London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202511036)

Decision
Case ID	202511036
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London & Quadrant Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

In March 2025 the resident told the landlord of her concerns about cracks to her property. Following this the landlord arranged surveys of the property, including a CCTV drain survey. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident including Raynard’s syndrome.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs and structural safety concerns.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found maladministration:
1. in the landlord’s handling of repairs and structural safety concerns.
2. in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

We found that the landlord:
1. Attended the resident’s initial report of cracks to brickwork within appropriate timescales. But it subsequently failed to communicate clearly with her about its plan for repair work.
2. Poorly handled investigations to identify necessary drain work, leading to a delay in work and prolonging of issues.
3. Failed to compensate the resident for missed appointments in line with its compensation policy.
4. Failed to identify the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of other repairs. These should have been added to the existing complaint or raised as a new complaint.

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 provided by senior member of staff. 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 16 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £660, made up of: £400 for the impact of failings we have identified in its handling of repairs and structural safety concerns. £40 for 2 missed appointments by its contractor. £50 previously awarded for time and trouble. £20 previously awarded for complaint handling failings. £150 further award for the impact of failings we have identified in its complaint handling.	No later than 16 January 2026
3	Completion of work The landlord must take all steps to ensure repairs to the drains are started no later than the due date. Following this work, it should communicate its plan for completing repointing work, along with timescales. If the landlord cannot start the drain works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 16 January 2026
4	The landlord must provide the resident with clear information about how it will monitor her property for signs of progressive movement.	No later than 30 January 2026
5	The landlord must take action to locate leak trace survey and ensure that any work identified has been appropriately raised/completed.	No later than 30 January 2026
6	The landlord must contact the resident to address her concerns about its handling of other repair issues within the property in line with its complaints and repairs policies. These concerns are set out in the MP’s communication of 9 June 2025.	No later than 16 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to provide her with a clear plan for addressing all other work identified by the structural survey of 15 August 2025.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
2 June 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that she had reported structural concerns to it in March 2025. She said that, following this, the landlord had arranged a drain survey, but the contractor failed to attend 2 appointments. She said the contractor then attended but failed to submit a report to the landlord. The resident said she had health concerns, and she wanted the landlord to provide a “safe, maintained home”.
19 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for the frustration and delays the resident had experienced. It said these would be addressed with its contractor and the contractor’s manager. It said it expected to receive the drain report by the end of day and would contact her about the repairs needed. It said it would assess compensation once planned work had been booked.
19 June 2025	The resident requested escalation of her complaint. She said she had been living in “deteriorating conditions” and this had affected her health.
15 July 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by outstanding repairs. It said the survey completed on 1 April 2025 confirmed no subsidence and that cracks were due to thermal movement. It said that a job had been raised for a contractor to complete a CCTV drain survey on 17 July 2025. It said that its surveyor would monitor this work. It awarded her compensation of £70 for time and effort and complaint handling failings.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy about the progress of repairs and the landlord’s response to her complaint.

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	Handling of repairs and structural safety concerns
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported her concerns about cracks at the rear of her property on 7 March 2025. The landlord’s attendance that day was within its 24-hour target response for emergency repairs set out in its repairs policy. That was appropriate. It states in its repairs policy that it will attend those repairs that could cause serious damage to a building/property as an emergency. It noted then that a structural survey was needed. It did not set out that it had identified any work needed in the interim.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 10 March 2025 stating her concerns that the door near the crack needed to be propped up. In subsequent correspondence the resident said the landlord attended her home on 13 March 2025 and told her it had submitted the matter for consideration of an insurance claim. She said it also installed support props that day. This action was reasonable, particularly given the resident’s concern. However, while it raised the work to fit support props, it did not record completion. It should have maintained clear records of all actions to address the repair issues. That it did not do so was a record keeping failing.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will check for third-party liability (such as through an insurance claim) in advance of undertaking repair work. In this case, it considered cracks identified may be due to subsidence. Its action to raise a survey for this on 10 March 2025 was appropriate. But it should have clearly set out to the resident the next steps in the process. It was aware of her concern about the safety. Clear communication about what it was doing could have reassured her about progress towards addressing issues.
An insurance surveyor inspected the resident’s property on 1 April 2025. The subsequent report set out damage to brickwork was slight and that the surveyor considered it was not subsidence. The reported noted the cracks were due to thermal movement. However, the landlord was not clear in communicating to the resident about what it would now do to address the cracks she had reported. That was a failing.
The landlord subsequently raised a CCTV drain survey on 8 April 2025, noting the resident’s report of damp in an outbuilding. The landlord recorded that this should be completed within 20 working days, and that was in line with its target response time for routine repairs.
The resident said in subsequent correspondence and her complaint that the drain contractor failed to attend 2 appointments, on 14 April and 17 April 2025. She said it did not let her know it would not be attending. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it will award £20 when its staff or contractors fail to keep an appointment without at least 24 hours’ notice. In its complaint responses, it apologised to the resident for the delays and miscommunication. But it should also have made an award to the resident for the missed appointments. We have ordered that it now do so.
The resident also said in her complaint that the drain contractor had attended on 23 April 2025 and completed the CCTV survey. She subsequently contacted the landlord on 21 May 2025 to query outstanding work. However, the landlord later noted the contractor had said it had cancelled this work due to no access. The resident told the landlord that this was not the case. She said the contractor had completed the survey.
The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 19 June 2025 that it was expecting to receive the CCTV report later that day. Records show it later obtained the CCTV survey which had been completed on 23 April 2025. It is unclear why it took so long for the contractor to locate and send this to the landlord, or why it had previously said this had not been completed. However, this caused confusion, concern and delayed progress. It was a failing and evidence of poor contractor management by the landlord. It acknowledged these delays and miscommunication in its complaint response. That was appropriate, as was the action it identified to address issues with the contractor and contractor’s manager.
The CCTV survey of April 2025 identified work needed, including to remove scale/cement and to excavate and repair cracks in the resident’s drains. Its repairs policy states that it will aim to complete work with added complexity within 40 working days. Such repairs include where it needs to arrange specialist material or contractor. It says it will advise the resident upfront if it expects the repair to fall into this timeframe. Given the need for the CCTV survey, the drain work would likely have fallen into this category. However, there is no evidence the landlord informed the resident of an extended timescale for work to repair the drains. That was a failing.
While the landlord raised work on 20 June 2025, it did not complete it. Instead, it raised a further CCTV drain survey on 10 July 2025. The resident told us the landlord arranged this as the first survey was not “good enough”. But its repair records did not detail why it had not progressed repairs identified, or why it considered a further CCTV survey was necessary. It did not explain this in its stage 2 complaint response either. It simply said a CCTV survey had been booked for 17 July 2025.
The resident had set out in her escalation request that she was concerned about the condition of the property. The landlord should have been clear about why it was delaying work by completing a further CCTV drain survey. That it did not do so was a failing. It would have added to the resident’s concern about the progress of work.
The further CCTV survey was completed by a different contractor on 17 July 2025. The subsequent report set out the contractor’s view that there was no issue with the drainage system but that it thought there was a leak somewhere.
The landlord subsequently noted it had booked a leak trace for 13 August 2025. This was within its 20-working day target for routine repairs. However, while a subsequent survey noted the leak trace had been completed, records we have seen do not contain this. That is a record keeping failing. The structural survey noted that no evidence of a leak had been found. However, we have ordered that the landlord take action to locate this leak trace survey and ensure that any work identified has been raised.
The landlord later arranged for a full structural survey of the property by an independent surveyor. This was completed on 15 August 2025. But it again failed to record why it considered this action was appropriate. It had by this time obtained 2 conflicting CCTV drain reports. Cracks had been reported in March 2025. Given these circumstances, obtaining an independent structural survey was a step that would help to identify appropriate actions. But it should have clearly detailed its reasons and communicated them to the resident. Without doing so it would appear it was unnecessarily delaying work.
The structural survey recorded that the leak detection had highlighted defects to below ground drainage. It recommended a further CCTV drain survey to confirm the condition of below ground drainage. Further, it recommended that internal and external cracks should be monitored for signs of progressed movement. Subsequently, a third CCTV drain survey was completed on 23 September 2025. This identified work that was needed to remove scale/residue and to excavate and replace a gully.
The resident told us in early December 2025 that she was unclear about when drain work will be completed. However, the landlord has since told us its contractor has booked to start the work on 12 January 2026. This is more than 8 months after the first drain survey was raised. The resident told us of the smell from the drains as well as concerns that it was causing damp to a wall. We acknowledge the landlord needed to arrange a survey to identify work needed. But its poor handling and management of this work has led to unreasonable delays and to prolonging of issues the resident has experienced.
The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it would complete work to cracks once the props in place above the resident’s French doors had been removed. It asked that the resident contact it to confirm this work could go ahead. But we have seen no evidence the landlord had appropriately communicated with the resident previously to explain its plan for work. Further we have seen no evidence it had reassured her that props were not needed.
Later, at the end of September 2025, the landlord noted that the supports were to remain in place until the drain remedial work was complete. It detailed that the repointing was not to be completed until after the drain work. But, again, we have seen no evidence it has clearly communicated this to the resident. That was a failing that means she has been left without a clear plan of work or a timescale for this.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs and structural safety concerns. Given the failings we have identified, we have ordered that it must provide the resident with a clear plan and timescale for completing all work.
So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £50 for time and effort. This amount does not adequately compensate her for the impact of the failings we have identified. With consideration to all the circumstances of the case, we have ordered that it make a further award of £400. This is aimed at fully recognising the impact of the failings we have identified. This is in line with the range set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord in August 2024, the relevant Code was the April 2024 edition. We have found that:
1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complied with this Code in respect of timescales.
2. It appropriately acknowledged the resident’s complaint, but its response was 2 days outside its target response timescale. This delay was not significant, but it should have acknowledged and apologised for this in its response. It did so in its subsequent stage 2 response, and the £20 it awarded in recognition of this was appropriate.
3. Its stage 2 complaint response was provided within its target response time.

The resident told the landlord she had submitted an earlier complaint detailing more issues and had received no acknowledgement of this. Records we have seen show the resident sent an email to her MP and the landlord on 24 May 2025. The email address she used for the landlord was incomplete, and there is no evidence it received this. However, she referred to an earlier complaint in her communication of 2 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and set out its understand of it. But it should also have checked details of the earlier complaint she said she had made. That it did not do so was a failing.
Further, the resident’s MP sent the landlord an email on 9 June 2025. This set out the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of other repair issues within the property. This included her concerns about the condition of the bathroom, kitchen and windows. The landlord told the MP it was addressing this matter under its complaints procedure. It later sent the MP copies of its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. But these complaint responses did not cover all concerns the resident had raised in correspondence the MP sent on to the landlord.
The MP’s contact with the landlord was prior to it issuing its stage 1 complaint response. In line with the Code, it could therefore have broadened the scope of this complaint investigation to include the other issues raised. Alternatively, it could have set up a new complaint to cover these additional concerns. It did not take either of these actions. That was a complaint handling failure which means that some of the resident’s concerns have yet to be addressed.
We have ordered that the landlord take action to address these in line with its repairs and complaints policies. Should the resident remain unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint about these repair concerns, she may then refer them to the Ombudsman. She may do so once she has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Learning

The landlord should clearly record the reasons for undertaking surveys, particularly when this is a repeated action. It should communicate with residents, so they understand the reasons for this and plan for completing repair work, along with the timescales.
The landlord should ensure it checks its complaint response addresses all concerns raised in correspondence.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord failed to make appropriate record of all work it completed following the resident’s reports. It should ensure it makes clear and accurate records so that it can ensure appropriate repairs have been raised and so it can demonstrate how it has responded to repair reports.

Communication

The landlord did not communicate well with the resident to explain its plan for completing all repairs to the property. It did not clearly explain why it was arranging further surveys rather than raising repairs identified.