We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Newlon Housing Trust (202344680)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344680

Newlon Housing Trust

31 July 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:
    1. The resident’s request for information on how the service charges are calculated and apportioned.
    2. The resident’s concerns about the compensation offered.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a 1-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 October 2023 to make a complaint. He said that he had attempted to contact it on multiple occasions going back to May 2023 asking it for receipts. This was further to his request to look into the service charges the landlord was charging him. The resident said the landlord had not sent invoices to him, but instead merely provided him with spreadsheets.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 December 2023. It awarded compensation of £100, which was made up of £50 for the delayed acknowledgement of his complaint and £50 for time and trouble. The landlord said:
    1. It understood the resident’s complaint related to a breakdown of the service charge costs following the increase applied to them in April 2023. This was in line with section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
    2. It accepted that he had been required to follow up on matters highlighted in his emails on several occasions, which were not addressed correctly by it. The landlord acknowledged this as a service failure.
    3. It had liaised with its service charge department and assured the resident he would be contacted and provided with a response within 4 working days. It would oversee this to ensure he received a clear response.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 5 January 2024, saying that:
    1. He had raised the enquiry a number of months earlier. Despite this, and a number of conversations with the landlord going back to May 2023 questioning the charges, it had still not provided him with evidence to support them.
    2. The landlord had previously informed him that the accounts for the year ending in March 2023 would be completed by September 2023. However, he had still not been provided with the information.
    3. The amount offered for inconvenience was inadequate for the time he had spent discussing the matter with the landlord. He requested it revised the offer it was making.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 February 2024. It offered the resident increased compensation of £250, which included the £100 offered at stage 1. It said:
    1. Having looked at the matter, it agreed the stage 1 response did not recognise the significant time which had elapsed since the resident initially requested the information from it. It noted the service charge team replied to the resident’s email of May 2023 outside of its normal timescales, and it failed to tell him when he could expect to the receive the outstanding information. It offered £100 compensation for the poor service and inconvenience.
    2. It had contacted the service charge team and was informed that it was liaising with another department before it would be in a position to respond to the resident’s queries. It understood that department was facing delays, which meant he had not yet received the information. However, it accepted the resident was not adequately informed of this, nor was he contacted within 4 days as set out in the stage 1 response. The landlord offered £25 compensation for this failure. It also set out that it had requested the service charge manager to contact the resident and provide a date by which it would provide him the requested information.
    3. There was also a delay in the landlord providing the resident with the stage 2 acknowledgement email. It offered £25 compensation for this.

Events since the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process

  1. The resident subsequently referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. In his email of 28 February 2024, he said:
    1. He was encountering difficulties with obtaining information on the cost of alleged works set out in the service charges.
    2. He did not think the landlord was keeping proper records of accounts.
  2. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2024. This followed a call from the service charge team to him on the previous day. The resident asked a number of questions which followed on from the telephone conversation. The landlord said during the call that it could send the resident printed invoices and that there would be an administration charge levied for this. The resident enquired as to the cost of this.
  3. On 13 March 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the administration charge to print 400 invoices would be 10p per sheet and that it would await him agreeing before it would proceed. This was chased by it on 2 further occasions up to 18 April 2024.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 May 2024. He said he was still awaiting a response from it to the questions he had asked in his email of 7 March 2024. He also agreed to the administrative costs of £40 and asked the landlord to deduct this from the compensation it had offered him.
  5. The landlord replied to the resident on 14 May 2024 providing a response to his questions from 7 March 2024. This included confirmation that repairs carried out to a wall were not up to standard, and that the charge for this would be reversed and would show up in the accounts for the years ending on 31 March 2024. It confirmed that it would post him the invoices, and it would waive the administrative costs as it was unable to take the £40 from the compensation as it had already been paid.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has continued to communicate with the landlord since the end of the complaints process. He has also made a number of further complaints to the landlord, some of which have completed the landlord’s complaints process and others which have not yet done so. In the interests of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint of 30 October 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The resident may refer any new complaints to us for separate investigation if he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
  2. As part of his complaint, the resident raised issues related to the level of service charge. Paragraph 42.d of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint that concerns the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This investigation will therefore not consider this. We will, however, consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about how the service charges were calculated and apportioned.
  3. Complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge may be best suited to be considered by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which can establish whether variable as opposed to fixed service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident’s tenancy agreement should set out the nature of the service charges which he is liable for. The resident may wish to visit the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) website for further advice on this matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information on how the service charges are calculated and apportioned

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies our Dispute Resolution Principles. There are 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The resident contributes towards the landlord’s costs, broadly maintenance, management, and repair, through annual service charges. The lease agreement shows the parties agree to comply with the provisions contained in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of the charges.
  4. The landlord’s complaint procedure sets out the criteria under which a complaint can be made and the process that the landlord will follow for this. It sets out that if a complaint is made about service charges, these are managed differently to the normal complaint process. The procedure explains that queries about service charges will be reviewed internally with an aim to respond to the resident within 28 days. This is due to third parties often being involved. The procedure adds that once this is done, if the resident remains dissatisfied then the matter will be handled as a formal complaint.
  5. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 February 2023 with its notification of the service charges for the forthcoming year (from 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024). This document set out that the service charge for the resident was £179.19 per month.
  6. The resident said that he emailed the landlord in May 2023 over the service charge. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the resident’s initial email to it. The resident referred in further correspondence to the initial email being sent on 2 May 2023. The landlord replied on 4 May 2023 to explain that it had passed the resident’s query over to its service charge team to respond. This was appropriate and in keeping with the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord also advised in its correspondence that the resident’s arrears were in excess of £2,000 and it asked him to pay an increased amount, which it set at £20 per month, to pay towards the arrears. It added that if it could not reach a payment agreement with him it might need to escalate the matter.
  7. The resident replied to the landlord on 4 May 2023 explaining that while it had provided him with details of the arrears to him, it had failed to provide him receipts which he was asking for. It is not clear how long the resident had been requesting the information from the landlord. The resident referred to some of the services which were listed as being covered under the service charge and questioned the discrepancy in what he was told about these previously. It is not clear who the resident spoke to and who had responded to him with the information he was now questioning. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to say for certain whether the landlord provided him with misleading information, as while we do not underestimate the resident’s concerns, our findings must be based on documentary evidence.
  8. The resident’s email to the landlord on 4 May 2023 set out that he believed it was ignoring leaseholders’ requests for the receipts of work undertaken by it in relation to the service charge. He added that he understood the landlord’s end of year accounts were finalised in September, and he would then be able to see the original receipts for the cost of works for the year 2022 to 2023. This was in keeping with section 22 of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985, which set out it had a statutory responsibility to provide the information requested by the resident for the last accounting year within one month. The resident’s communication also asked for the receipts from 2017.
  9. The landlord has provided no evidence that it responded to the resident’s request until 12 July 2023, over 2 months later. This was not in keeping with the approach set out for initial service charge enquires under its complaints procedure. This was not appropriate, and was a failing by it.
  10. The landlord’s email of 12 July 2023 did apologise for the lack of response, and explained that some emails into its service charge mailbox had been missed. The landlord confirmed that it could provide the information the resident was asking for and offered him the option to come to its offices to view the invoices. The landlord explained this was because the invoices were stored electronically. This was initially appropriate.
  11. However, the landlord’s email set out that given the large number of transactions for each service element on the statement of accounts, time constraints would mean he could only look at a limited number during his visit and this would be electronically. While the resident (rather than it) would choose the list of invoices he wanted to inspect – presumably to prevent any accusation of bias – the offer of a single time–constrained visit was not reasonable. The landlord missed an opportunity to try to alleviate any continued concerns from the resident by offering further visits if needed.
  12. The landlord added that the resident could go back to 2019 for the invoices, as this was when its Head of Service Charges was appointed. It said it could not be responsible for invoices and statements prepared prior to this date. This is concerning, as the landlord was responsible for service charges regardless of changes to personnel. Nevertheless, the landlord said it would send the resident a spreadsheet with the data on it for him to look at in the interim. This was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was trying to find a solution-based resolution to the resident’s concerns.
  13. The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 13 July 2023. This was presumably in response to an email or other communication from the resident. The landlord has not provided this Service with a record of the resident’s contact. Clear record keeping is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not always been the case here. These recording failures amount to a failing on the part of the landlord.
  14. The landlord’s response on 13 July 2023 noted that the resident had requested invoices going back to 2015, which it said it was unable to provide. It told him that it was prepared to go back to 2019 and that it would set this in progress. The landlord’s email added that it would forward some of the resident’s questions, including the issue of value for money, to its procurement team. It reminded the resident it had 6 months to prepare and sent annual accounts for variable service charges to residents. This was appropriate to set realistic expectations, and put the resident on alert that the annual accounts for 2022 to 2023 would be issued by 30 September 2023.
  15. The resident said in his escalation request in January 2024 that the landlord had yet to provide him the finalised accounts for the year ending 31 March 2023. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of a letter issued to the resident on 28 September 2023, in which it enclosed the service charge statement for the year that had been finalised. The landlord’s letter included a document setting out the resident’s summary of rights and obligations. The landlord therefore appeared to have provided the statement to the resident within the timeframe it previously informed him that it would. This was reasonable.  
  16. The resident said that he received the spreadsheet from the landlord containing the transactions, and he sent it a number of questions about some of the costs and what they referred to. He added that he did not receive a large amount of paper invoices from the landlord until 2024. The landlord’s records show that it attempted to respond to the resident’s initial queries over various aspects and charges, and that this often led it to make enquiries with different teams and areas and so delayed the responses to the resident. While this may have been unavoidable, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to maintain effective communication with the resident around this.
  17. While the resident says he was not provided with the actual invoices, the landlord’s email of 12 July 2023 from its service charge team set out that it was waiting for the resident to let it know how he wanted to progress. This was in response to its invitation to come to its offices and inspect the invoices. Although the landlord attempted to respond to the resident’s questions, it missed an opportunity to remind the resident of the option for him to inspect the invoices and that it was awaiting his response to the matter. This issue was not picked up until after the landlord had issued its s complaint response, in March 2024 following a telephone conversation between the parties. This was a failing by it.   
  18. Although the landlord did eventually provide the resident with a copy of the invoices, this was not until after May 2024, which was a year after the resident initially made the request. While some of the delays were due to the landlord waiting for the resident to inform it how he wanted to proceed, and the accounts for the year 2022 to 2023 not being finalised until 30 September 2023, it is not apparent that all of the invoices related to this year and not to earlier years as the resident initially requested. This was a significant delay for information that should have been provided within 1 month.
  19. The landlord’s records show there were a several periods during which it failed to communicate with the resident. This was unreasonable and evidence of poor communication. The landlord should have responded to the resident. If it was unable to meet its deadline, it should have explained this to the resident and provided a timescale of when it would be able to provide the information he had requested. The resident said he was initially provided with a spreadsheet from the landlord which detailed the transactions pertaining to the service charge. The landlord should have provided accurate data to the resident about his service charge in a format that would have allowed him to examine its records as per his section 22 request. The Ombudsman understands that being provided with inaccurate and/or unusable information would have exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident at that time.
  20. The landlord said that some of the continued delay in responding to the resident was due to the large number of queries the service charge team received at that time. This indicates poor handling of the landlord’s systems in handling its service charge information and/or resourcing issues. The Ombudsman would expect landlords to have sufficient members of staff, as well as effective systems in place in order to handle the amount of information it receives. It should be able to carry out its functions in a timely manner in line with industry best practice, and in accordance with the law.
  21. For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information on how the service charges are calculated and apportioned. This is due to the significant delays, and its poor level of communication. While the landlord offered compensation of £250 at stage 2, we consider this award did not reflect the number and nature of its failings.
  22. The Ombudsman has made an award of £600 for the landlord’s failings. This in in line with this Service’s remedies guidance where there were a number of failings, and although the landlord made some attempt to put matters right, the offer was not proportionate to its failings. Our award is also in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy for circumstances where there were considerable service failures which resulted in a resident having to repeatedly chase responses and being passed between different members of the landlord’s staff.
  23. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s stage 1 response contained an offer of compensation which was for its complaint handling. The resident did not raise the specific issue of the landlord’s complaint handling as part of his referral to us. The landlord offered £50 on 6 December 2023. Its offer is considered proportionate to put things right, and had this Service assessed complaint handling separately, we would have found reasonable redress. The decision has therefore been made to address this aspect as part of the substantive issue.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the compensation offered

  1. The resident raised concerns about the compensation the landlord offered him, which was not limited to this complaint. He provided evidence to the Ombudsman of it offering him various amounts for issues which he had raised with it, and felt that it had become unclear what amount related to which complaint and whether or not the compensation had been paid to him. He also said the landlord had offered different methods of paying the compensation to him, which included payment via cheque. The Ombudsman understands from the resident that he has not provided the landlord with his banking details and that the service charge is paid via a standing order.
  2. Although the resident has provided formal responses and emails offering compensation related to a number of other complaints, this investigation is limited to the complaint which he made in October 2023 and for which he received the stage 2 response on 2 February 2024. Therefore, this Service is unable to investigate the other offers of compensation and how and when these were paid. However, the Ombudsman has made a recommendation which is set out at the end of this report on this matter.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says that payments over £50 should be paid to the resident’s bank account, and that to do this it requires a copy of the resident’s sort code and account number from a statement or a payment slip. It notes that this is unless the resident has “explicitly stated that they do not have a bank account and given written instructions as to who the payment should be made”.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy also says, “where the resident has any arrears in accordance with the recharge policy the compensation payment will be offset against the outstanding debt”.
  5. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the resident’s service charge statement for the period from 1 May 2023 to 1 May 2025. This statement, which is addressed to the resident, showed the account to be in arrears of £2,234,17 as of 1 May 2023. The service charge was noted to be £179.19 per month initially and the resident was making a monthly standing order of £100, which were later reduced to £80 from the end of April 2024. This meant that the arrears were increasing every month. The statement shows a credit of £250 which was added to the account on 28 March 2024. There were further amounts added of £200 and £250 on 8 April 2024 and 19 April 2024, although a debit of £200 was noted on 17 October 2024.
  6. Although the statement does not provide any description of what each of these credits were for, the timing of the first one at the end of March 2024 ties in with the landlord having confirmed to the resident that the compensation of £250 offered at stage 2 had been paid by it. While the landlord missed an opportunity by confirming to the resident in writing how it had made the payment, it did follow its compensation procedure as the resident’s service charge account was arrears. For this reason a finding of no maladministration has been made.  

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information on how the service charges are calculated and apportioned.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within the next 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £600 for its failings in its handling of his request for information on how the service charges are calculated and apportioned. If the landlord has already made a payment to the resident for this aspect, it can deduct the amount paid from the £600. 
  2. Within the next 8 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Carry out a review of this complaint looking at why the failings identified by this investigation occurred in respect of the significant delays in providing information regarding service charge, which it is required to provide in one month by law.
    2. Produce a report following the review which it is to share with the Ombudsman, setting out:
      1. Its findings and learning from the review.
      2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to see if he has any other concerns about the compensation it has offered on his other complaints. It should address his concerns in line with its policies and any contact arrangements or restrictions which it may have in place.