Newlon Housing Trust (202403577)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403577

Newlon Housing Trust

11 June 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 adherence to the roadmap for fire safety remediation that it provided to the resident.

Background

2.             The resident has been a shared owner of the property, a 2-bedroom second–floor flat, since December 2010. The building is 15.8 meters in height (6 storeys). The landlord is a housing association.

3.             The resident previously complained to the Ombudsman about the landlord in June 2021 (our reference 202107310). Upon completion of our investigation, we ordered the landlord to produce a roadmap with timescales for completion of the steps required to obtain an EWS1 form. This form is a way of informing lenders and valuers that the external wall system of a building has been assessed for fire safety by a suitable expert. The landlord produced the roadmap and sent it to the resident on 18 May 2023. It highlighted that the timeframes in its roadmap were indicative and related only to the works that it currently knew of. It said that the dates were liable to change upon completion of the Fire Risk Assessment of the External Walls (FRAEW) and any subsequent works that were recommended as a result. The roadmap outlined the following estimated dates:

1. Undertake intrusive FRAEW assessment – between 26 June and 26 July 2023.
2. Release EWS1 form to residents – 27 July 2023.
3. Conduct assessment and produce strategy to fulfill any recommendations from the FRAEW – between July and October 2023.
4. Formalise and agree contract with chosen contractor – between November and December 2023.
5. Carry out remedial works – starting April 2024.
6. Issue revised EWS1 – date dependent on works specified.

4.             On 13 March 2024, the resident complained to the landlord. He said it had failed to implement its roadmap for his building as set out in May 2023. As a remedy he said he expected the actions required for remediation to go ahead in April 2024 and to be completed quickly. If this could not happen, he wanted compensation to cover the 17 months he had been required to live separately from his family (who had moved abroad). Alternatively, he asked for the landlord to agree to reverse staircase the property, giving him the remaining shares without charge.

5.             The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 April 2024. It said:

1. Works required to reduce overall “life safety risks” had been identified in the FRAEW.
2. It was intending to apply for government funding to pay for the remediation works on behalf of residents, and was working with a consultant to administer the process and determine next steps. The consultant would produce a scope of works and a high level estimate to support the funding application. It expected this process to take 3 months. Once completed it would provide monthly updates.
3. It did not reverse staircase its properties, as outlined on its website. It quoted: “Some residents have asked if we can buy back their home or their share, but we are not able to do this. Not only is this a national issue over which we have no control but we are already incurring significant extra costs for fire safety works, investigations, and additional short term safety measures such as patrolling fire wardens, which we have not passed back to residents.”
4. It was working with residents and leaseholders to ensure that they were not met with high costs for the works.
5. It had provided the resident with an explanation for the delays in October 2023. However, it confirmed the remedial works remained outstanding.
6. It acknowledged that the resident had said he was having to live away from his family. In 2019 he had enquired about permission for flat sitting. At the time it had informed him that shared owners were not permitted to sublet except in exceptional circumstances. It had not received any further enquiries from him on this point.
7. As it was unable to determine if he had lived apart from his family, it was unable to pay compensation on this point. It advised he could submit further details on this if he wished.
8. It partially upheld the complaint because of the additional work identified. It offered £125 compensation comprised of:
   1. £25 for its delay in issuing a stage 1 response.
   2. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident while waiting for it to complete the funding application.

6.             The resident escalated his complaint on 23 April 2024. He said:

1. The landlord had advised it was applying for funding on behalf of residents. As far as he was concerned, residents were not liable for remediation.
2. The landlord had informed him of delays (in the steps to being able to begin remediation) in October 2023. However, it was now stating the work remained outstanding.
3. He found it offensive that the landlord had suggested he had been living with his family throughout the period of the fire safety issues.
4. He was not happy with the landlord’s offer of compensation and repeated the outcomes he had requested before.

7.             The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 May 2023. It stated that it had reviewed its stage 1 response and found it to be fair. However, it acknowledged the resident had raised further queries about comments made within the response. In reply to those queries, it said:

1. It had not said residents were liable for the cost of remediation. It meant that it was doing all it could to prevent residents from being impacted by any additional costs that may arise if it did not apply for the funding.
2. It had confirmed the remedial works were outstanding and provided the reasons for this.
3. It had not meant to cause offence or imply that the resident was being untruthful about his living situation. It was trying to establish if there was additional supporting evidence around the flat sitting enquiry that it may not have recorded.
4. It would consider subletting in exceptional circumstances, which the resident may wish to consider. It provided the link to its website with further information.
5. It did not uphold the complaint. However, it acknowledged the resident was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded at stage 1 and revised its award to £300. This was comprised of:
   1. The £125 offered at stage 1.
   2. £175 in recognition of the further impact and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the funding application.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

8.             In the resident’s contact with us, he has indicated that the landlord’s actions, or lack of actions, have prevented him from selling his property. He has further indicated that this has resulted in him having to live separately from his family who now reside in a different country. As a result, he asked this Service to request that the landlord reverse staircase his property. We do not underestimate the difficulties involved for the resident and his family. However, it is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to order the landlord to reverse staircase his property, or to prioritise him over other shared owners who may be in a similar or greater need. This investigation will consider the impact of any delays and the inconvenience, distress or frustration that may have been caused as a result.

9.             As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord to provide its communications with its contractors and fire safety engineers. This was to allow us to assess the actions it was taking to progress the roadmap. In its response the landlord advised that to establish liability it was involved in an ongoing legal process. It said that the communications we had requested as well as the reports prepared were legally privileged and could not be disclosed. However, we have been provided with sufficient information to assess the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s adherence to the roadmap

10.        The government’s expectations in relation to cladding and fire safety are only detailed in guidance. This means there is an element of discretion for a landlord as to how and when it chooses to comply with the guidance.

11.        When investigating a complaint relating to the government’s guidance on fire safety and cladding, the Ombudsman will consider the following points:

1. The landlord’s long-term plans for compliance with the guidance and whether these were fair and reasonable.
2. How it communicated with shared owners/leaseholders regarding the situation and whether this communication was appropriate.
3. How it responded to the individual circumstances of the leaseholder.

12.        Following the introduction of the EWS1 form in 2019, the government issued updated guidance in January 2020 in ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance states “for the avoidance of doubt, building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents and not await further advice or information to act”. Paragraph 1.5 of the guidance notes that “the need to assess and manage the risk of external fire spread applies to buildings of any height”.

13.        The Building Safety Act 2022 introduced further secondary legislation to protect leaseholders. Under this legislation, qualifying leaseholders were protected from the costs associated with the remediation of historical fire safety defects. Part of the protections was the introduction of landlord safety certificates. These were designed to assist with the sale of properties in the absence of an EWS1 form. The certificates could be provided to lenders and potential purchasers and confirm that the resident (and any potential purchaser) was a qualifying leaseholder and therefore protected from the costs mentioned above.

14.        In December 2024 (after some of the events of this investigation) the government published its ‘Remediation Acceleration Action Plan’. This included a requirement for buildings of 11+ meters but under 18 meters with unsafe cladding to have either been remediated or have a date for completion by the end of 2029.

15.        In the roadmap provided to the resident on 18 May 2023, the landlord indicated that it would conduct the FRAEW by 26 July 2023. On 7 July 2023 it wrote a letter to all residents confirming its commitment to begin the FRAEW process. It highlighted the challenges in contracting competent engineers due to the nationwide demand. The landlord’s communication to the residents was fair and informative.

16.        The landlord completed the FRAEW on 31 July 2023, just over 3 working days outside the original timescale. As the landlord had personally communicated with the resident about the roadmap, it would have been good practice for it to have updated him personally in writing when it became aware that it was going to slightly exceed the indicative timescale. However, as the length of the delay was less than a week, any impact would have been minimal.

17.        The landlord updated the resident in writing on 10 October 2023. It said that it had received the first draft of the FRAEW, which was being reviewed by its fire risk assessors. It was hoping that the review would be completed and any additional information considered within the following week. It advised that the initial expectations from the report indicated that remediation works to the building would be required. The landlord then outlined the next steps regarding completion of the FRAEW, funding applications and the preparation of the scope of works. It said it hoped to start work on site in October 2024. However, it again highlighted that timelines were subject to change. The landlord’s personal update to the resident was reasonable. It did not indicate that it would contact the resident again personally, but rather that it would update all residents when the FRAEW report was complete, which again was reasonable.

18.        The landlord provided an update to residents on 23 October 2023. It advised that the FRAEW had been completed and it was in the process of reviewing the findings. It then wrote to residents again on 1 December 2023 stating that areas of the FRAEW had been inconclusive, which required further physical inspections to take place on 11 December 2023. In the landlord’s all resident newsletter on 3 March 2024 it said it had identified further areas of investigation surrounding the composition and flammability for the cladding and soffits. We understand the frustration these delays caused to the resident. However, the landlord’s communication was reasonable. It highlighted actions it had taken and what the result of those actions had been alongside the future impact. While not taking away from the delay and frustration experienced by the resident, the communication had sufficient detail to provide ongoing reassurance that progress was being made.

19.        On 9 April 2024, the landlord sent a further newsletter to residents. It highlighted that it was progressing the recommendations of the FRAEW and that it was applying for grant funding to assist with the remediation. The landlord explained that it was working with its architects and fire engineers to produce a scope of works. It acknowledged the frustration faced by residents, and explained that it could not provide specific timescales but would continue to provide updates. We recognise the process of achieving compliance with the government guidance is complicated and requires input from experts and third parties. This, combined with the shortages of professionals as reported by the landlord, was somewhat out of its control. In this situation we would expect landlords to maintain communication and dialogue, which the landlord did.

20.        In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 22 April 2024, it provided further information to the resident on the actions it had taken in relation to the roadmap and referred him to its earlier email on 10 October 2023. It also addressed the resident’s request regarding the reverse staircasing of his property, which was in line with its policy and therefore reasonable.

21.        On 26 April 2024, the landlord issued a newsletter to all residents. It advised that it had conducted the FRAEW and concluded that if it applied for an EWS1 form it would receive a B2 rating. (This means a fire safety expert has deemed the external wall system to need remedial work to make it safe. A B2 rating could affect mortgage applications.) It would not therefore request an EWS1 form until remediation had been completed. It went on to advise that it could provide residents with a landlord certificate to facilitate the selling process. It directed residents to its website for further information and provided an email address for additional queries. The landlord’s communication delivered clarity on the outcomes of the FRAEW and the resident’s options in line with the leaseholder protection legislation.

22.        The resident advised that lenders were not accepting landlord certificates and pursued the landlord for information on associated successful sales. Landlord certificates were introduced by government to assist with the selling process. We can see why the resident would be frustrated if lenders were refusing to accept such certificates, especially given the impact this was having on his family. However, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the actions of valuers or lenders in the selling process.

23.        In addition, the landlord has advised that it will only discuss subletting properties in exceptional circumstances. In the resident’s case it stated that it was willing to consider subletting and made this clear to him in its stage 2 complaint response. This shows the landlord’s willingness to consider the resident’s individual circumstances. However, the resident informed this Service that the landlord’s terms for subletting were not workable for him. On this point, we have not seen any documentary evidence of these terms from either party. We have therefore made a recommendation for the rental terms to be documented and provided to the resident to ensure there is clarity on the landlord’s offer.

24.        The landlord provided further updates to all residents on 14 June 2024, 9 August 2024, 8 November 2024, 30 January 2025, and 29 April 2025. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on dealing with cladding complaints states that landlords must ensure that they are proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every 3 months. This applies even where there is little or no change. The landlord’s communication from the point where it issued its roadmap in May 2023 indicates that it has complied with this requirement and continues to do so.

25.        We do not dispute that the landlord has not complied with the initial timeline that it set out. However, from the outset it said that the dates were indicative. Throughout the period of the complaint, it communicated regularly with residents, providing relevant information that demonstrates continual progress toward remediation of the building. In its most recent communication, the landlord acknowledged that the process had taken longer than expected but explained that the actions were necessary and crucial to achieve a higher standard of safety and lower insurance premiums in the future. Further, it is also within the timeframes for completion that the government has indicated in its most recent guidance. It also offered the resident appropriate compensation associated with the delays and acknowledged the resulting frustration caused. Taking all the circumstances into consideration, we have made a finding of reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s adherence to the roadmap it produced in May 2023. This is because we consider it acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns and issues it encountered, and offered proportionate redress for failures and/or impacts that it identified.

26.        Had we investigated the landlord’s complaint handling separately, we would have made a further finding of reasonable redress. We have therefore taken the decision to consider this as part of the substantive issue. We find the £25 offered by the landlord for its delayed stage 1 complaint response was adequate, as it was in line with its policy for an isolated failure to meet its published timescales. This amount should now be paid in addition to the £275 offered for the impact and inconvenience associated with the delayed funding application.

Determination

27.        In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s adherence to the roadmap for fire safety remediation that it provided to the resident.

Recommendations

28.        If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £300 it offered in response to the resident’s complaint as this was a factor in our finding of reasonable redress.

29.        The landlord should produce comprehensive and clear written terms outlining its offer for the resident to sublet his property. A copy should be provided to the resident and this Service.