You might have some luck with the Bar Pro Bono unit. They’ve arranged representation in two cases in the recent past (LB Brent v Hamilton, LRX/51/2005 and Volosinovici v Corvan Properties LRX/67/2006).

A FICTITIOUS situation:
A group of working people on low-moderate incomes, some key workers buy Shared Ownership units in a property refurbished by a RSL - let’s call this anonymous RSL nitting holl housing group (not their real name you see). RSL gets a social housing grant of £250K to do the refurb. because they are an RSL and really not fit to scratch their arses without three volumes of instructions and a diversity requirement, they don’t bother to oversee the works (despite taking their 15% management rake-off). as the builders are unscrupulous cowboys who bought the contract with payments to senior staff at said RSL and they know the RSL don’t manage anything, they do pretty much as they please and £250K vanishes. jobs are charged for and not done or done in a half-arsed fashion.
flats are pressure-sold before completion of the refurb which has overrun and prospective buyers have no chance to inspect the whole building or have meaningful surveys done. they buy on a number of bases: they are first-time buyers (condition of scheme) and naive, they believe dealing with an RSL means they will be teeated fairly (bless ‘em!), they have written statements about what will be done (including a new roof), it’s the only way they can get a bloody flat - it’s london in the late 90s for god’s sake.
4 years of failed maintenance later, a survey is done by the same surveyor who looked at the property when the RSL bought it for refurb (he is totally independent you understand - just does a lot of work for this RSL). it finds £600k of work needed in ten years for a block of 25 units. this includes total replacement of the roof (hold on…). it comes with 15% management fee for the RSL and a nice fee for the surveyor. residents choke slightly at the projected increase of £300 per flat per month in service charge. case goes to LVT.
RSL take this somewhat seriously and the people in charge who can scratch their arses with only one volume of instructions get a nice city firm of solicitors to represent them at this low-cost tribunal (let’s call them worrick.) it costs £65K but no worries because it all gets charged back to the tenants!
RSL get arses kicked in LVT - partly because their staff don’t bother to turn up for the hearing and look like idle fecks when they do. city lawyers tear hair out.
RSL are advised to appeal (another £100K for lawyers?) and so it continues. property continues to deteriorate.
This msut be one of those very few (ahem!) cases brought by the landlord and won by the tenants. it probably wouldn’t be part of their fantasy figures as costs weren’t awarded against the RSL - you can’t generally get costs in the LVT (unless you are the landlord and can add them to the service charge as part of your necessary expenses of computing and collecting the service charge).

res ipsa loquitur.

whew - sorry if you’ve actually read all of this - i feel so much better now!