Newlon Housing Trust (202336954)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336954

Newlon Housing Trust

27 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damage to her possessions following a leak at her property.
2. Reports of unsuitable temporary accommodation and an associated rent refund.
3. Associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives at the property with her 3 children.
On 30 August 2020, a defective sprinkler system caused significant water damage to the resident’s property and possessions. The landlord provided hotel temporary accommodation on the same day, before providing self-contained temporary accommodation on 2 October 2020. As the property was still within the defect warranty period (the first year after the property was built), the developer accepted responsibility for the necessary repairs. Later, the developer’s subcontractor also accepted liability for the defective installation.
The resident complained to the landlord on 7 October 2020, as she reported that the self-contained temporary accommodation was unsuitable because:
1. There were not enough bedrooms for her household size.
2. It was dirty.
3. There was no heating or hot water.
4. She had incurred increased living expenses.
On 9 October 2020, the resident accepted to move to a different 2-bedroom flat in the same building because she had experienced a loss of heating and hot water in the first temporary flat.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 4 November 2020. The landlord said it had:
1. Sought a 4-bedroom property, but only 2-bedroom options were available as temporary accommodation.
2. Arranged alternative accommodation when it became aware of the heating and hot water issues.
3. Provided essential furniture and bedding for the temporary property costing £100.
4. Made food allowance payments during the hotel placement.
5. Agreed to reimburse the resident for the laundry expenses while in the self-contained accommodation upon receipt of costs.
6. Followed its decant (temporary move) policy and apologised for the distress and inconvenience.
The resident did not escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
In June 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about the delays she had experienced in receiving a response to a liability insurance claim she had made. The landlord told the resident in July 2021 that the complaint was not being treated as such because it related to an insurance claim, per its complaints policy, which excludes this from its complaints process.
The resident returned to her permanent property in July 2021.
In September 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. The resident said:
1. She had reported damp walls before the leak, but the landlord did not take appropriate action.
2. The extensive water damage destroyed most of her belongings.
3. The first hotel was dirty and caused her youngest child to develop a rash.
4. Lack of cooking and laundry facilities whilst in temporary accommodation resulted in increased out-of-pocket expenses.
5. The 2-bedroom temporary accommodation was unsuitable for her family size, and she had experienced a loss of heating and hot water, which meant she had to move to another 2-bedroom temporary accommodation flat.
6. She requested compensation for the distress, inconvenience and increased expenses caused.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided a formal response to this complaint.
In November 2022, the resident raised another complaint. She said:
1. The landlord had failed to respond to her earlier correspondence.
2. She did not feel that her landlord met its standard of care as per its legal obligations to ensure that she was safe from personal injury and damage to her possessions.
3. She wanted to be “fairly” compensated.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 21 November 2022. In its response, it explained it had previously recommended that the resident contact the developer to discuss the liability insurance claim made and compensation, as it was liable for the damages, and therefore, the landlord would not offer compensation.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process on 9 January 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 February 2023, in which it:
1. Summarised why the developer was liable for the repairs and the damage to her possessions, instead of the landlord. It acknowledged that she had an ongoing insurance claim against the developer. It redirected the resident to the developer.
2. Said that it could not consider matters relating to the complaint made in June 2021, which it had rejected as a complaint, as it had not been appealed and occurred more than 12 months ago.

Events after the landlord’s final response to the complaint

Following the landlord’s final response, the resident continued to pursue the landlord about the unresolved compensation matters, particularly about the rent refund, the temporary accommodation-related expenses and the overall distress and inconvenience experienced. In June 2023, the resident sent a pre-action protocol letter as part of a legal disrepair claim, which included a new complaint about the damage caused to her possessions by the leak. The landlord told the resident in July 2023 that it was not accepting her disrepair claim, as it did not satisfy the legal basis for a claim. It also told her that it was not accepting the complaint she had made, as the matters had previously been considered under its complaints process.
In August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and said:
1. The resident was not entitled to a rent refund as the landlord did not believe that she suffered any loss by way of higher rent or additional expenditure because of the accommodation.
2. That it had included her damaged possessions in its insurance claim for its loss, and it had not yet had an outcome.
3. It would not accept further correspondence about the damage to her possessions as new complaints because it had already considered it in its previous complaint responses.
4. In recognition of the impact that the overall situation had on the resident, it offered a £500 “gesture of goodwill” payment.
In January 2024, the resident contacted the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, specifically relating to her requests for compensation, the rent refund, and the handling of her complaints. She felt that the landlord had not adequately recognised the significant distress, inconvenience, and increased living costs she experienced for the almost year-long period in temporary accommodation.
In August 2025, the resident told us that she had received a liability insurance payment for the damage to her possessions. However, she had declined the goodwill payment offered by the landlord as she did not feel that it was sufficient to put things right.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This report focuses on the key events and evidence which we consider affect the outcome of the complaint. It does not list every communication or interaction, although we have considered all the information both sides have provided. The findings are based on the evidence available at the time of our investigation.
In November 2020, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response about the resident’s reports that the temporary accommodation was unsuitable. The landlord confirmed the resident did not escalate the matter to stage 2 of its complaints process. Following paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as this complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process, we have not investigated these events, and they are referenced in the background of this report for contextual purposes only.
As part of a complaint made in December 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak which occurred before the sprinkler system activated because of a defect. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As these matters were not brought to the landlord’s attention within 12 months of arising, we have not included them in our investigation.
The resident has told us that the damage to her property and the temporary accommodation provided by the landlord have caused health implications for her and her children. We acknowledge the resident’s statements and we understand this has been a difficult time for her and her family. We can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s health concerns as well as any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s errors. However, it is outside our remit to consider the specific impact on health from any action or inaction by the landlord. Matters of liability for damage to health are better suited to consideration by a court or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one).
The Ombudsman understands that the resident has made liability insurance claims for damages to her possessions. However, we cannot comment on the insurance company’s actions. Complaints related to insurance claims fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because the insurance company operates independently from the landlord, and the landlord is not accountable for the insurer’s actions.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. The response times reflect the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out this Service’s expectations of complaint handling practices. In line with the Code, landlords must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy also says that any matters relating to an insurance claim are outside the remit of its complaints process.
The landlord’s decant policy states that it will provide hotel accommodation if repairs are expected to take up to 3 weeks. While residents are staying in this accommodation, they will receive an evening meal allowance of £10 per adult and £5 per child under 12 per day. The policy also confirms that the landlord will make disturbance payments to cover out-of-pocket expenses incurred due to the displacement.
Where the landlord expects repairs to take longer, it will consider a temporary move to a self-contained property as an option. The policy confirms that residents remain liable for the rent on their principal home and they will only be liable for the temporary accommodation utilities and not the rent on the temporary property.

Temporary accommodation

The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a hotel room as temporary accommodation on 30 August 2020. This was in line with its decant policy. When the resident reported that the accommodation was unclean and her child had developed a rash after the first night there, the landlord arranged alternative hotel accommodation on the same day. Its response shows that it took her concerns seriously.
On 8 September 2020, the resident told the landlord that she was experiencing financial difficulties, primarily due to relying on fast-food options and launderettes. In response, the landlord provided a food allowance of £640 to cover expenses incurred from 31 August to 16 September 2020. Additionally, the landlord arranged an evening food allowance for the rest of the resident’s stay in the hotel. It also awarded her a one-off emergency payment of £80. The landlord acted appropriately to help the resident with her increased food expenses. Therefore, it is not required to pay any further compensation for this aspect of the complaint as the landlord’s records confirm the payments were made.
On 8 September 2020, the developer confirmed that the property was uninhabitable and expected repairs to take between 4 and 10 weeks. The landlord recognised that hotel accommodation was unsuitable for this length of time and therefore, provided self-contained temporary accommodation. This was reasonable and showed consideration to the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord arranged for essential furnishings, including beds, a dining table set, and a sofa, before the resident moved into the self-contained temporary accommodation. This was reasonable given that the resident’s possessions had sustained extensive water damage. Although the resident remained in hotel accommodation for longer than 3 weeks, this did not amount to a failure to follow the landlord’s decant policy, as the delays were caused by the landlord needing to wait for the furniture to be delivered before she could use the new, self-contained property.
We understand that the resident did not feel that the self-contained temporary accommodation was suitable for her household size. The resident had approval for 4-bedroom housing. However, this did not require the landlord to provide temporary accommodation of that size. The landlord’s records show that it did not have any 4-bedroom properties available at the time. The 2-bedroom accommodation it offered was suitable in the circumstances as it did not result in statutory overcrowding. If the landlord did not offer the resident a 2-bedroom property, she would have needed to remain in a hotel for longer until a larger property became available.
The test for statutory overcrowding uses the “room standard calculation,” which compares the number of individuals living in a property to the number of rooms appointed for sleeping. Living rooms may also be counted as sleeping spaces, and children under the age of 10 are not included in this assessment. In this case, the temporary accommodation was not statutorily overcrowded. Overall, the accommodation was suitable for the resident’s household to occupy temporarily.
The resident experienced a complete loss of heating and hot water upon moving into the accommodation. This issue was further prolonged when a contractor refused to enter the property, as they believed that the resident’s child displayed COVID-19 symptoms. At the time, the government’s COVID-19 guidance was that where a household member presented with COVID-19 symptoms, repairs were not completed unless there was a direct and immediate safety risk to the household or the public. While the loss of services would have caused significant inconvenience, there is no evidence it posed an immediate safety risk. The contractor was entitled to refuse to enter the property, as per government guidance. The landlord should have monitored the situation more closely and created a suitable plan for a later repair appointment, ensuring that temporary provisions were in place for heating and hot water. It is a failure that it did not maintain adequate oversight of this, and there was a delay in it providing temporary heaters which would have added to the resident’s inconvenience.
On 7 October 2020, a third-party service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident, who was still without heating and hot water. The evidence shows that this was the first time the landlord became aware of the issue remaining unresolved following the contractor’s visit. On the same day, the landlord arranged to contact the contractor, investigate and provide temporary heating. This was a suitable response from the landlord. The following day, the landlord offered the resident an alternative 2-bedroom flat in the same building after finding that a complete boiler replacement was necessary to restore services. This was appropriate in view of the likely timescale for restoring the heating and hot water.
The self-contained accommodation included cooking facilities, which would have helped reduce the resident’s increased food expenses. The landlord was not obliged to provide any other food allowance payments in this situation. However, since there was no washing machine in either flat, in October 2020, the landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for laundry expenses incurred by using the on-site facilities. This was reasonable, as per its decants policy.
We have reviewed the communications about laundry expenses from September 2020 to July 2021. During this time, the resident provided proof of costs on several occasions, but the landlord had to make repeated requests for receipts before it could progress with the reimbursements. It is unclear what the landlord reimbursed in total, or what remains unpaid. A significant amount of time has passed since these events, making it unlikely that the resident still has the necessary receipts to prove these expenses. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £400 for these costs. We have calculated this amount based on the estimated launderette costs for a 4 person household over the course of a year. However, if the resident can evidence that her actual expenses exceeded this amount, the landlord must reimburse the additional costs.
On 11 March 2021, the landlord told the resident it would refund the rent difference between a 2-bedroom and 4-bedroom property for the time she was in self-contained temporary accommodation. On 17 March 2021, it added that “some rent refund” would be offered once she returned home. However, it did not adhere to this offer. After returning to her property, the resident pursued the matter repeatedly until 2023. An internal email dated 31 January 2022 revealed that the landlord had decided against issuing a refund, citing that her “social housing” rent was below the higher “intermediate” rate charged for temporary accommodation. It is unclear how this decision was communicated to her, as she continued to follow up on the issue. The landlord did not acknowledge her requests at times and provided delayed or confusing responses when it did respond. This would likely have added to the resident’s frustration.
In August 2023, the landlord maintained that the resident was not entitled to a rent refund. The landlord’s change in position and associated actions lacked transparency and resulted in an unfair outcome for the resident. Although this was not a failure to follow its policy, the landlord should have honoured the offer it had made. We order the landlord to calculate the amount between the 2-bedroom and 4-bedroom rent rates for the period when the resident was decanted and refund the difference to the resident.
For the reasons set out above, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of unsuitable temporary accommodation and an associated rent refund.
Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out that for findings of maladministration, we may order compensation between £100 and £600 to put things right for the resident. The exact amount of compensation will depend on the individual circumstances of the complaint. When considering what amount of compensation is appropriate for these failings, we have considered the compensation offered by the landlord in August 2023. The landlord did not specify how much of its compensation offer was for errors regarding its response to the damage caused by the leak, how much was in relation to the temporary accommodation and how much was for complaint handling errors. Therefore, we have assessed the landlord’s total compensation award further below in this report.
The resident has also requested compensation for the loss of quiet enjoyment of her property. The landlord was obliged to provide temporary accommodation to the resident due to water damage making her property uninhabitable. We are satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances beyond its control. While we have acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we do not consider compensation appropriate for the loss of quiet enjoyment, as the landlord’s actions did not breach this right, as it was not responsible for the damage to her property and it provided suitable alternative accommodation.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s personal possessions

In September 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it was not liable for damage to her possessions. It did so within a reasonable time after the damage occurred. However, it did not fully explain its position at first. A more precise first explanation of liability and the claims process may have helped the resident understand why the landlord consistently directed her to pursue the developer’s liability insurance rather than accepting responsibility itself.
The landlord offered assistance to the resident with a liability insurance claim against the developer. From September 2020 to May 2021, it requested lists of damaged possessions, their values, and proof of purchase, providing guidance and examples. It said this information was necessary for the developer’s insurance company to assess her claim. While these requests were sometimes frustrating for the resident as shown by the evidence, they were proportionate and aimed at maximising the success of her claim. The landlord’s ongoing support in collating and submitting evidence showed an appropriate level of support to the resident.
Once the developer confirmed that the property needed to be empty for the repairs to begin, the landlord arranged removals and storage of the resident’s possessions. It advised the resident against disposing of any damaged possessions until the insurer had reviewed the claim and provided storage for these items too. It paid for the removals and storage costs and looked to recover them through its own liability insurance claim. It also looked to instruct independent loss assessors on the resident’s behalf. The landlord’s actions were proactive and went beyond its legal responsibilities.
When the resident looked to claim on the landlord’s liability insurance in October 2020, the landlord appropriately provided contact details and instructions while keeping its position of non-liability. However, when the resident reported a lack of updates on her claim progress in January 2021, the landlord suggested she follow up herself rather than seeking updates on her behalf, which would have been more supportive. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord intended to pass this claim to the developer’s insurer, but it is unclear if or when it did so.
In February 2021, the landlord continued to encourage the resident to provide the necessary details to send her liability claim to the developer. While the resident provided a list of possessions, it is unclear what the landlord did next. Further correspondence from April 2021 shows the landlord made requests for more evidence, though the records do not clearly distinguish whether this related to claims against the landlord or developer.
By May 2021, when the resident sought to include health impacts on her and her children in her liability insurance claim, the landlord appropriately requested supporting evidence and a written statement outlining her expectations of the outcome of the claim. It confirmed it would pass this information to the developer and recommended seeking independent legal advice. The landlord submitted the resident’s claim against the developer in May 2021, with it appropriately stepping back from direct involvement once the insurer began communicating directly with the resident by July 2021.
We understand that the landlord also included the resident’s claim for her possessions in its own liability insurance claim made against the contractor who installed the defective sprinkler system. This shows that the landlord was taking a comprehensive approach to addressing all aspects of the incident and seeking to recover costs from all potentially liable parties, which was appropriate given the circumstances and would have provided an additional avenue for the resident to receive compensation for her losses.
As the repair works to the resident’s property neared completion, the landlord told the resident that she could have the furniture and white goods that she had been using in the temporary accommodation while her possessions remained in storage, as they had not been assessed as part of the insurance claim made. While the Ombudsman understands that the furniture may not have equated to what the resident had lost, the offer was a practical and considerate gesture that showed the landlord’s recognition of the resident’s ongoing difficulties and its willingness to provide additional support.
On 30 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and said that possessions were missing from storage and that the storage company had returned various items that had been damaged. The landlord recommended that the resident contact the storage company directly, stating it did not “interfere” with claims against the company. The resident found this unfair as she had not arranged the storage herself and experienced difficulties when trying to contact the company directly.
The landlord’s approach was inappropriate. While it was not liable for the storage company’s failings, the landlord should have helped the resident resolve the issue, given that it had provided the arrangements on the resident’s behalf. The landlord’s hands-off approach left the resident distressed, and records show that she continued contacting the landlord about these unresolved issues as late as 2023. The landlord’s approach did not reflect the same level of support that it offered the resident in making a liability insurance claim or when it arranged for the storage and removals.
Based on the above, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her personal possessions. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where the landlord’s errors were of a short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s compensation offer made after its final response and assessed it using our remedies guidance (as referenced above) to determine if it was enough to put things right, later in the report.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman notes initial shortcomings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s June 2021 complaint about delays in her liability insurance claim. The landlord initially told the resident that its quality team was considering the complaint, then apologised, saying this was incorrect. It then logged it as a new complaint, before later determining that it did not qualify as a complaint. These inconsistent and contradictory responses would have caused the resident unnecessary confusion and frustration about the status of her concerns. However, the landlord was entitled to decline to investigate the complaint after reviewing it, since its policy excludes insurance claims from its complaint process.
In its February 2023 stage 2 response, the landlord said it could not consider matters relating to the June 2021 complaint as the resident had not requested an appeal, and over 12 months had elapsed since the landlord’s decision. The resident considered this unfair as the landlord had not provided information about its complaints procedure or the Ombudsman in its July 2021 response. As there is no evidence that the resident contested the outcome at the time, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider this aspect of the complaint. However, it should have included signposting information in all complaint responses, including rejections, to ensure transparency and enable residents to understand their options.
On 16 September 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint specifically about temporary accommodation-related compensation. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not issue a formal response to this complaint. This was a failure to follow both its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code. This failure would have heightened the resident’s frustration and caused unnecessary delays in responding to her requests.
In November 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s lack of response to communication, standard of care, duties under the Defective Premises Act, and distress caused by the temporary accommodation. The landlord logged this complaint on 4 November 2022 and responded after 11 working days, 1 day beyond its policy timescale. This was reasonable.
In its response, the landlord recommended that the resident contact the developer about compensation for damaged personal possessions, as the developer was liable. However, it did not address the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s standard of care or her request for compensation relating to distress, inconvenience, and increased expenses from the extended time living in temporary accommodation. This partial response was a failure to follow the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code, likely causing the resident to feel ignored and prompting her escalation on 16 December 2022.
The landlord did not log the escalation until 9 January 2023. The landlord did not explain the reason for this or any subsequent delay to the resident. It is understandable that the lack of communication would have increased the resident’s frustration.
The landlord’s stage 2 response on 6 February 2023 again did not address all points raised, notably the request for temporary accommodation compensation, which would have been the landlord’s liability under its compensation policy and was not covered by the liability insurance claim. This represented a further failure to follow its complaints policy and Code requirements and further added to the resident’s frustrations.
In June 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s subsequent complaint about the damage to her possessions caused by the leak, 8 working days after she made it. The landlord requested a 10 working day extension on 14 June 2023 due to the complexity of the matter, as the resident had also made a disrepair claim. The landlord issued its response on 28 July 2023, 39 working days after first acknowledging the complaint. In its response, the landlord declined to investigate the matter on the basis that it had considered it in previous complaint responses. The delays leading to this decision would have added to the resident’s frustration. However, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy in making its final decision, which says that complaints about matters which have already been through its process will not be accepted as a new complaint.
Based on these failures, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s compensation offer made after its final response and assessed it using our remedies guidance to determine if it was enough to put things right.

The landlord’s offer of redress after its internal complaints procedure

The landlord did not make an offer of compensation until 6 months after its final complaint response, meaning this Service does not consider it part of the formal complaints process. The Ombudsman expects landlords to identify and address failings promptly through their complaints procedure rather than requiring residents to escalate matters to this Service before offering compensation. The lateness of the offer significantly impacted its effectiveness in putting things right for the resident.
When assessing the offer made, we have referred to our remedies guidance (as referenced above) and our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, learn from outcomes. In doing so, the Ombudsman finds that in addition to the orders made in this report for the rent refund and reimbursement for the out-of-pocket expenses, the landlord’s offer of compensation is sufficient to put things right for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the £500 that it previously offered, unless this has already been paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to her possessions following a leak at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of unsuitable temporary accommodation and an associated rent refund.
2. Associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £900, which consists of the following. The landlord may deduct any amounts already paid for these specific matters:
1. £400 for increased laundry expenses incurred while in temporary accommodation from August 2020 to July 2021. If the resident can evidence that her actual expenses exceeded this amount within 2 weeks of the landlord’s request, the landlord must reimburse the additional costs.
2. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report, as it offered in August 2023.
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must refund the resident the difference between its 2-bedroom and 4-bedroom social housing rent rates from when she first moved into self-contained temporary accommodation until she returned to her main property.

Recommendations

The landlord should review the information it provides to residents about its complaints policy and procedures when declining to investigate complaints, to ensure a fair and transparent approach to complaint handling.