Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Newlon Housing Trust (202315804)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315804

Newlon Housing Trust

31 July 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about fire safety.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association, between 2019 and 2023. The property is a 1 bedroom, first floor flat in a 5-storey block.
  2. The government issued ‘Advice Note 14’ (AN14) in December 2018 as part of its Building Safety Programme. The advice was for owners of high-rise leaseholder buildings where the external wall system of the building did not incorporate Aluminium Composite Material (ACM). The advice set out checks which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves, and their leaseholders, that their building was safe.
  3. In December 2019 the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Building Societies Association and UK Finance agreed a new industry-wide valuation process to help people buy and sell homes and re-mortgage in buildings above 18 metres (6 storeys). Form EWS1 was introduced to prove to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert.
  4. In January 2020 the government consolidated AN14 when it issued ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’. This extended the reach of the requirements to all buildings, regardless of height, and meant some residential blocks under 18 metres required an EWS1 form, if there were ‘specific concerns’.
  5. In response to the guidance, some lenders took the view that, if an EWS1 form could not be provided to demonstrate compliance with the government’s guidance on fire safety, they would be unwilling to offer a mortgage on properties within these buildings as they would have a zero valuation.
  6. In 2020 the resident told the landlord she wanted to buy additional shares in the property. Following a valuation and survey, she asked the landlord to provide an EWS1 form, as her mortgage provider had asked for this. The landlord declined and said this was not required as the block was less than 18 metres and it had no specific concerns. In January 2021 the resident said she would not be going ahead with buying more shares in the property as 2 lenders had asked for an EWS1 form, but the landlord would not provide one.
  7. In March 2021 RICS published updated guidance on the types of buildings that required an EWS1 form. Three months later the resident told the landlord that, in light of the new guidance, she wanted to try again to buy more shares in the property. The following month she asked for information about what the cladding on the building was made from.
  8. In September 2021 the landlord provided a ‘lender’s letter’ to the resident. This said the building was less than 18 metres, did not have any potentially combustible cladding and was primarily brick clad; therefore an EWS1 form was not required. In March 2022 the resident bought more shares in the property, which meant she owned 100% of the shares.
  9. In June and July 2022 the resident asked for fire safety information to progress the sale of the property. She said her buyer had been refused a mortgage unless an EWS1 form was provided. On 10 August 2022 the landlord sent the resident a copy of a fire risk assessment (FRA) for the block. In January 2023 the resident sold the property.
  10. The resident made a complaint on 2 May 2023. She said the landlord had not provided requested fire safety information in a timely manner, which delayed the sale of the property. She said, despite multiple lenders asking for an EWS1 form, it took the landlord 3 years to complete a fire safety inspection, which left her trapped and unable to sell. She wanted the landlord to learn from her case, pay compensation for the stress caused and refund her rent and service charge costs for the periods of delay.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 27 June 2023. It said the resident’s block did not require an EWS1 form and it had no control over whether lenders granted mortgages. It did not agree that it had delayed or hindered the purchase of more shares or the resale of the property, and so would not pay compensation. It said it had helped her as much as it could and any delays were beyond its control.
  12. The resident escalated the complaint the same day, saying the landlord had not provided specific information about the cladding, despite her asking for it. She felt compensation was required. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 31 July 2023 it acknowledged that she had asked for information about the cladding that was not provided, and for verbal information given to be confirmed in writing. It said it was waiting to receive the formal report from a third party before it confirmed anything in writing. It apologised and offered £350 compensation (£25 for complaint handling delays and £325 for the inconvenience in its handling of her fire safety enquiries).
  13. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint in October 2023. She said she wanted the landlord to acknowledge its failures and pay compensation for money lost and the stress caused.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s enquiries about fire safety

  1. The landlord declined to provide an EWS1 form for the block on a number of occasions in 2020 and 2021, and confirmed the reasons for this. While multiple lenders requested an EWS1 form, this did not mean the landlord was required to obtain one, and it was not a legal requirement for it to do so. Ultimately, the landlord was entitled to make its own assessment of whether an EWS1 form was required for the block and proceed on that basis. Therefore, it was reasonable that it declined to provide one to the resident.
  2. We acknowledge there were delays in the resident being able to purchase additional shares in the property, as this took more than 2 years to complete. The changes in legislation and government advice resulted in a period of uncertainty around lending practices, which negatively impacted the resident. We appreciate how frustrating this was for her. The resident herself identified inconsistencies in a lender’s approach in June 2022 when she told her estate agent that her buyer’s lender was asking for an EWS1 form, when the same lender had agreed a mortgage for her to buy more shares in the property earlier that year without one.
  3. While the landlord declined to provide an EWS1, it did try to help the resident by confirming its reasons in writing, liaising directly with lenders and providing a ‘lender’s letter’ in September 2021. All of these actions were sensible and showed the landlord was trying to help the resident resolve the issues she was facing.
  4. While there was a delay in the resident purchasing more shares of the property, this was not caused by any landlord failure, but rather the lenders’ refusal and hesitance to approve mortgage applications. The landlord told the resident it was not responsible for lenders’ decisions, which was correct. Ultimately, the resident was able to purchase additional shares in the property in March 2022, without having been issued an EWS1 form. This supported the landlord’s position that one was not required.
  5. Generally, the landlord’s communication with the resident in 2020 and 2021 was reasonable, as it responded to her enquiries in a timely manner on the majority of occasions. However, there were periods in July/August 2020 and July/August 2021 when the resident had to chase for responses to her enquiries over several weeks. This was understandably frustrating for her.
  6. Due to the complex nature of the enquiries, it was reasonable that the landlord needed more time to respond. However, it should have proactively updated the resident and told her when it expected to be able to respond, so she was not left uncertain on when she would receive this information. Its failure to do so meant she expended time and trouble in chasing for updates.
  7. As part of her complaint, the resident raised concerns about a fire risk assessment sent by the landlord in September 2021. She said the initial document had the wrong address. When she told the landlord, it sent an updated version but this still had the incorrect postcode. She said this showed the landlord was not taking fire safety seriously and felt it had not conducted an actual risk assessment of the building.
  8. The landlord responded to this in the complaint and confirmed the document was not a fire risk assessment, but a lender’s letter. It acknowledged there was an error in the initial letter and apologised for this. On review of this document, it is not a detailed assessment of the block, but offers answers to 4 fire safety questions in place of an EWS1 assessment. While it has some information about the block, this is quite general and so it is possible that the same information could be used for multiple blocks. While there was an administrative error in the initial letter provided, this was a minor failure.
  9. In June and July 2022 the resident asked for a copy of a fire investigation report, following an inspection of the block in June 2022. The landlord replied and told her this would not be available until the end of July/beginning of August 2022. It said there were not enough fire engineers available to cover all the work required. While frustrating for the resident, any delay was outside of the landlord’s control and it was sensible that it explained the reasons for the delay to help the resident understand its limitations.
  10. On 19 July 2022 the resident asked the landlord for specific information about the cladding on letter-headed paper. It replied on 3 August 2022 and provided some information but said it could not confirm all the details as it was waiting on the external consultant’s report. The resident subsequently said the landlord told her the information verbally over the phone but declined to confirm this in writing until it had received it from the external fire safety expert. While frustrating for the resident, this was reasonable as this is a specialist area and it was understandable that the landlord wanted its expert’s opinion before confirming its position in writing to the resident.
  11. The landlord provided a copy of the FRA for the block on 10 August 2022. The resident said this did not include the specific information requested, as she had asked it to confirm what the cladding was made from, but this only said what types of cladding were not present. It was reasonable that the landlord relied on its expert to provide the required information in the report. It is unfortunate that this was not in line with what the lender had asked for, but the landlord was not obligated to conduct its investigations based on the lender’s requirements. Therefore, the landlord’s response to this matter was reasonable. Ultimately, the sale of the property progressed following this, which indicates the information provided was sufficient.
  12. There was a period of around 4 weeks between the resident requesting this information and the landlord providing it. While this was longer than the resident wanted, the landlord did explain that there was likely to be a delay and the reasons for this. As the landlord was reliant on an external consultant to provide the report, there was nothing it could do to provide this information sooner. The resident said the landlord’s delay in providing this report delayed the sale of the property by 4 weeks. While this may have been the case, any delay was outside of the landlord’s control and so not attributable to it.
  13. The resident said in her complaint that she felt the landlord was not taking fire safety seriously and it took 3 years to complete a fire safety inspection. While the inspection completed in June 2022 was the only one completed by an external fire safety expert during the time covered by this investigation, the landlord told the resident on more than one occasion that it completed FRA’s for the block.
  14. The landlord first confirmed this in April 2020 when it reassured her the FRA was up to date and again in November 2021, when it told her how she could request copies. It also provided information from the most recent FRA to a mortgage broker in May 2020 and the resident in September 2020, as well as providing a copy of the recently completed FRA in August 2022. These actions and reassurances indicate the landlord was taking fire safety seriously and that other fire safety inspections had been completed.
  15. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised, offered £325 compensation and identified learning. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.  In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  16. Considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to pay her the £325 compensation already offered, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
  17. The resident asked the landlord to pay compensation for stress caused. We cannot determine that there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health, as this must be assessed via a public liability insurance claim. Therefore, we cannot order compensation in that regard.
  18. Similarly, the resident asked the landlord to refund her for rent and service charge costs incurred for periods of delay in her being able to buy additional shares and sell the property. While there were delays in these matters progressing, these were not attributable to the landlord and so we would not order compensation in that regard.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 15 May 2023. This was 8 working days after the complaint was submitted on 2 May 2023, and over the committed timescale of 5 working days, set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. This acknowledgement was only sent as a result of the resident chasing this up on 9 May 2023, which made her feel the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and acknowledged. In this case, the landlord did not send the stage 1 response until 27 June 2023, 31 working days after the complaint was logged and acknowledged. The landlord’s complaints policy says, where it cannot meet the 10 working day timescale, it will tell the resident and include a timeframe for when it will respond, but this should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
  3. The landlord extended the deadline for the stage 1 complaint twice on 26 May and 12 June 2023. On both occasions it wrote to the resident seeking her agreement to extend the deadline by 10 working days each time. While the landlord exceeded the further 10 working days, its complaints policy says if an extension beyond 20 working days is required, this should be agreed by both parties. Therefore, as the resident agreed to the second extension, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and this was not a failure.
  4. Prior to the second extension on 12 June 2023, the resident chased the landlord for the response that day. It was only in response to this, that the landlord extended the deadline. While reasonable to extend the deadline, it should have done this proactively, without waiting for the resident to chase this up. This again made her feel it was not treating the complaint seriously.
  5. The landlord’s second extension communication of 12 June 2023 was set out as a stage 1 response. This was confusing for the resident as the landlord was not responding to the complaint, but extending the deadline to do so. The landlord should not have set this out using its stage 1 template, as this invited the resident to escalate the complaint to stage 2, without it having provided a stage 1 response. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered a £25 voucher for this, which was sensible. However, the resident told it some weeks later that she had not received this, so it is not clear if this was ever sent to her.
  6. Following the second extension, the revised deadline for the stage 1 response was 26 June 2023. From the evidence provided, we can see the landlord was aware of this as it was chasing information internally to send the response on this date. Despite this, it did not proactively update the resident, which resulted in her again chasing the response on the deadline. The landlord replied the same day and confirmed it would send the response the next day, which it did. However, the repeated delays (albeit short) in keeping the resident updated meant she expended time and trouble chasing for updates on multiple occasions.
  7. The stage 1 response was ultimately issued 1 working day over the agreed deadline. This was a minor delay and, while this would not normally amount to failure, as there had already been 2 extensions to the deadline, the additional day does constitute a minor failure. The landlord had committed to respond by the extended date and its failure to do so left the resident feeling let down.
  8. The landlord sent the stage 2 acknowledgement on 29 June 2023, 2 working days after the resident asked to escalate the complaint. This was in line with the 5 working day committed timescale set out in its complaints policy. It sent the stage 2 response 22 working days after the acknowledgement. This was slightly over the 20 working day committed response time set out in its complaints policy and so a minor failure.
  9. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the complaint, apologised and offered £25 compensation. While the landlord told the resident about delays to the stage 1 response, there were additional delays in it acknowledging the stage 1 complaint and sending the stage 1 and 2 responses, which were unreasonable in the circumstances. These, along with the confusing communication of 12 June 2023, and the landlord’s reactive approach to extending the stage 1 deadline, mean the resident lost confidence in the landlord and its complaints process.
  10. While positive that the landlord has offered redress, this was not quite proportionate to the failings identified. Therefore a finding of service failure is appropriate. We have made orders for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation (inclusive of the £25 already offered, if not done so) plus the £25 voucher previously offered, if not done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its response to her enquiries about fire safety.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid the resident:
    1. £50 compensation for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £25 already offered, if not done so).
    2. The £25 voucher previously offered for its complaint handling, if not done so.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £325 compensation already offered for its response to her enquiries about fire safety, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.