London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202336681)

Decision
Case ID	202336681
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	22 December 2025

Background

The resident says subsidence in his property has caused cracking and misaligned his new kitchen. The landlord determined that the property has no subsidence. The resident disputes this and believes the landlord should pay for the repairs, which led him to make his complaint.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of subsidence in the property and associated repairs.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence in the property and associated repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, the Ombudsman found that:

In the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of movement in the property

The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy. It took reasonable steps to respond to the reported structural issues. It completed surveys and investigations to confirm there was no subsidence in the resident’s property. It clarified its repair responsibility and offered £100 towards decorating costs. The resident is responsible for minor repairs, decorating the property, and repairing fittings he installed.

In the complaint handling

The landlord did not respond to all matters the resident raised in his complaint in line with its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 19 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures identified in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Apology order

The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure:

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

19 January 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident by its failures identified in its complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

19 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to arrange ongoing monitoring of the property’s movement, as the 2023 structural survey recommends.
The landlord should provide the resident with its insurance details so the resident can decide whether to make a claim for the damage he believes has occurred to his kitchen.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
November 2013 to October 2022	During this period, the landlord completed 3 structural surveys, 1 trial hole investigation, 1 drainage investigation report and 2 insurance investigation reports on the resident’s property.
16 January to 15 November 2023	The landlord’s insurers inspected the property and produced a report in March 2023 finding no evidence of subsidence. A drainage investigation report in June 2023 recommended repairs to the underground pipework. The insurers closed the case due to no evidence of subsidence. An independent structural survey report in September 2023 found no evidence of subsidence and made no recommendations for repairs to the resident’s property. The landlord offered the resident £100 decorating voucher in November 2023 which was rejected by the resident.
22 November 2023	The resident made a formal complaint. He said: There was subsidence in the property. He felt the landlord was not responding to him. He spent £10,000 on a new kitchen and the landlord had previously agreed to reimburse him if there was subsidence.
24 November 2023	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
7 December 2023	The landlord issued it stage 1 response. It said: It had carried out 2 surveys assessing for subsidence. Both reports confirmed no subsidence. There had been movement in the property, but it was not severe. It was not upholding the complaint.
20 December 2023	The resident escalated his complaint, and the landlord acknowledged this on the same day. The resident said: There was subsidence in the property. He had spent £10,000 renovating his kitchen and was told the landlord would reimburse him if issues such as subsidence occurred. The kitchen units could not be realigned due to movement, there were cracks in the walls, and the door frames were out of alignment.
17 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It had records of the resident’s concerns with movement in the property between 2016 and 2023. 2 surveys completed in 2023 did not find evidence of subsidence, only movement. The movement was normal for the property’s age and build. The 2023 survey made no further recommendations. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said: He reported subsidence or movement several times between 2016 and 2023. The movement has caused a lot of damage to his property. The movement has twisted his new kitchen and wardrobes. He disputes the landlord’s claims about repairs. The resident told us that he wants reimbursement for the cost of his kitchen.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of subsidence in the property and associated repairs
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident told us his concerns about subsidence in the property have continued for 10 years. Although evidence shows he raised these issues with the landlord multiple times, he made a formal complaint in November 2023.
There is no evidence he raised a complaint promptly or within 12 months of when he became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence that prevented him from raising a complaint sooner. For that reason, we based our decision on evidence from the reports of subsidence within the property on 22 November 2023, the 12 months prior to this, and the landlord’s actions afterwards. We have considered the historic evidence from 2014 onwards for context only and did not assess the landlord’s actions prior to November 2022.
It is not our role to make a finding on causation or liability in regard to the cracks, whether subsidence has occurred or any other technical assessment as to how such damage has occurred and its extent. This is because our role is not to answer questions on causation or liability as these are better suited for consideration by the courts. Instead, our investigation is concerned with whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s raised concerns.

What we did investigate

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including roofs, walls and windows.
The landlord’s repair policy states that when subsidence is suspected, a surveyor must inspect the property. The landlord must report all cases to their insurers and may only carry out emergency work to rectify immediate hazards without the insurer’s approval.
In response to the residence’s reports of subsidence, the landlord gathered evidence through various investigations, including two structural surveys of the property in 2023. Each investigation concluded that subsidence did not cause the cracks or distortion in the property. The landlord reasonably relied on expert advice from its contractors and surveyors, and in the absence of contradictory evidence from the resident, its position was reasonable.
We have not seen evidence that the landlord followed the March 2023 insurance report recommendation to have a structural engineer detail mitigation works for the deflection of the ground floor timber joists. The report identified this deflection as the cause of the general cracking, not subsidence. However, this may be because the independent structural report in September 2023 disagreed with that finding and made no repair recommendations.
The landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the reported structural issues. It arranged multiple surveyor inspections and investigations, both historically and 2 during 2023. We acknowledge that structural issues can take time to identify. Monitoring a property for 1 to 2 years is a regular procedure when investigating movement issues to determine the cause and resolve it.
Between 27 June and 31 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord for updates. We have seen evidence of only 1 phone call from the landlord made to the resident during this period, in which it left a voicemail message. The landlord has not shown that it communicated effectively with the resident during this time. The lack of contact evidence may indicate a record-keeping issue.
The landlord responded to the complaint at both stage 1 and 2, stating that no subsidence had been found at the property, as verified by two structural reports in 2023. This response was reasonable and appropriate. The landlord was entitled to rely on the structural surveys’ recommendations when addressing the resident’s concerns. The information it provided was consistent with the reports.
The landlord’s repair policy is clear that it is responsible for repairing brickwork, external walls and rendering when cracks exceed 5mm, or when there is severe crumbling or structural weakness. The landlord does not decorate external walls; this is done as part of a cyclical planned programme. The landlord does not repair external hairline cracks in walls, brickwork and plaster.
The repair policy also states it is responsible for repairing internal walls, plasterwork and ceilings when cracks exceed 5mm, or when there is severe crumbling. The landlord does not repair hairline cracks in internal walls, brickwork, plaster, nor does it decorate ceilings.
There is no evidence that the cracks and distortions reported in 2023 exceeded 5mm. In line with its repair policy filling “hairline and minor cracks” is the resident’s responsibility so it was reasonable for the landlord to take no further action.
However, the landlord could have provided a more detailed response to the resident, explaining the steps it had taken to repair and rectify issues, while reminding the resident of his responsibility for surface cracks repair and redecoration.
We understand that the resident has relied upon an email he received from the landlord on 8 January 2021 which assured him that any damage to his fittings caused by further structural repair works would be rectified at no cost. The resident believed this was confirmation that the landlord would cover kitchen repair costs. We have not seen any evidence of any further reference to or explanation from the landlord regarding this email.
The lack of clarity regarding this email may have caused confusion for the resident about what remedial work, if any, the landlord would cover for his kitchen or fittings.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it does not repair fitted wardrobes or any tenant-installed improvements. It does not repair kitchen hinges, drawer fronts, runner, shelves and backs, including tightening and reattaching.
On 14 November 2023, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend the resident’s property and adjust his kitchen. The landlord has not explained why it did this or whether it was a goodwill gesture. As the landlord is not obligated to repair the resident’s privately installed kitchen, this action went beyond its responsibilities.
The contractor reported that the adjustments did not resolve the alignment problems the resident attributed to subsidence or movement. The landlord made no further attempts to repair or adjust the resident’s kitchen or fitted wardrobes.
The landlord acted in accordance with its repair policy regarding fittings installed by the resident and fitted wardrobes. It would have been helpful for the landlord to clarify its position on kitchen repairs, refer the resident to the relevant sections of its repair policy, and advise him to make a claim on its insurance if he believed the landlord’s actions had damaged his personal property.
In November 2023, the landlord offered the resident a £100 decorating voucher as a goodwill gesture, which was reasonable, but the resident rejected it.
The landlord took appropriate steps to verify that there is no subsidence in the property and followed its repair policy regarding the ongoing maintenance within the property and the resident’s fittings. The landlord attempted to assist with kitchen repairs and offered a decorating voucher, both of which exceeded its obligations. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence and the associated repairs.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 and 2 complaints within the expected timeframes.
The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for its decisions.
The landlord defined the resident’s complaint as being about ‘subsidence in the property and lack of communication.’ However, the landlord did not address its lack of communication in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses. The stage 1 response was very short and stated only that no subsidence had been found at the property. We found this response inadequate. The resident would have benefited from a detailed explanation in the landlord’s stage 1 response, ensuring that all matters raised were addressed. This was a complaint handling failure.
In his complaint, the resident referred to an email he received in 2021 that assured him of compensation for any damage caused to his property. The landlord failed to address this in either of its complaint responses, leaving the resident feeling that the complaint had not been adequately addressed.
Although we cannot investigate the validity or intention behind this email, the landlord should have responded to this detail within the resident’s complaint because it was a specific issue the resident raised.
We have found a complaint handling failure. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £50. This amount reflects the inconvenience experienced by the resident and is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord kept good evidence of the surveys and investigations it carried out to assess the property for subsidence. However, its contact records and repair logs contained gaps about what repair work it had previously completed. The landlords should ensure it maintains accurate and robust record-keeping systems to provide a clear audit trail of all repairs and communications.

Communication

The resident would have benefited from more regular updates from the landlord during the subsidence investigation and complaint process. The landlord should ensure it has systems in place to keep residents informed about the progress of their repairs and maintain accurate records of all communication.