We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Newlon Housing Trust (202328186)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328186

Newlon Housing Trust

9 September 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:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the remedial work required to the cladding
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
    1. record-keeping
    2. handling of the associated complaint

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder. The leasehold was signed in March 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the fifth floor in a 7-storey building. The landlord is a Housing Association. The resident lives in the property with her family. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The lease states that the landlord will maintain, repair, renew and where required improve the structure of the building including external walls.
  3. The remedial works on the cladding started in March 2021. The landlord told us that in December 2023 its contractor removed the original cladding on the block of flats.
  4. On 4 January 2024, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She said she was dissatisfied that the landlord was not accepting responsibility for delays and requested the complaints procedure.
  5. On 1 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised to the resident for having to make a complaint, it acknowledged there had been a service failure relating to communication with the resident and offered compensation.
  6. On 20 March 2024, the resident escalated her complaint saying she found the stage 1 response very disappointing. The resident stated the landlord had been previously provided completion dates and she had also received a new completion date for the cladding work.
  7. On 30 April 2024, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It stated it found the stage 1 response was partially unreasonable because there was a failure to recognise the impact the delays had on the resident. The landlord apologised for the experience and offered further compensation.
  8. On 12 July 2024, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord. The work was still outstanding and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

  1. Following the tragic events at Grenfell in 2017, Advice Note 14 was issued by the Government in December 2018 as part of its Building Safety Programme. In summary the advice was for owners of high-rise 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.
  2. This guidance was consolidated in ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners,’ issued in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance states “for the avoidance of doubt, building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents and not await further advice or information to act.”
  3. In response to the guidance some lenders took the view that, if certification 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 value of £0.
  4. In January 2020, The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), The Building Societies Association (BSA), and UK Finance agreed a new industry-wide valuation process to help people buy and sell homes and re-mortgage in buildings above 18 meters (six storeys). Form EWS1 was introduced to prove to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert.
  5. On 29 March 2021, the landlord issued its latest fire safety update. The resident provided a copy to this Service. The update stated the contract had been awarded for the fire remedial works and scaffolding would start to be erected on 30 March 2021.
  6. In its August 2021 newsletter the landlord states “scaffolding has begun to be erected.” In its November 2021 newsletter to residents, the landlord states “scaffolding is estimated to be completed before 24 December 2021, depending on weather.”
  7. But the landlord told us, in response to this Service’s information request, the original cladding was not removed until December 2023 around 2 years later and it is not clear why there was this specific delay.
  8. The resident told us the landlord gave several completion dates for the remedial work, between 2022 and 2024.
  9. On 22 August 2025, the resident told this Service the landlord has given a new date for completion.  This is October 2025.  This is a total of 53 months (4 years and 5 months) from March 2021 and is unreasonable in the circumstances because the landlord gave the first completion date as 12 August 2022.
  10. There was clearly communication between the landlord and its contractor to:
    1. pass on relevant repairs from the wider group of residents
    2. seek answers to residents’ questions relating to the cladding work, before and after residents’ meetings
  11. The landlord provided evidence of the residents’ meetings from January to September 2024. The resident provided this Service with copies of the landlord’s communications, including residents’ meetings and newsletters, from March 2021. Where delays were mentioned, these included:
    1. delays due to design
    2. delays with planning consent
    3. management changes at the contractor
    4. contractor being bought out
    5. supplier of materials going into liquidation
  12. There is evidence the landlord did communicate to the resident. However, it missed opportunities to provide more meaningful updates as to the progress of the remedial works to the cladding including timescales. This would have helped in maintaining the landlord / tenant relationship.
  13. While there is limited evidence of the landlord stating it was speaking with the contractor, this Service has not seen any evidence from the landlord which shows the steps taken to address the delays with its contractor.
  14. The resident told this Service about the impact this situation has had on her. This included:
    1. being unable to re-mortgage her home and could not afford to leave
    2. she worked from home and there was constant noise and dust and could not use the communal gardens
    3. she told us it was also impacting on family life and her young daughter did not know anything but living with scaffolding and netting outside the windows
  15. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Dealing with Cladding Complaints published in May 2021 states as follows:
    1. “It is essential for landlords to provide a clear road map, with timescales, to residents.
    2. Effective communication is vital, and landlords need to assure themselves that their strategy for this is robust, well-resourced, and proactive.”
  16. After a request from this Service, the landlord did not provide copies of any correspondence and contact notes between the landlord and any relevant third parties regarding the cladding, such as the local authority and surveyors, including any survey or inspection reports and actions required in relation to the cladding.
  17. This Service recognises there is complexity in remedial cladding work and we also acknowledge some of the delays in this case were outside of the landlord’s control.
  18. This Service also recognises the detriment was reduced to the resident because the landlord had secured grant funding for the cladding work.  However, the resident has had to live with scaffolding on the building with distress, inconvenience and disruption to her life because of the work which were significantly delayed by over 3 years. The work is not yet complete.
  19. But the lack of evidence of effective project management, oversight of its contractors and failure to demonstrate empathy or put things right has resulted in severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of remedial work in relation to the cladding work. We have ordered the landlord to pay £2000 for the distress and inconvenience.  The landlord has also been ordered to apologise to the resident.

The landlord’s record-keeping

  1. As outlined within this report, the landlord did not provide all the information requested by this Service. This has prevented us from conducting a full investigation. The landlord’s records give little indication as to the steps it took to progress the delays to the cladding work with its contractor.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme “the member must provide copies (without charge) of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint or assessment of compliance with the Complaint Handling Code.”
  3. In addition, the landlord provided a high number of communications to this Service which were not directly relevant to the complaint in this case. There were large numbers of duplicate records which hampered the investigation.
  4. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records including repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
  5. We have found severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record-keeping because it prevented this Service from having all available information to investigate this case.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1, it will issue an acknowledgement within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it will issue an acknowledgement within 5 working days and respond within a further 20 working days.
  2. On 4 January 2024, the resident raised her stage 1 complaint. But the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 12 February 2024. This was 28 working days and was unreasonable in the circumstances because it was not in line with the landlord’s policy.
  3. The landlord, in its stage 1 complaint response, apologised to the resident for having to make a complaint, recognised the poor communication as a service failure and offered £75 compensation. This was broken down as:
    1. £25 for poor communication
    2. £50 for the late acknowledgement and response to the complaint.
  4. On 20 March 2024, the resident told the landlord she was extremely disappointed in the stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged this 9 working days later. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy.
  5. On 20 April 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It found the stage 1 complaint response was partially unreasonable. It had failed to recognise the impact of the delay to the cladding work on the resident.
  6. It states “It is regrettable that there have been delays to the cladding works caused by unforeseen structural design flaws. Although the special projects team have and continue to keep residents informed with updates regarding the status and progress of the works, we recognise the inconvenience and impact this caused to you for this matter and apologise that this has been your experience.”
  7. The landlord did not provide an update to the resident as to revised timescales or how the landlord had learned from the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
  8. It repeated the £75 offered at stage 1 of the complaints process and offered £300 in recognition of the inconvenience.
  9. This Service recognises the landlord apologised and offered goodwill payments to the resident. But the resident was clear that the complaint was about the delays to the cladding work and stated the landlord was not taking any responsibility for these delays.
  10. We found service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint because the landlord in its complaint responses did not fully apply the dispute resolution principles:
    1. to be fair
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we found severe maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the remedial work required for the cladding work.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we found severe maladministration for the landlord’s record-keeping.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, found service failure in response to the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident in person and in writing. The apology must be from an Executive Director at the landlord. The apology should follow the Ombudsman’s guidance on the website.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £2375. This is made up of:
      1. £2000 for the distress and inconvenience in relation to the delays to the remedial works to the cladding.
      2. £375 for its complaint handling as offered in its stage 2 response. This can be deducted if the landlord has already paid this to the resident.
    3. Provide to the resident a clear timetable of the outstanding works required to complete the cladding works.
  2. The landlord must demonstrate compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.
  3. Within 12 weeks the landlord should:
    1. Undertake a case review and write to the resident with the outcome. The review should include:
      1. attention to oversight of contractor
      2. reasons for delays
      3. provide an explanation for the failings outlined in this report and what steps the landlord has undertaken, or will undertake, to make sure the failings do not happen again.
    2. Review its policies and procedures relating to record-keeping, to make sure all staff are aware of the importance of keeping comprehensive records. Further information can be found in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM).
  4. The landlord must demonstrate compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord should:
    1. Provide refresher training for all complaints handling staff to ensure all staff understand the time limits for recording, acknowledging, and responding to complaints in line with The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.