Newlon Housing Trust (202525203)

Background

1. The resident moved into her property by mutual exchange. She complained about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the cellar, and items left in the cellar.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould in the cellar.
   2. Items left in the cellar.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the cellar.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of items left in the cellar.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould in the cellar

6. The landlord’s position about cellar damp and mould was reasonable and proportionate to inspections and reports in the complaint timeframe. The £325 it offered was proportionate to any issues and detriment evident, and in line with any compensation we may have ordered.

Items left in the cellar

7. There is no evidence that the landlord is obligated to remove the items left in the cellar by the previous tenant during the mutual exchange.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policies and our Complaint Handling Code.

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.

Recommendations

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

The complaint procedure

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.

What we did not investigate

9. After the landlord’s September 2025 stage 2 response, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the conduct of the August 2025 surveyor, and events that happened since the stage 2 response. We have explained that our main focus is on events up until the landlord’s final response, and that she has the option to make a new complaint if she is dissatisfied with events since then.
10. The resident also complains about the impact on health, and we understand how distressing these concerns are for her. She has been informed we cannot determine liability for the impact on health, as this is for the courts, but we can assess the landlord’s service. The resident has the option to seek independent advice if she wishes to pursue this aspect further.

What we did investigate

11. The resident initially complained in March 2025 about outstanding repairs identified by a surveyor’s inspection before her mutual exchange. She then escalated the complaint in July 2025 as she was unhappy nothing was being done about damp and mould in the cellar. She raised concerns about crumbling brickwork, wet pipework, a damp smell, and spores potentially spreading throughout the house.
12. The landlord’s April 2025 stage 1 response said a December 2024 surveyor inspection had identified damp issues in the basement, and an associated repairs approval process had contributed to delays. Its September 2025 stage 2 response said it had arranged a further surveyor inspection and the repairs team would contact the resident to confirm next steps to resolve the issue. It acknowledged communication issues and delays and offered £325 total compensation. It updated the resident soon after its stage 2 response to say no repairs were identified.
13. The evidence shows that there were 2 surveyor inspections before the landlord’s September 2025 stage 2 complaint response. These were in December 2024 before the resident’s January 2025 mutual exchange, and in August 2025 after she escalated her complaint.
14. The December inspection said there was slight damp in the cellar, due to it being an uninhabitable space, but there were no damp and mould hazards. The August inspection noted the resident reported a damp smell during inspection of the cellar, and that the utility meters were in the cellar. However, it said that some moisture was expected as the cellar was below ground, and this did not present a health or safety risk as it was not part of the living area. It concluded there was no evidence of a significant hazard, including a damp and mould hazard.
15. The evidence then shows that after the September 2025 stage 2 response, the resident reported a leaking pipe and raised the cellar damp and mould again in December 2025. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the same month, and found no evidence of penetrating or rising damp, but they did note a strong smell of damp. They recommended a leak test and, after any remedial works, damp and mould treatment to reduce the musty smell coming from the cellar.
16. The leak test was done in January 2026 and found no evidence of a pipe leak. However, it found evidence of water penetration to a wall area beside a coal hatch, which water slowly dripped through when concrete above became saturated. The landlord says it is currently progressing works for this and the damp and mould treatment.
17. The landlord’s complaint responses come across as confusing, as these said its December 2024 inspection had identified cellar damp and mould and it was progressing repairs for this. We have seen no evidence that this was the case or that cellar damp works were ever identified until after the September 2025 stage 2 response. The resident was separately told that nothing was being done about the cellar, but the responses had the potential to cause confusion and mismanage her expectations.
18. We also note that when the resident raised issues including a pipe leak after the September 2025 stage 2, the landlord inspected the cellar again and raised a leak test and some further works. While some actions have since been taken for the cellar, we try to avoid using the benefit of hindsight, and we see no significant failings in the handling of reports about the cellar in the complaint timeframe.
19. The landlord’s surveyors carried out first hand-inspections and considered aspects such as the cellar condition, the location of the utility meters there, whether there was water ingress, and whether there were any damp and mould hazards. The August 2025 surveyor inspection was 2 weeks after the resident’s escalation, which exceeded its policy timeframe of 5 working days. However, the cellar condition was otherwise considered in a reasonable way and in line with what we would expect to see.
20. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its surveyors, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise, and this is not clear in the period to the September 2025 stage 2 response. The resident raised concerns about the wider structure being impacted by the cellar condition, but inspections have noted no concerns, including ones after the stage 2 response. She also raised concerns about a damp smell affecting the whole house, and about the impact of issues on her and her child’s health issues. The landlord would be expected to show it considered and addressed these if raised in the course of the complaint, but it is not clear she raised such aspects until after the stage 2 response.
21. The landlord’s complaint responses were confusing and the August 2025 surveyor inspection potentially exceeded its policy timescales by 1 week. However, its position about cellar damp and mould was reasonable and proportionate to inspections and reports in the complaint timeframe. The £325 it offered was also in line with what our remedies guidance says may be applicable where there has been maladministration and failures that adversely affected a resident, but no permanent impact. This is proportionate to the issues and detriment we have identified, and in line with any compensation we may have ordered.

22. The resident complained in March 2025, although this did not refer to items left in the cellar during her mutual exchange. She then complained in her July 2025 escalation that wooden crates and carpet had been left in the cellar, which she was concerned were a fire hazard and felt were the landlord’s responsibility to remove. This was after the landlord advised her that she should dispose of them or ask the previous tenant to arrange this.
23. The landlord’s September 2025 stage 2 response said it had arranged a surveyor inspection, and the repairs team would contact the resident to confirm next steps about the items. It updated her soon after its stage 2 response to say it was taking no further action.
24. The December 2024 inspection included photographs that showed items in the cellar. It made no further comment but it noted that no fire hazards were identified. The August 2025 inspection noted that there were items left in the cellar that should have been removed at the time of the mutual exchange. It said the responsibility now fell to the resident to arrange removal and disposal of the items. It noted that no fire hazards were identified.
25. We understand the resident’s concerns about the items in the cellar, and that she says these were in the cellar before the previous tenant moved in. However, we see no significant failings in the handling of reports about items in the cellar in the complaint timeframe.
26. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy and procedure give no suggestion that it is responsible to remove items left in a property during a mutual exchange. It is also evident that surveyors have assessed risk, including fire risk, and no risks have been identified in respect to the items.
27. The tenancy agreement does oblige a tenant to remove items and rubbish when leaving a property vacant, but it is unclear this applies for a mutual exchange, or that it would be reasonable to expect this to be enforced in the circumstances here. We note a connection between the resident and the former tenant, and the landlord’s advice to dispose of the items or ask the previous tenant to arrange this seems reasonable.

28. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord provided formal acknowledgements and responses in timescales set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. It appropriately sought to consider and award compensation in line with its policies. It also met a commitment in its response to update the resident.
29. There were some issues with the content of the responses, which are noted below, but these did not have a significant impact on the issues or handling of the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

30. The landlord’s record keeping was positive, but at points its communication in its complaint responses did not reflect its records and/or was unclear.
31. The April 2025 stage 1 response said that a December 2024 surveyor inspection had identified damp issues in the basement, and an associated repairs approval process had contributed to delays. As noted, we have seen no evidence that cellar damp works were ever identified until after the September 2025 stage 2 response, and the stage 1 comments seem to relate to separate repairs. The stage 2 response said it had arranged a further surveyor inspection and began to say it had “been advised that” – however, the sentence cuts off.
32. The landlord could reflect on the above and consider learning to ensure that its communications, particularly complaint responses, are clear and accurately reflect its records for all the issues complained about. This includes its communication about inspection outcomes and the status of repairs.