Newlon Housing Trust (202400640)

Decision
Case ID	202400640
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Newlon Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 January 2026

Background

The resident reported subletting and reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring property to the landlord in March 2023. She told the landlord the subletters had installed a video doorbell in June 2023. The resident complained about the delays and lack of action from the landlord, and its lack of concern for the family’s safety.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s responses to the resident’s:
1. Reports of subletting at a neighbouring property.
2. Reports of ASB.
3. Reports of a video doorbell being installed at the neighbouring property.
4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of subletting.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB.
There was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of the installation of a video doorbell.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found the landlord:
1. responded reasonably on receipt of the subletting report, however it failed to manage the resident’s expectations or explain the process at an early stage. This led to her spending time and effort pursuing the landlord for progress.
2. did not always comply with its ASB policy, there was poor and delayed communication with the resident, and it did not manage her expectations from the beginning. The landlord acknowledged these service failures, identified learning, and offered compensation that was sufficient to put right the impact on the resident.
3. responded reasonably when told of the neighbour’s installation of the video doorbell but then delayed progress to remove it and only acted when pursued by the resident.
4. did not comply with the timescales from within its complaint policy and did not offer any redress.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 09 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £100 for the time, effort and likely distress caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of subletting. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in the removal of the video doorbell camera. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.	No later than 09 February 2026
3	Work order The landlord must review the handling of the complaint to determine why it took so long to progress the resident’s escalation request. The landlord must highlight what went wrong, identify learning to prevent a recurrence of such delays and provide us with a copy of the improvements to be made.	No later than 09 March 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £350 that was offered in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB is made on the basis this compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 June 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB she had reported. the ASB was getting worse, it was impacting the family’s health, they were at risk, and the landlord was not responding to her.
28 July 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it had given the resident regular updates, and she was aware of the action it was taking. the resident had to provide evidence to demonstrate the situation had worsened. it had told the resident to report crime to the police, not noise incidents. It apologised for any misunderstanding. it had written to the neighbours and asked for the video doorbell to be removed. It said it would pass the issue to its solicitors if they did not remove it. it did not uphold the complaint about its handling of ASB.
28 July 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: the ASB process was not realistic for her issues. the neighbours had not removed the video doorbell, and she was unhappy her movements were being tracked. the landlord’s response was over the 10 working day threshold.
7 February 2024	The landlord issued its final complaint response. It said: it had a process to follow, but there had been poor communication from the team to adequately respond to the resident’s concerns. it had failed to outline the process to manage her expectations. it acknowledged the resident’s frustration regarding the provision of evidence, but without it, it would be difficult to conclude the case. the camera was removed on 29 August 2023. the delay in the complaint response was due to IT issues and demand on the complaint team. it upheld the complaint as the initial response was insufficient in considering all the points raised. it had passed the investigation findings to the head of service to explore improvements in communication and displays of empathy. It was reviewing its internal processes to improve service provision. it was offering £325 for the impact and inconvenience caused to the resident, and £25 for delays in responding to an email.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she was unhappy with the landlord’s delayed responses, lack of action, and failure to review evidence. She said she moved to privately rented accommodation because of the ASB and moved back when the landlord took possession of the neighbouring property.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of subletting at a neighbouring property
Finding	Service failure

On 9 March 2023 the resident reported subletting at a neighbouring property to the landlord. The landlord opened a case the same day. This was reasonable, but there is no evidence to confirm what action the landlord took next or of any communication with the resident. This was a record keeping and communication failure by the landlord. It did not provide her with any information on the process or provide reassurance the landlord was investigating her report. This was not reasonable.
Between 17 and 25 April 2023, the resident spent time and trouble pursuing an update stating she felt unsafe. The landlord told her to contact the police if she felt in danger, but she said the police told her it was for the landlord to resolve. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord. This was a further communication failure.
The resident continued to ask the landlord for updates. On 1 June 2023 it said it was investigating the report but needed to gather evidence to go to the legal department. It advised it was not a fast process. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided more information and to have agreed a communication plan with the resident. This would have helped manage her expectations. There is no evidence it did this.
The landlord asked the local council’s fraud team for assistance with allegations the resident made on 8 June 2023 and informed her of this on 9 June 2023. It confirmed she did not need to provide any further evidence. Despite the resident’s further requests for updates, the landlord did not provide an update until 6 July 2023. It said the fraud team were still investigating the case and, until it received their findings and recommendations, it could not take any further action as it could compromise the investigation. While this might be the case, it would have been helpful to inform the resident of this at an earlier stage, so she was aware of the landlord’s limitations. There is no evidence it did this.
The landlord issued a Notice to Quit on the neighbour on 14 July 2023. The resident asked if she could secure the communal door to prevent access now the notice had been served. The landlord advised her not to do this, as it must wait for the court decision. This was reasonable.
The resident visited the landlord’s office on 21 August 2023, upset at the lack of action. The landlord’s notes state it explained the subletting process, but no further notes were recorded. This was a record keeping failure and means it is not known what it told the resident and if it managed her expectations.
In October 2023 the landlord told the resident it was seeking possession of the neighbour’s property and asked if she would provide a witness statement. It said it was waiting for advice from the solicitors so could not give a timescale. This was reasonable.
The resident continued to contact the landlord about the subletting through to 13 December 2023 when she said she thought the neighbours were trying to intimidate her due to the local council’s investigation. The landlord responded on 22 December 2023. It confirmed its previous communication with her regarding the ongoing investigation into the subletting and said it was waiting for a court date. It explained it could not change the locks until it had legal possession of the property. This was reasonable.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 February 2024. It did not refer to the subletting investigation or provide an update. The lack of reference did not provide the resident with reassurance that progress was being made. This was not reasonable.
In summary, we find service failure. The landlord’s actions were reasonable, but at times these were delayed and often prompted by the resident’s contact. Furthermore, there was a lack of clear and regular communication with the resident. This led to her spending avoidable time and effort pursuing the landlord which likely increased her frustration.
In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident. This sum reflects the likely frustration and inconvenience to the resident, along with the disappointment, loss of confidence and lack of communication from the landlord.
It is noted the landlord took possession of the neighbouring property in September 2024 ahead of a scheduled trial.

Complaint	Reports of ASB
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident reported ASB from neighbours to the landlord on 13 March 2023. This included fly tipping, loud banging, shouting and music at antisocial hours. She said the noise was affecting her and her young family.
The landlord opened an ASB case and acknowledged it the same day. It confirmed it would investigate the allegations in line with its ASB policies and procedures and said someone would contact her within 10 working days with advice and proposed actions. Furthermore, it directed the resident to its website to download diary sheets to record any further incidents, advised her to report incidents of noise nuisance to the local council’s noise pollution team, and to report any acts of a criminal nature to the police.
The landlord’s response was timely, and in line with its ASB policy in terms of when it would contact her, and its signposting information. However, the policy states it should be clear in what it regards as ASB, who would be investigating the case, and what is within its power regarding the action it could take. The landlord did not provide this information to the resident. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy and did not manage her expectations from the start of the process. This was however recognised by the landlord in its final complaint response.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 13 April 2023, outside of the timescale provided in the acknowledgement. This was not reasonable and led to time and trouble for the resident who had to chase the landlord for a response. The landlord apologised for the delay. It asked the resident to complete diary sheets for 4 weeks so it could gather a clear overview of the issues and asked her to download the noise app and record any noises heard. It was at this time the landlord confirmed what would be considered statutory noise. It said if she considered the noise fell under this category, she should contact the local council as they dealt with defined statutory noise nuisance.
While this may be appropriate, it would have been helpful to have advised the resident of this when it acknowledged the ASB report. The landlord said, once the information was received, it would be reviewed and then it would advise of the next steps. It added if it did not receive any further evidence, it would be unable to investigate the case and would close it. This was reasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord several times between 17 April and 12 May 2023, but there is no evidence the landlord responded until 26 May 2023. This was not reasonable, particularly when the resident told the landlord she did not feel safe and felt she was living under dangerous circumstances. The landlord referred to the process it was following regarding the subletting by the neighbour and said it could send a warning letter to the legal resident of the property. It added it appreciated the resident’s fear of reprisals. It asked the resident to confirm how she wanted to proceed and what she wanted it to address.
The resident continued to provide evidence through to June 2023 with details of incidents including theft of post and items from the garden, and face to face confrontations. The landlord advised her to report the thefts to the police and keep her distance from the neighbours. This was appropriate advice. The resident sent links to evidence but had to resend them as they had expired by the time the landlord tried to open them. This was not reasonable and provided little reassurance the landlord was reacting in a timely manner to the evidence she was providing.
With the resident’s consent, the landlord sent the legal resident of the neighbouring property a warning letter on 19 June 2023. The letter referred to the noise and abusive language to the resident. The landlord confirmed if further reports were received, it may take further action. This was appropriate and in line with its policy for the action it could take when the alleged perpetrator is known.
The resident complained to the landlord about the lack of action it was taking about the ASB. She said no one was helping, the neighbours were terrorising and bullying her and stealing post. She asked what the landlord was doing with the several dozens of recordings she had sent via the app. The landlord confirmed it had received 18 recordings but could not hear any sounds. It may have been helpful for the landlord to consider other options to try and record the noise, for example through noise monitoring equipment. There is no evidence the landlord considered this or discussed the option with the resident. This was not reasonable.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023, the landlord said the resident had received regular updates and was aware of the action it was taking. It would have been reasonable to highlight the action it had taken to date to reassure the resident it was investigating the reports. The landlord did not do this. It told the resident to provide evidence to support her allegations the situation was worsening.
It repeated there was a process to follow which could take time, but it failed to include any additional information to support this. This was not appropriate as it did not comply with its ASB policy which states it should provide an action plan and regular updates to the resident. It showed little empathy or understanding to the resident’s concerns and did not offer any support or feedback on the evidence and reports she had provided. The resident escalated her complaint on 28 July 2023 stating the process was not realistic to the issues she was experiencing.
The landlord informed the resident on 28 July 2023 the case would be referred to its solicitors to determine the appropriate course of action. It said it would keep her updated and asked her to only record noise that would be deemed as statutory nuisance as it was unable to act for non-statutory noise, of which it provided a list. It asked the resident to submit diary sheets fortnightly for review.
On 28 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord what it was doing to protect her and her children. She said she was not getting any results. The landlord said the resident was aware it was acting on her evidence but advised it could not give a timescale for a resolution. It said it was processing her application for rehousing and the lettings team was in contact with her about that.
On 11 October 2023 after further reports from the resident, the landlord confirmed it would write to the neighbours and ask them to refrain from slamming doors. This was appropriate action in line with its ASB policy, however, it took too long to suggest this and there is no evidence to confirm a letter was sent. It repeatedly asked the resident to keep diary sheets and informed her it had a legal process to follow. The landlord recognised the lack of explanation around these further requests as a service failure and area of frustration for the resident in its final complaint response.
The resident continued to provide reports of incidents, highlighting the impact the ASB was having on her and her children. The landlord asked her to provide diary sheets so it could review the position with its solicitors to see if the evidence was strong enough to consider an injunction. This was a reasonable option, but again, it took too long to suggest this. The resident told us she moved out of the property on 31 December 2023 because of the ongoing ASB and the impact it was having on her and her family.
The resident told the landlord on several occasions she and her family were scared, they felt unsafe, and they had changed their way of living because of the ASB and intimidation. There is no evidence the landlord completed a risk assessment at any stage throughout the process. This was not appropriate and not in line with the ASB policy which states it would assess the risk to the resident.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 February 2024. It agreed there was a process to follow but acknowledged there had been poor communication which did not respond well enough to the resident’s concerns. It said it had failed to manage the resident’s expectations, and this had resulted in frequent contact from her continuously provided further updates and incidents. It also identified it had not completed a risk assessment when the resident had referred to her safety and decline in mental health.
It explained why it relied on evidence to build a case but confirmed the team did not explain why it needed further evidence. It acknowledged this added to the resident’s frustration. It was positive the landlord identified these service failures, but it did not outline the action it had taken to date or how it was intending to proceed. This provided the resident with little reassurance of the action it had and was intending to take.
The landlord offered £350 compensation for the impact and inconvenience to the resident in pursuit of the matter. This was in line with its compensation policy for a service failure over a considerable period where a resident has had to repeatedly chase responses. It confirmed it had highlighted its findings to the head of service to explore improvements in communication and empathy and it was reviewing its internal processes to improve service provision.
In summary, there were service failures in terms of poor communication, a lack of an action plan, managing expectations, and responding in timescales and not completing a risk assessment. However, the landlord identified these and identified learning to prevent a recurrence. Furthermore, it offered redress that was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged the service failures and made an attempt to put things right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Complaint	Reports of a video doorbell being installed
Finding	Service failure

The resident reported the installation of a video doorbell by the neighbours to the landlord on 25 June 2023. She said it was on the outside of the building and recorded movement and sound, and she was not happy about being tracked. She said she and her children felt scared, vulnerable, and asked if she could cover it up as it was a violation of privacy.
The landlord responded on 27 June 2023. It confirmed it would write to the neighbours and ask for the camera to be removed. It told the resident not to alter it in any way as it did not belong to them. The landlord told the resident to contact the police if she felt in danger or if a crime had been committed. The landlord wrote to the neighbouring resident on 29 June 2023 and gave 7 days to remove the camera, stating legal action would be taken if they did not do so. This was reasonable, however as the resident had said she felt vulnerable, it would have been helpful for the landlord to see if it could offer any support in the interim and explain how it intended to monitor the situation. There is no evidence it did this.
On 4 July 2023 the resident confirmed the camera was still up. The landlord responded on 6 July 2023. It confirmed it had given the neighbour 7 days to remove the camera but as it was still up and the timeframe had passed, it would contact the legal team to determine the appropriate course of action. This was reasonable, however there is no evidence it did this. In its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023, the landlord repeated it would pass the matter to its solicitors. Again, there is no evidence it did this. This is a record keeping failure and makes it difficult to assess if the landlord progressed the matter in a timely manner.
On 28 July 2023 the resident confirmed the camera was still up. She said the situation was causing stress and was triggering her complex PTSD. The landlord responded on 11 August 2023 and repeated it stage 1 response. This was reasonable, however the evidence suggests the matter only progressed due to the resident pursuing the landlord.
The resident visited the landlord’s office on 21 August 2023 upset at the lack of action taken. The landlord said it would visit the neighbour the following day and give 24 hours’ notice to remove the camera, and if it was not removed, it might commence injunction proceedings. The evidence confirms the landlord spoke to the neighbour who agreed to remove the camera, however on 24 August 2023, the resident told the landlord the camera had been moved to inside the property in the window.
There is no evidence to confirm if the landlord contacted the neighbour again, however in its final complaint response on 7 February 2024, it confirmed the camera was removed on 29 August 2023. It said the neighbour had responded to the request to remove the camera with an explanation as to why it was needed, but after it investigated this, it made a further request for it to be removed.
In summary, we find service failure. Although its actions were reasonable, the evidence suggests it did not demonstrate a proactive approach in terms of monitoring the camera and relied on the resident chasing and providing updates rather than taking the lead. The lack of communication with the resident meant she spent time and inconvenience pursing the landlord. Further, the landlord failed to recognise the impact the situation was having on the resident. Despite the number of contacts from the resident highlighting her concerns, it did not offer any support while it was seeking legal advice.
In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. The sum reflects the likely distress and inconvenience to the resident, along with the disappointment and loss of confidence and lack of communication from the landlord.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The resident complained to the landlord on 26 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged it 4 working days later and said it would respond within 10 working days. This was in line with its complaint policy which states it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement date.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 July 2023 to confirm the specifics of the complaint. It sent a holding letter and said it would respond within the next 10 working days. This was appropriate. It was in line with its complaint policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states an extension at stage 1 must be no more than 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023. This was in line with the timescale given in the holding response. The landlord’s response lacked depth, understanding and empathy. It referred to information colleagues had provided which meant it failed to demonstrate it had completed a thorough and impartial investigation. This is likely to have caused further frustration for the resident after waiting the additional time for the response.
The resident escalated the complaint on 28 July 2023, but the landlord did not acknowledge it until 10 January 2024, 115 working days later. This was significantly outside of the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy timescale of 5 working days. The delay in processing the resident’s escalation request delayed the final complaint response and prevented her from bringing the matter to us for an independent investigation. This was not reasonable.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 February 2024, 135 working days after the request was made. The landlord apologised for the delay in the response to the complaint but did not offer any redress for the impact, distress and inconvenience to the resident or refer to any specific learning associated with the complaint handling.
In summary, we find maladministration. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation. While there was no permanent impact on the resident, this sum recognises the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in escalating her complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We expect landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts (internal and external). This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The failure to record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.

Communication

The landlord should aim to manage residents expectations from an early stage in a process. This could include explaining processes, policies, any limitations in the action it can take, and where possible, timescales. The communication around these should be clear and provided at the earliest opportunity.