and trouble chasing the landlord and told us the issues caused her distress. She said she was concerned to go into her garden due to the potential safety of her neighbour’s chimney. She also said mice entered through the cracks in the kitchen and urinated on food and clothing.
13. We found maladministration in this case as the landlord failed to promptly respond to the safety issues and the resident’s repairs are outstanding. The landlord was not proactive in chasing the third party and its communication with the resident was poor. We ordered the landlord to apologise and pay an additional £400 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance. This amount takes into consideration the resident’s distress, inconvenience and her time and trouble chasing the repairs.

14. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process, and its policy says it will address all elements of the complaint, in line with the Code. It says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints in this case were incomplete, unclear, and delayed.
15. The resident complained to the landlord on 13 November 2025 about cracks in her property allowing pests to enter. The landlord did not address her pest control problem in either of its complaint responses. This was a complaint handling failure, as its lack of response to this matter was not in line with its policy or the Code.
16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on time on 14 November 2023. Its letter was unclear because it referred to it as a “decision” and an “acknowledgment”. This was confusing for the resident and may have led her to believe it was its final decision. When it responded to her complaint on 30 November 2023, it clarified its findings but failed to explain its plans to resolve her complaint. This was not in line with its policy.
17. The landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 at a much earlier stage. She complained about its repairs handling again on 15 January 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge her complaint escalation request, and she complained again on 15 April 2024 and via her MP, on 5 May 2024. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it acknowledged her escalation request. Its wording of its stage 2 complaint response on 16 August 2024 suggests it acknowledged and responded to the complaint on the same day. As this response was over 8 months after she tried to escalate her complaint, it was significantly delayed and exceeded its policy timescales.
18. The resident was frustrated with the landlord’s complaint handling. She spent a lot of time and trouble chasing a response. She called the landlord on 6 August 2024 to say she received a cheque for £80 with no covering letter, and it was not offered in either of its formal complaint responses. This undoubtedly confused the resident as she did not know what it was for. The landlord’s records show it was aware the resident has health conditions (including memory problems) so it should have paid due regard this, and ensured its correspondence was clear.
19. The landlord acknowledged its delays responding to the resident’s complaint but failed to recognise all its complaint handling failures. We made a reasonable assumption the £80 compensation it offered related to its delays. This amount was not proportionate to all the failures we identified. We therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and have ordered it to pay an additional £220 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, considering the resident’s time, trouble, distress and inconvenience it caused.

Learning

20. The landlord’s records show its approach to handling and monitoring third party issues lacked a clear process. The landlord should establish a more thorough process to ensure staff understand their responsibilities and to reduce the risk of future delays.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s records were sparce and lacked clarity. They show it scheduled repairs, but they were “cancelled” with no explanation. Its recording of the resident’s escalated complaint was unclear which resulted in it acknowledging her complaint the same day as its final response. The landlord should keep thorough records so it can better manage residents’ issues and provide a good service.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication with the resident leading up to her complaint and throughout the process was poor. It failed to update her when it said it would, and the resident chased the landlord for responses on several occasions. Its complaints correspondence was unclear, and it sent compensation without saying what it related to. The landlord should ensure complaints are better managed and escalated in line within its policies.