From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Newlon Housing Trust (202331591)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331591

Newlon Housing Trust

1 September 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property from a neighbouring property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 4 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported a leak coming from the neighbouring flat. The fire service attended on the same day and isolated the water supply.
  3. On 5 April 2023, the landlord attended the resident’s property and provided the resident with floodlights and a dehumidifier to help dry out his property.
  4. On 20 April 2023, the landlord’s surveyor visited the resident’s property and assessed the damage following the leak.
  5. On the same day, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. He stated he contacted the landlord several times at the start of April 2023 about the leak impacting his property. However, the resident stated he was still waiting for his lights to be reinstated and the damage from the leak to be repaired. He also explained on multiple occasions he requested an insurance form for his loss of earnings and compensation for damaged items.
  6. The landlord provided it stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 26 May 2023. It explained 2 surveyor inspections had already taken place following the leak. However, the landlord confirmed it planned to arrange a final inspection to confirm the required repairs. It stated it was sorry to hear that some of the resident’s personal items were damaged and stated the resident would be expected to claim on his own contents insurance policy if he had one. The landlord offered the resident £320 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the outstanding remedial repairs.
  7. On 2 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and requested his complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. He stated the landlord’s compensation offer was not sufficient to recognise the inconvenience caused. The resident also explained he wanted confirmation that the remedial works will be completed in a specific timeframe.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 August 2023. It explained following an inspection, works were recommended for a mould wash, stain block, anti mould treatment and decoration. The landlord stated its contractor attended the resident’s property to complete these works but could not gain access. It explained if the resident provided a copy of his utility bills for the relevant period it could review these to identify any increased usage from running the dehumidifier. The landlord offered the resident £180 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the outstanding repairs. This was in addition to the £320 the landlord offered in its stage 1 complaint response.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted his complaint to the Ombudsman. He stated he wanted additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property including, internal walls, water pipes and waste pipes.
  2. In addition, the landlord’s repairs policy explains that it will respond to an emergency repair within 24 hours and a routine repair within 20 working days.
  3. On 4 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and reported a leak coming from the neighbouring flat. The fire service attended on the same day and isolated the water to stop the leak. In addition, the landlord took appropriate steps by attending the resident’s property the following day and providing him with flood lights and a dehumidifier.
  4. The landlord’s surveyor visited his property on 11 April 2023 and completed a visual inspection of the areas impacted by the leak. The resident raised concerns that the surveyor did not use any diagnostic equipment as part of the inspection. We acknowledge the resident’s concerns, however the landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its qualified surveyor concerning the works needed to resolve the damage from the leak and how to investigate this. We have not seen any evidence to show the surveyor’s opinion was incorrect or that the landlord should have taken a different approach.
  5. Following the inspection, the landlord took appropriate steps by raising a work order for ceiling works. In addition, the landlord’s surveyor also completed a further inspection at the resident’s property on 20 April 2023. The inspection confirmed the leak had been resolved and the surveyor recommended an inspection of the plasterboard. The surveyor also inspected the laminate flooring as the resident requested it to be replaced due to the damage from the leak. The surveyor confirmed the laminate flooring did not require replacement. The landlord acted reasonably by completing a further inspection to assess the flooring and confirm the necessary works. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response it would not replace the laminate floor as there was minimal damage. This was reasonable as the landlord’s surveyor assessed the floor damage and confirmed the floor did not require replacing.
  6. It was also appropriate for the landlord to send the resident a vulnerability assessment form in response to the resident stating he was diabetic and required additional support. This was a positive step by the landlord.
  7. The resident also raised concerns that some of his personal items were damaged from the leak. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident would be expected to claim on his own contents insurance policy if he had one. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been difficult for the resident dealing with his belongings being damaged. However, in this case, the landlord considered the resident’s request and provided a reasonable response. The landlord would only be responsible for reimbursing the resident for his damaged possessions if there was sufficient evidence to confirm the landlord was directly responsible for his possessions being damaged through its action or inaction. In this case, it was identified the leak came from a neighbouring property and the landlord stopped the leak within a reasonable timescale, in line with its repairs policy. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident’s belongings were damaged due to a failure by the landlord. In this context, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to claim on his contents insurance policy if he had one.
  8. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that the remedial works to resolve the damage from the leak were outstanding. In addition, it acknowledged the resident previously had to use a dehumidifier to dry out the property. To recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, the landlord offered the resident £320 compensation. The amount of compensation offered was sufficient to recognise the inconvenience and running of the dehumidifier. However, it should have also offered to consider the additional costs of running the dehumidifier. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response, which was reasonable to correct this error.
  9. Following the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord raised a work order to clean and grout the bathroom tiles, carry out mould treatment, stain block and decorate. The landlord contacted the resident several times to arrange an appointment to complete these works. However, initially the resident declined the works and after this there was no response. The Ombudsman recognises this part of the delay would have been outside the landlord’s control.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in August 2023. It explained its contractor had attempted to gain access to the resident’s property to complete the necessary remedial works. However, it confirmed it would follow up with the contractor. There can be legitimate reasons why residents may be unable to grant access for repairs, and we are not questioning the resident’s reasons for this. However, the landlord was not responsible for any delays caused by access issues. It was reasonable for it to follow up with the contractor to rebook the repairs.
  11. The landlord also offered the resident £180 compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the outstanding repairs. This was in addition to the £320 the landlord offered in its stage 1 complaint response. The overall compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable and sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact.
  12. Shortly after the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it contacted the resident to arrange an appointment to complete the remedial works to resolve the leak damage. However, the resident responded and requested a Saturday appointment. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s request and booked a Saturday appointment. This was a positive step by the landlord, as landlords are not obligated to arrange works on the weekend.
  13. The landlord’s contractor carried out painting works at the resident’s property in October 2023. However, it failed to complete the grout, and sealant works due to a miscommunication about the required remedial works. This was unreasonable and delayed the completion of the works. The remaining works including the grout and sealant works were eventually completed in March 2024. We have considered this when looking at compensation, but we have concluded that the landlord’s offer of £500 remains reasonable, taking into account this additional delay.
  14. The resident has stated as part of his complaint, he is seeking compensation for loss of earnings. We acknowledge that the resident had to take time off work to attend repair appointments. However, the Ombudsman will not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse the resident for his loss of earnings. There is no evidence to suggest that the leak happened due to a failure by the landlord. In addition, a resident is required to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed as part of their tenancy, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to pay the resident reimbursement for loss of earnings due to this. However, the Ombudsman has considered time, trouble and inconvenience caused for the period the repairs were outstanding, and whether the landlord has offered a reasonable amount of compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused.
  15. The resident also requested a rent rebate as compensation. We recognise it would have been difficult for the resident living with the damage from the leak. However, we have not seen any evidence that the property was uninhabitable due to the leak. Generally speaking, a property would only be considered uninhabitable if it was unsafe to enter/stay in or if it lacked basic facilities for washing or sleeping. Therefore, we will not be awarding any additional compensation based on rent.
  16. Overall, the length of time it took the landlord to complete the remedial works was unreasonable. However, the compensation of £500 offered by the landlord to the resident, was sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay and distress and inconvenience on the resident, and it amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the concerns about the landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property from a neighbouring property.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord pays the resident its original offer of £500 compensation made during its complaint process, if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for this complaint is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.