Newlon Housing Trust (202502530)

Decision
Case ID	202502530
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Newlon Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	17April 2026

Background

The resident is a leaseholder living in a block of flats. The landlord is not the freeholder. External repairs are the responsibility of the freeholder, who is also the managing agent. In early 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that rainwater was discharging outside his bedroom window. It identified the freeholder was responsible for the issue and referred the matter to them. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s involvement with and communication about the repair.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
1. External leak repair.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the external leak repair.
We also found no maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord took appropriate action to remedy the impact of its failure to keep the resident updated and delay in escalating the situation with the freeholder.
The landlord met its complaints policy timescales and standards.

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.

Our recommendations
If not already paid, the landlord should pay the resident the £500 compensation it awarded for the impact of its failings in the handling of the external leak repair. It was on this basis that a finding of reasonable redress was made.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 July 2024	The resident complained that after 7 months the external leak (reported on 3 January 2024) had not been repaired. He was also dissatisfied that he had to keep chasing for updates.
9 August 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1 and: Said its inspection in late January 2024 found the freeholder was responsible for the external repair to a balcony above his window and had referred it to them. Acknowledged the resident had sent many emails chasing matters up. Said it had contacted the freeholder twice but it was unable to confirm what was happening with the repair. Said It was sorry for the delays and had escalated the matter to management to pursue with the freeholder. Awarded £150 compensation for the time and trouble caused and said it would provide regular updates.
20 September 2025	The resident asked to escalate his complaint because he said the leak was still not fixed and the freeholder had no details of a repair. He advised this was affecting his and his partner’s sleep when it rained. The resident asked the landlord to ensure the freeholder or it completed the repair and to refund half of his service charge.
25 October 2025	In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it said it: Found the stage 1 response and decision was fair. Had sent 4 emails to the freeholder and had not received a meaningful response until October 2024 when they said they were exploring options for a permanent repair. Had taken different actions to escalate the matter with the freeholder, such as contacting senior staff and making a complaint. Had awarded £150 compensation (£300 in total) for the further delay. Was unable to refund the resident’s service charges but he may receive one when the actual costs spent for the year had been determined.
24 December 2024	The landlord informed the resident it would be taking legal action against the freeholder. It also increased its compensation offer to £500 (following requests from the resident). The landlord agreed to revisit the compensation amount after the repair was completed but said it may not be liable for more because it was not responsible for the delays.
21 February 2025	The landlord advised the resident it had closed his complaint because the matter would be dealt with by its disrepair team, who would update him.
Sometime in March 2026	The freeholder completed the external repair. The resident then made a complaint to the landlord asking for compensation. This included for the inconvenience of him chasing the repairs up and being unable to use a bedroom after the leak entered his home in late October 2025. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 31 March 2026.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us because he was unhappy with the amount of compensation awarded. He advised he was caused worry, inconvenience, and trouble in chasing matters up. He wants the landlord to pay more compensation for the 2 years it took to repair the leak, including reimbursement of his service charges.

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	External leak repair
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

The resident has told us about new issues that occurred since he exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. He has already complained about these and is at stage 1 of its process. We have no power to investigate matters which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident will need to complete the landlord’s complaints process and, if he remains dissatisfied, he may refer it to us. As such, we will not be considering issues that occurred after February 2025, when the landlord told the resident it had closed the complaint.

What we have considered

Under the terms of the lease the landlord has some repair obligations to the resident. However, it states that the landlord does not own the structure of the building and is not then permitted to make changes or repairs without the freeholder’s agreement. This would include balconies, which the landlord believed to be the source of the leak. The leaseholders’ handbook also explains that where a managing agent is allocated, they will be responsible for some repairs.
In cases where a landlord is not responsible for works or repairs, our spotlight report on leaseholders and new builds highlights the importance of effective communication. This includes explaining who is responsible for a repair and keeping residents updated where there are delays. We also said it is reasonable to expect that landlords consider taking different actions to progress repairs.
We find the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns fairly. It gave reasonable explanations and offered solutions that were aimed at putting things right. Our reasons for this decision are the landlord:
1. Inspected the resident’s report of 3 January 2024 (on 30 January 2024) within its communal repairs’ timescale of 20 working days.
2. Explained it was not responsible for the repair under the lease because the leak was caused by a problem outside of the home.
3. Took accountability for its failure to update the resident and its part in the delays.
4. Awarded compensation of £300 for the cumulative impacts, later increased to £500. This amount was in keeping with the range (£250-£700) its compensation policy allows for impacts that are not expected to be long-lasting.
5. Took different actions to attempt to progress the repair with the freeholder- including making a complaint, escalating to senior staff, and eventually making a disrepair claim.
6. Kept the resident updated after the complaint process ended up to the point it closed the complaint file in February 2025. It was reasonable to close the case because it was taking legal action.
The resident wants the landlord to reimburse half of his service charge. Under the terms of the lease the resident is liable for a service charge for costs of maintaining the building. According to the landlord’s compensation policy it may reimburse charges where a service has not been provided. The resident did not specify in his complaint what services he believes he paid for and which the landlord (or managing agent) did not provide. He presented this request as a means of calculating an appropriate level of compensation. Given the above, we find the landlord’s decision not to refund service charges as a means of compensating the resident for the impact of the delay was reasonable. It was in keeping with the approach outlined in its compensation policy. While true, its explanation for its decision should have been better, we have not found this shortfall caused any detriment.
We find the remedies the landlord gave were appropriate to put things right. And the level of compensation was proportionate to the impact the resident was caused over the year we investigated. It was within the range (£150-£600) our compensation policy recommends.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint timescales align with those set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It must acknowledge a complaint and escalation within 5 working days. It must then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident made his complaint on 29 July 2024 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 August 2024. At 8 working days, this was within the required timescale. However, we saw no evidence it sent an acknowledgement. This was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling. But not one that we saw negatively impacted the resident.
The resident escalated his complaint on 20 September 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 September 2024. It then issued its stage 2 response on 25 October 2024. This was within its published timescales.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The standard and availability of records in this case was good. It meant we were able to complete a thorough investigation of the facts and evidence.

Communication

As already acknowledged in the complaint responses, the landlord did not keep the resident updated. It also did not do enough to communicate with the freeholder about progressing the matter until after the resident complained. These are themes we identified as failings in a previous investigation into the landlord from a different resident, determined in July 2024. In this we made a wider order for the landlord to demonstrate improvements in its handling and oversight of repairs where a freeholder/managing agent is responsible. This included an order to improve its communication with resident’s and freeholder’s/managing agents in such cases. The landlord complied with this. We encourage it to consider taking learning from its handling of this case.