New World Housing Association Limited (202514150)
|
Case ID |
202514150 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
New World Housing Association Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
17 December 2025 |
- The resident lived with her children in a 3-bed maisonette situated within a larger block of similar properties. The landlord is the head leaseholder of the property. A third party (the freeholder) owns the freehold of the block. In May 2020 there was a fire in the block which caused damage to several properties making them unsafe. The landlord moved the resident and her children into temporary accommodation (TA) where they remain at the time of this investigation. The resident complained to the landlord about the length of time she had been in TA. She asked it to move her back to her original property or permanently rehouse her. The resident has been supported in her complaint to the landlord and the escalation to this Service by a representative.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s concerns about repairs to the property following a fire.
- The resident’s request for permanent rehousing.
- We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We found there was:
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the property following a fire.
- Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permanent rehousing.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The resident’s concerns about repairs to the property following a fire.
- The delays to the repairs were outside the landlord’s control. It communicated appropriately with residents providing regular updates and expressing empathy. The landlord considered taking legal action against the freeholder but decided against this route. However, the landlord has not evidenced that it appropriately liaised with the freeholder to advocate for its residents’ interests.
The resident’s request for permanent rehousing.
- The landlord had limited stock available so was unable to rehouse the resident sooner. However, while it explored reciprocal arrangements with other landlords, it did not advise the resident to register with the council until 5 years after the fire.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
- The landlord’s complaint handling was delayed, inadequate, and did not adhere to the 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.
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:
|
No later than 14 January 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £300 made up as follows:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. |
No later than 14 January 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her concerns about issues with her temporary accommodation and take appropriate action. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
2 April 2025 |
The resident’s representative advised she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permanent rehousing. He asked it to raise a stage 1 complaint. |
|
2 April 2025 |
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and said it would respond within 14 working days. |
|
9 Jun 2025 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
|
|
13 June 2025 |
The resident’s representative said the resident did not accept that the landlord was doing enough to make her property fit for return or to find her alternative permanent accommodation. He said the issue had been going on for 5 years and was “intolerable”. He asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. |
|
3 July 2025 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said:
|
|
9 July 2024 |
The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she had been in TA for 5 years and that the lack of settled accommodation was having a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the family. She also stated she did not accept that the landlord could not have made the property ready for her return or found alternative permanent accommodation. The resident said she wanted the landlord to repair her property or provide a permanent transfer. She also said she feels the landlord should provide her with compensation. |
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 |
The resident’s concerns about repairs to the property following a fire |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The landlord is not the freeholder of the property, it is a leaseholder. The terms of the lease state the freeholder is responsible for structural repairs. This includes the damage caused by the fire.
- We acknowledge that the landlord is not obliged to complete the repairs. However, the resident’s legal relationship is with the landlord. As she has no relationship with the freeholder, the landlord is responsible for liaising with them on her behalf and advocating for her interests.
- Several issues have caused delays to the repair of the property. This includes contractors going into administration and the works being more extensive than first understood. When works started following the fire, issues in the original build were identified. The freeholder is now taking legal action against the builder which is further delaying progress. We acknowledge this is outside the landlord’s control.
- Since the fire the landlord has communicated with residents proactively. It has updated them via email, letter, text, and in-person. Its communications were frequent, compassionate, and reasonably detailed.
- The landlord has provided residents with several different timeframes for when they may be able to move back into their homes. We acknowledge it was distressing for residents when these timeframes were not adhered to. However, the landlord was passing on in good faith information provided by third parties. The failure of the third parties to adhere to these timeframes was outside its control. However, the landlord has apologised for the delays and empathised with resident’s situations.
- The landlord has not evidenced its communications with the freeholder or insurer. It therefore has not demonstrated that it took reasonable and proportionate actions to advocate for the resident.
- The landlord has explained to the Ombudsman that it considered taking legal action against the freeholder. However, it decided against doing so due to “legal uncertainties” and because it would likely further delay the works. In this case we are unable to determine whether the landlord’s assessment of its legal position is accurate. That it considered this as an option was reasonable.
- Overall, the delays to the repairs were outside the landlord’s control. It has communicated well with residents throughout the delays and has expressed appropriate empathy. The landlord has demonstrated that it has considered taking legal action but decided this would not expedite the works. However, it has not demonstrated that it appropriately liaised with the freeholder. We therefore find service failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the property.
|
Complaint |
Request for permanent rehousing. |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- After the fire the council placed the resident in TA. She stayed there for just over a week before going to stay with friends and family for a short time. From June 2020 to October 2020 she moved into TA provided by the landlord’s insurer. It is not clear why, but she then moved to council TA from October 2020 to September 2022.
- The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the standard of the council’s TA. As a result, its insurer agreed to pay for private rented accommodation sourced by the resident. This shows the landlord was trying to ensure the resident was suitably housed.
- We acknowledge that the resident has since expressed dissatisfaction with her current TA and has said it is not suitable for her family. We have not considered this issue in detail as it was not specifically considered during the landlord’s internal complaint process. We have however made a recommendation for the landlord to discuss the resident’s concerns with her and take appropriate action.
- The landlord has allowed residents to decide whether they wish to wait for their property to be repaired or move to alternative permanent accommodation. The resident decided to move to whichever was available first.
- The landlord is a specialist housing association and owns a relatively small number of properties. As a result, properties do not become available frequently. We acknowledge that the fire displaced 27 other households and the landlord is also trying to rehouse them.
- The resident’s property was a 3-bed maisonette. However, as she has 5 children, several of whom are older, the landlord agreed to consider her for both 3 and 4-bed properties. This was reasonable.
- The landlord contacted the council and other social landlords soon after the fire as part of a reciprocal agreement to see if they had any properties available for its residents. This was appropriate and increased the properties available for those affected by the fire.
- In January 2024 the landlord offered the resident a permanent transfer to an available 3-bed property. She turned down this offer as the property was too small for her family of 6. The landlord agreed to continue looking for another property. This was appropriate.
- In February 2025 the landlord told the resident about another property that was available. She viewed it and advised the landlord she wanted the property. However, the landlord explained it had offered the property to another applicant. The resident expressed her disappointment and said she felt it was unfair that the landlord did not offer her the property. The landlord explained that it had made the decision based on the other applicant’s circumstances.
- We acknowledge that the landlord had a responsibility to offer the property to the applicant with the highest priority. However, we have not seen that it explained to the resident that she would be applying alongside others and that it was not directly offering it to her. This caused her distress which it could have avoided had it better manged her expectations.
- In March 2025 the resident told the landlord she was disappointed that it had not yet found her a permanent home. The landlord explained that 4-bedroom properties rarely became available. It said that when one did it would be allocated to one of the households affected by the fire.
- At this time the landlord also advised the resident to apply for rehousing via the council’s housing register. It said this would ensure all options were being explored and reassured her that she would remain at the top of its own waiting list. We have not seen that the landlord advised the resident to apply to the housing register before this. Registering with the council would have widened the options available to her and increased her chances of being rehoused sooner. However, we understand the resident had expressed a preference for remaining a tenant of the landlord. We therefore do not consider this delay caused any lasting detriment to the resident.
- Overall, the landlord had limited stock available so was unable to rehouse the resident sooner. It explored reciprocal arrangements with other landlords and offered the resident a like-for-like property that became available. However, it failed to manage her expectations in relation to its handling of the available 4-bed property. This caused the resident avoidable distress. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for permanent rehousing.
- Our remedies guidance states that where there has been a failure that had a minimal impact on the resident, compensation of £50 to £100 is appropriate. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 for distress and inconvenience.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- It took the landlord 45 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This far exceeds the 10-working day timeframe outlined in the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
- In its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement email the landlord told the resident it would respond within 14-working days. It is not clear why it gave this timeframe as it does not relate to the landlord’s policy or the Code. Nevertheless, it failed to adhere to this timeframe.
- The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its complaint handling delay within its stage 1 response. It therefore failed to provide redress. The stage 1 response also failed to outline the complaint definition as required by the Code.
- The landlord provided its stage 2 response within the timeframe outlined in the Code and its own policy. However, the response consisted of a 2-paragraph email. It again failed to outline the complaint definition.
- While the landlord advised the resident of her right to contact the Ombudsman, it failed to provide details of how to do so as required by the Code.
- Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was delayed, inadequate, and did not adhere to the Code. We therefore find maladministration in its handling of the complaint.
- Our remedies guidance states that where there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident compensation of £100 to £600 is appropriate. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 for time and trouble.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- We did not find any widespread issues with the landlord’s record keeping. However, it did not provide us with any evidence relating to communications with the freeholder or its insurer. This impeded our ability to assess whether these communications were sufficient to advocate for the resident.
Communication
- Overall the landlord’s communication with the residents impacted by the fire and specifically the resident in this case were good. The landlord provided frequent updates and demonstrated appropriate empathy.
- However, as mentioned above we were unable to assess its communications with third parties.