Newlon Housing Trust (202534476)

Background

1. The resident reported heating issues, then a leak resulting in damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of heating and hot water issues.
   2. Reports of leaks and damp and mould.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of heating and hot water issues.
   2. Reports of leaks and damp and mould.
4. There was service failure in the complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of heating and hot water issues

5. The landlord failed to complete repairs within policy timescales and missed appointments without notice. It repeatedly identified the same faults but did not act on them. It communicated poorly with the resident. It delayed providing interim measures. The compensation offered did not fully address the failings.

Reports of leaks and damp and mould

6. The landlord delayed initial inspection and progression of works. It did not communicate effectively with the resident. It did not provide interim measures while delays continued.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not address all the complaint points as it failed to provide a clear plan as requested. This lack of clarity forced the resident to escalate the complaint.

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.

Our investigation

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.

8. On 12 December 2022, the resident reported that his radiators were not working. The landlord’s repair policy requires urgent routine repairs, including loss of heating, to be completed within 20 working days. This also applies to communal repairs. The landlord booked an appointment for 19 December 2022 but failed to attend. It missed 3 further appointments over the next 3 months without notice. This was poor service delivery. Its repairs policy does not cover missed appointments, but its compensation policy allows £25 for each one. Contractors should pay this, but the landlord can pay and recover the cost.
9. The landlord attended on 17 March 2023, 66 working days after the report and well outside its target. It completed some work but identified the communal HIU as the main issue and recommended further action, including flushing the system. It did not complete the repair. This shows a failure to meet timescales and resolve the problem.
10. The managing agent’s contractor attended on 24 March 2023 but disputed responsibility and did not complete the work. It then refused to attend follow-up visits, wrongly stating it no longer held the contract. The landlord did not act promptly to resolve this dispute, and the repair stalled. The contractor returned in October 2023 but again did no work. The landlord took no effective action during this period. This shows a failure to take ownership and progress repairs.
11. On 13 August 2024, the resident requested an update. The landlord attended on 24 September 2024 and found a leak from the HIU affecting the heating but did not arrange follow-on works. Further visits in October and November 2024 found more faults including a defective control panel, air in the system, and the need to flush it. These issues had been identified in March 2023 but remained unsolved. This shows continued failure to progress repairs.
12. The landlord took no further action until 25 March 2025, when it inspected and said it would produce a report. It did not respond when the resident chased an update on 24 May 2025, which led him to complain on 31 July 2025.
13. The landlord booked an inspection for 14 August 2025 but cancelled it without notice due to staff absence. It rebooked for 21 August 2025, when it identified hazards, and the same repair issues. This shows repeated identification of problems without resolution.
14. On 19 September 2025, the landlord fixed a leak but identified further works. It did not complete all necessary repairs. It provided temporary heaters on 21 November 2025, much later than it should have. On 26 November 2025, it attended again and identified the same unresolved issues.
15. On 26 January 2026, the landlord replaced the control panel and bled the radiators. It confirmed the system still needed flushing or rebalancing, as heating remained uneven and some radiators did not work. The resident continued to report poor heating and weak hot water. On 18 March 2026, an independent surveyor again recommended flushing or rebalancing the system and noted outstanding water-damage to the walls.
16. At the time of this investigation, the landlord has not resolved key issues. The wall is still damaged, the pipework is not insulated, and the heating is unreliable. The landlord says the system works, but there is no evidence it has completed the recommended system flush despite repeated advice since March 2023. It has failed to complete necessary works and resolve the issue.
17. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are, be fair (treat people fairly and follow fair processes), put things right and learn from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether there was a failing by the landlord and did this lead to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If yes, we will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’ When failings are identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord has put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances of the case.
18. The resident did not have a total loss of heating, but it has been intermittent and ineffective since December 2022. This has caused distress and inconvenience due to insufficient heat, and time and trouble of multiple unsuccessful repair appointments and chasing the landlord. There has been a clear adverse impact on the resident.
19. At stage 1 the landlord upheld the complaint and apologised. It offered compensation of £2050, made up of £25 for service failure, £25 for the missed surveyor appointment, £520 for 52 weeks’ loss of amenity, £780 for a 52-week delay to resolve the issue and £700 for the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused. It said its complaint and compensation policy limits investigation and compensation to the last 12 months. The policy states that complaints will not generally be accepted if the issue occurred over twelve months ago, unless there are good reasons to apply any discretion. The landlord investigated and accepted failures back to 2022, However, it did not show it used its discretion to compensate for the full period. It gave a misinterpretation of its compensation policy in setting out the reason for its limited compensation. It also failed to compensate for missed contractor appointments.
20. At stage 2 the landlord said the compensation offer was fair but accepted it should have been interim because work was still outstanding. It increased compensation by £400 to reflect ongoing impact, time spent chasing the repairs and loss of confidence in services.
21. The issue was reported on 12 December 2022 and should have been resolved within 20 working days, by 12 January 2023. It remains unresolved. The landlord compensated for 52 weeks only. This amounts to maladministration. We have therefore applied its approach to the additional 2 years and awarded a further £4,000. We have also awarded £100 for 4 missed appointments and ordered the landlord to complete the repairs.

22. On 13 August 2024, the resident reported rapidly developing mould caused by leaking pipes. The landlord’s damp and mould policy requires the landlord to inspect and produce a report within 5 working days. It should keep the resident informed and monitor the issue.
23. The landlord booked an inspection for 3 September 2024, 15 working days after the resident reported damp and mould. This is beyond the 5 working-day timescale in the policy. At the resident’s request, it moved the appointment to 24 September 2024. At that appointment, it said it needed to fix the leak before treating the damp and mould. As the damp and mould policy does not set a timescale for fixing a root cause, the 20-working-day timescale for routine repairs applies.
24. The landlord attended on 3 October 2024 but did not fix the leak, it said another trade was needed and took no further action at that time. After the stage 1 complaint, it reinspected on 21 August 2025 and identified the damp and mould as a potential hazard. It fixed the leak on 19 September 2025. It completed a mould wash and provided a dehumidifier on 20 October 2025. This was 303 working days after the initial report. It did not explain the initial delay, the failure to progress the repair or the failure to provide interim measures.
25. The landlord delayed booking an initial inspection beyond timescales in its policy. It did not act on findings, communicate with the resident or monitor the issue. It delayed providing a dehumidifier. It resolved the leak and completed the mould treatment far beyond its 20-working day timescale for routine repairs. This amounts to maladministration. Although the landlord upheld the complaint, it did not apportion compensation for the damp and mould. We have made an order for compensation of £500 in line with our compensation guidance to reflect the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble for the resident.

26. The landlord’s complaint definition and response timescales comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code).
27. The landlord met the stage 1 timescales. On the day the stage 2 response was due, it extended the deadline by 20 working days, in line with the permitted timescale for extensions. It sent the response 1 day late, however it apologised for this and offered compensation of £25 for the delay.
28. The Code requires landlords to address all complaint points and explain its decisions. The resident asked for a clear, coordinated plan with timescales in his complaint. The landlord did not provide this, which led the resident to escalate his complaint. This amounts to service failure. We have made an order for compensation of £50 in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

29. The landlord failed to coordinate works where multiple trades were needed. This shows the importance of maintaining oversight and ensuring disputes over responsibility do not delay works.
30. The landlord delayed providing a dehumidifier and heaters. This highlights the importance of mitigating impact on residents when permanent repairs are outstanding.
31. The landlord identified root causes but did not progress repairs to completion. This demonstrates the need to act on findings promptly rather than relying on repeated inspections.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. There was a delay due to the contractor believing it did not cover the building, this shows a record keeping issue with contracts as well as poor communication to resolve the issue.
33. The landlord did not evidence effective monitoring of the repair through to resolution. This highlights the need for systems to track and actively manage ongoing cases.

Communication

34. Communication with the resident was inconsistent, with limited updates and unclear next steps. This illustrates the importance of providing clear, regular communication and realistic timescales throughout a repair.