London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202428880)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202428880

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 May 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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of subsidence.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat owned by the landlord. The landlord is aware she has vulnerabilities with her mental health.
  2. A representative of the resident has been partially dealing with the complaint. For ease, this report refers to “the resident” throughout.
  3. In April 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about major cracks in her home and its lack of response. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 19 April 2023. It said a surveyor inspected the property on 12 April 2023 and made a referral for a structural engineer to assess the suspected subsidence. The structural engineer submitted a report to the landlord in August 2023 with several recommendations.
  4. In February 2024, an operative attended the property and requested a surveyor’s inspection due to ongoing structural concerns in the property.
  5. On 28 March 2024, the landlord issued a second stage 1 response. It said it would arrange a home visit with the resident by 25 April 2024, and its surveying team would update her with the next steps. It offered £1,300 compensation for the delay dealing with the matter.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 22 May 2024, explaining that the actions the landlord promised at stage 1 did not happen, the subsidence was getting worse, and her living conditions were having a serious impact on her mental health.
  7. In May 2024, the resident told the landlord that her water company notified her of a leak, in excess of 800 gallons of water per hour. Subsequently, site investigations were abandoned in June 2024 as there was water beneath the floor screed.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 16 July 2024. It said it had raised a work order to investigate and repair the ongoing water leak. Once it had been located and repaired, it would arrange for the structural engineer to continue with their investigations into the cause of subsidence. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident an additional £160 compensation, making a total award of £1460.
  9. The landlord’s final complaint response dissatisfied the resident, and she referred her complaint to this Service. To resolve the complaint, she wants a permanent move to a like-for-like property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within its formal complaint responses, the landlord addressed several repairs. The resident told us that the crux of her complaint is the landlord’s handling of her reports of subsidence. As such, this determination focuses on this matter.
  2. The resident said the way the landlord managed the issues caused significant stress and impacted her health. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident. However, the courts are the most effective place for disputes about impact to health. This is largely because it can appoint independent medical experts 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, the court can examine oral testimony. Therefore, concerns about the health impact of the issue are better dealt with via the court.
  3. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s delay in repairing the leak. While the landlord broadly mentioned the leak in its stage 2 complaint response, we are aware the landlord has considered the delay repairing it within a separate complaint. It issued a stage 1 complaint response, and the resident confirmed she has not yet escalated this to stage 2. We do not ordinarily consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  4. We are aware the subsidence matter is ongoing. We understand site investigations are paused while the ground dries out following the repair of the leak. The landlord said the cracks are being monitored at 8-week intervals. This assessment focuses on the period of the resident’s initial complaint in April 2023, up to the landlord’s final complaint response of July 2024. It remains open to the resident to raise a further complaint if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of matters post-stage 2.

Subsidence

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair.
  2. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it aims to complete routine repairs in an average of 25 calendar days. It has not set out a timescale for major works.
  4. The landlord’s insurance claim procedure states that it needs to report cases of suspected subsidence immediately. The insurance team will appoint an engineer to investigate. If it confirms subsidence, the insurance team will deal with the claim and arrange for the engineer to oversee site investigations, monitoring, and all necessary repairs. It will give the resident a guide explaining the process and provide updates at least every 28 days.
  5. The Ombudsman recognises that investigations and repairs concerning suspected subsidence can be complex and will often incur delays while the landlord, insurer, and experts involved decide the best way to proceed. This is why it must manage investigations effectively and with a sense of urgency, to identify the cause of ground movement as soon as possible.
  6. Records show the resident initially complained about suspected subsidence in April 2023. There was a 4 month avoidable delay before an engineer inspected the property in August 2023. The report shows they identified potential ground movement, and recommended the landlord start site investigations and refer the matter to its insurer. It is a concern the landlord did not do this until May 2024, more than 38 weeks later. We have seen no evidence that the landlord acted with a sense of urgency to progress the matter between April 2023 and May 2024. This is a significant failing and demonstrates the landlord did not act in line with its procedure. The landlord has not evidenced the reason for the delay or explained its decision making here.
  7. The landlord has not submitted evidence of any mitigations or risk assessments in the interim. The lack of a risk assessment and exploring options with the resident early on indicates a lack of regard for her vulnerabilities. Throughout her correspondence, she has repeatedly explained the impact on her mental health, even with professional support in place. At times, she begged the landlord to help her and described her living conditions as inhumane. She explained she was scared for her life, with the floor level in the property dropping lower and lower. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete a risk assessment and evidence that it had considered the habitability of the property, the possibility of interim repairs, and whether a move would be required.
  8. The resident informed this Service that she was told the water leak occurred due to the movement of the property, damaging the pipework underneath. She believes that had the landlord managed her reports of subsidence effectively in the first instance, the leak and associated impact may not have occurred. While we appreciate the resident’s strength of feeling, no evidence has been provided to this Service determining the cause of the leak. Additionally, as explained in paragraph 13, the landlord investigated its handling of the leak as a separate complaint, which it was entitled to do. As such, we cannot make a finding in this respect.
  9. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to manage a resident’s expectations when dealing with a complex situation that could potentially last for a significant period and keep records of its communication. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to give the resident an overview of the next steps i.e., identifying the cause of ground movement, removing/restricting the influencing factors, a period of monitoring to ensure the movement had stopped or reduced to an acceptable level before arranging a program of repairs. There is no evidence it did so. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence that it informed her it had referred the matter to its insurer. We cannot conclude that the landlord pro-actively engaged with the resident throughout this case or updated her every 28 days in line with its policy. We determine that the communication failings exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on the resident. This further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
  10. Where a landlord admits failings, our role is to assess whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In investigating this, we consider 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.
  11. At stage 2 of the complaint process, the landlord accepted it did not assess the repairs within a timely manner, and it failed to always respond to the resident’s concerns. It apologised and offered compensation of £1340. This was in relation to several repairs and comprised of:
    1. £650 for distress.
    2. £650 for inconvenience.
    3. £40 for a missed appointment.
  12. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation over £1000 is appropriate for when there have been serious failings by a landlord that had a severe impact on a resident. In our view, the delay in managing the report of subsidence has substantially delayed the overall time it will take to identify the cause of the movement and complete an effective and lasting repair. This has had a severe impact on a vulnerable resident. We understand medical professionals have provided more information to the landlord, which we have not reviewed. While the sum offered went some way to recognise the detriment caused, we find it did not go far enough when considering all the circumstances of the case. We also note this sum was to recognise failings in its handling of several repairs and not just the subsidence element. For these reasons, we find it fair and reasonable to order additional redress.
  13. Overall, the landlord did not treat the resident fairly in the way it managed reports of cracking and subsidence within the property. It acted with a lack of urgency and failed to communicate effectively. There were significant delays progressing investigations into the cause of the cracking and a lack of active management. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide an appropriate level of service which had a detrimental impact on the resident. Additionally, it failed to evidence that it had due regard to her vulnerabilities. We note matters remain outstanding more than 10 months after the stage 2 response, and she is unclear about the next steps to remedy the issue. This is indicative of a major failing to put things right and learn from outcomes. Taken altogether, we conclude that the impact on the resident and level of inconvenience has been considerable.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 response should be issued in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 response should be issued within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The resident initially complained on 4 April 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 April 2023. In the period that followed, the resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord on several occasions about the delays. It issued a follow-up stage 1 response on 28 March 2024. The resident escalated this on 22 May 2024 and the landlord issued its final complaint response 38 working days later. The Code serves to illustrate that this case was not progressed in line with our complaint handling expectations.
  3. In our view, it was inappropriate for the landlord to issue a second stage 1 response. When the resident expressed dissatisfaction following the initial stage 1 response, it ought to have escalated the complaint to stage 2. Its failure to do so effectively delayed the completion of its internal complaint procedure and prevented the resident from referring her complaint to this Service at the earliest opportunity.
  4. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to identify clear learning points and outline actions to ensure similar service failures will not occur in the future. While the landlord recognised failings, it could have done more to reference specific learning from the resident’s experience within its complaint response to improve its service provision.
  5. At stage 2, the landlord apologised for its shortcomings and offered £100 for the time and effort getting the complaint resolved and £20 for poor complaint handling. Our remedies guidance suggests compensation in the range of £100 to £600 where there are failings which adversely affected a resident. While the landlord’s offer was within this range, we are minded that £120 was not proportionate in the circumstances to reflect the impact of the shortcomings identified. As such, we have ordered the landlord to compensate the resident £200. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £120.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, we order the landlord to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified.
    2. Pay compensation of £1,800. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £1,460 and is comprised of:
      1. £1,600 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of subsidence.
      2. £200 for its ineffective complaints handling.
    3. Complete a risk assessment to consider the habitability of the property.
    4. Write to the resident setting out the next phases in remedying the cracking in the property through to completion. This should include estimated timescales for each phase, as directed by the specialist from the insurer. The resident should be aware that these timescales may change, depending on the outcome of the site investigations.
    5. Write to the resident to address her request for a permanent move in view of the condition of the property, the time it may take to complete an effective and lasting repair, and the impact on her health.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider whether any additional compensation is due to the resident for any avoidable delays in its handling of the substantive issue post-stage 2. We recognise it may decide to open another complaint instead to assess this in more detail.
  2. The landlord should escalate the resident’s complaint about its handling of her report of a leak to stage 2 and provide its final complaint response within the timescale set out in the Code.