Newlon Housing Trust (202441956)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441956

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. Damp, mould, and internal repairs.
2. External repairs and tree maintenance.
3. Pest infestation.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The neighbours’ property is a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) and is not owned or managed by the landlord. The resident has seasonal affective disorder.
On 4 September 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the tree in the garden had overgrown and was damaging the fence. The resident also told the landlord she had safety concerns and was conscious of burglaries.
On 5 September 2023 the resident told the landlord she was experiencing mould in the property and that this was a recurring issue. The landlord sent a surveyor to the property on 13 September 2023. The surveyor’s findings and recommendations were the following:
1. There was category 2 hazard damp and mould (under HHSRS) in the property.
2. Mould treatment, repairs, and decorations were required to the lounge, bathroom, and a bedroom.
3. The potential source of the leak was the neighbours’ property as it had been recently converted to an HMO.
4. The private landlord was to reinstate the collapsed brick wall of the HMO.
On 25 September 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s email of 4 September 2023. The landlord told the resident it would arrange for a garden contractor to attend the property. By 20 October 2023 the landlord had tried to contact the private landlord, who was the owner of the neighbours’ property. It is not evident that the private landlord engaged with the landlord.
On 12 February 2024 the landlord’s contractor inspected the garden area of the resident’s property. The contractor sent the landlord a quotation to complete works on 16 February 2024. On 28 August 2024 the landlord’s internal records documented it had tried to call the private landlord multiple times without any progress.
The resident complained to the landlord on 5 September 2024. The resident said:
1. She was facing several repair issues and has had no contact or responses from the landlord. The repairs outstanding were:
  1. Damp and mould.
  2. A broken garden wall.
  3. The large tree in the garden.
  4. A rotten garden door entrance.
2. The resident attached photos of the property and said if the repairs were not completed, she would seek legal advice.
On 20 September 2024 the landlord told the resident the damp and mould repairs were on hold due. The landlord said this was due to a lack of response from the private landlord, but it was taking action against them. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and logged it at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure on 27 September 2024.
The landlord approved the quote to complete maintenance work to the tree on 1 October 2024. On 2 October 2024 the landlord contacted the local council for further action against the private landlord.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 11 October 2024 and said:
1. The damp and mould was inspected by its surveyor and noted the cause of damp was coming from the neighbours’ property, owned by a private landlord. It had attempted to reach out to the private landlord but was unsuccessful.
2. It had contacted the local council who have served a notice on the neighbours’ property. It said as this “was in the local council’s hands”, it would need to wait to see what the next steps were. However, it would update the resident.
3. It had chased its garden contractor with regards to the broken garden wall and rotten garden door.
4. Works to the large tree in the garden were approved and it had asked its contractor to book this appointment with the resident directly. It asked the resident to let it know if she had not heard anything by the following week.
5. It acknowledged its contractor should have completed the outstanding repairs.
6. It offered £75 for the delay in getting the damp and mould contractors to continue works.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 21 October 2024 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered and said she understood the difficulties with accessing the neighbours’ property. However, she said repairs needed to be completed inside her property. She also said she could hear mice chewing through the walls. The following day she reiterated her concerns about pests in the property.
The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 25 October 2024. It said it would respond in 20 working days but could agree an extension. It wrote to her on 22 November 2024 saying it would extend the complaint response deadline by 20 working days. It said this was due to the complexity of the case and it needed more information.
The landlord tried to call the resident on 25 and 29 November 2024. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 20 December 2024. The landlord reiterated its findings from its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord added that:
1. Its contractor attended the property between 18 and 22 November 2024 to carry out the internal works.
2. It had asked its internal team to confirm whether the tree maintenance works were completed as it had not heard from the resident about this.
3. It had asked its contractors to carry out the outstanding external repairs.
4. Pest infestation work had been scheduled for 31 December 2024 after its first attendance of 3 December 2024.
5. It was offering an additional £300 in compensation for the distress, time, and trouble the resident experienced. This was in addition to the £75 offered at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure.
The resident asked us to investigate her concerns on 19 January 2025 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident also told us she felt that mould is a health and safety issue, and there were outstanding garden repairs. The landlord told us in May 2025 that it was taking legal action against the private landlord. The resident told us in July 2025 that repairs remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Damp, mould, and internal repairs

As part of our investigation, we will consider whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and our Remedies Guidance. The principles are:
1. Be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System 2004 (HHSRS), to assess hazards within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord’s Repairs policy states the following for:
1. Emergency repairs which it aims to attend within 24 hours and make safe. If necessary, it would return at a later date to complete works.
2. Urgent and routine repairs which it aims to complete in 20 working days.
3. Long term repairs which it aims to complete in 3 months or as a part of programmed maintenance.
Separately, the landlord operates a Damp and Mould policy. If a resident reports damp and mould which is not an emergency, the landlord will review the report within 48 hours. The landlord then may survey the property. This survey should be attended to within 5 working days after its review.
From the evidence provided, the resident reported she was experiencing damp and mould issues in the property on 5 September 2023. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 13 September 2023. This was inside the landlord’s Damp and Mould policy timescales and therefore was appropriate action by the landlord.
The surveyor identified presence of mould in the bathroom, the lounge, and 1 of the 3 bedrooms. The surveyor said this was a category 2 hazard under HHSRS. The surveyor documented that the neighbour’s property was the potential source of penetrating damp causing the mould in the lounge. We acknowledge the landlord does not have a direct relationship with the neighbours and the property is owned by a private landlord. In these circumstances, the landlord was limited in the actions it could have taken regarding the neighbour’s property. It would be unreasonable to expect the landlord to conduct immediate repairs at the neighbour’s property, as this was outside of its control and responsibilities.
However, we would expect to see the landlord take proactive steps in communicating with either the neighbours, the private landlord, or the local council.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. The evidence shows the landlord contacted the private landlord following its surveyor’s inspection. This was by phone call and letter, but it had not received a response from the private landlord as of 20 October 2023.
The landlord’s records also show that as of 28 August 2024 it had attempted to contact the private landlord “multiple times”, but the calls did not connect. However, the landlord escalated the lack of response from the private landlord internally to its legal team on the same day. There was a 10-month gap in records between initial contact attempts in October 2023 and August 2024. Due to the lack of records, we are unable to conclude the number of times the landlord attempted to contact the private landlord or neighbours. This demonstrates poor record keeping.
The resident submitted her complaint about damp and mould issues on 5 September 2024. The landlord told the resident on 20 September 2024 that further action was being taken against the neighbour. Prior to this, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated about the steps it was taking to contact the private landlord. This was not in line with the landlord’s Damp and Mould policy. The policy states residents should be kept updated on the progress of works and that its communication is clear and documented. The lack of communication by the landlord with the resident at that stage was therefore inappropriate.
Further, it was not until 2 October 2024 the landlord contacted the local council’s environmental team. The landlord notified the local council to take action against the private landlord as the damp issues were affecting the resident. While this was positive, it had been over 12 months since the landlord surveyed the resident’s property. It would have been reasonable for it to have taken this step earlier than it did. By not doing so, the resident experienced distress for a prolonged period.
We appreciate that there are occasions a landlord can experience difficulties when dealing with a third party. However, the landlord has an overriding responsibility to its resident, despite any difficulties it may experience.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it told the resident that it had contacted the local council. The local council had served a notice to the private landlord, and it was awaiting their guidance. The landlord reiterated this in its stage 2 complaint response but did not reference any other steps it could take or potential timelines. While we acknowledge the landlord has since engaged in legal action with the private landlord in May 2025, the lack of guidance in its formal response was unreasonable.
The surveyor’s inspection of 13 September 2023 also recommended other temporary repairs. This included mould treatment to the 3 affected rooms. The evidence shows the surveyor’s recommendations were not actioned within the timescales set in the landlord’s Repairs policy. The landlord should have actioned this within 3 months, so by 13 December 2023. The landlord’s contractors did not complete these repairs until 22 November 2024. This meant the repairs were overdue by over 11 months, which was inappropriate.
There was no evidence provided by the landlord that it had installed a temporary dehumidifier in the resident’s lounge, as recommended by its surveyor. This was unreasonable action by it and did not demonstrate it was resolution focused.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) made several recommendations for landlords. This included that a landlord should:
1. Ensure that it clearly and regularly communicates with its residents regarding actions taken or otherwise, to resolve reports of damp and mould.
2. Act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
3. Ensure it can identify complex cases at an early stage, and have a strategy for keeping residents informed.
Had the landlord followed the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould, it might have prevented the above failures regarding temporary repairs.
Overall, the landlord organised a survey of the property promptly after receiving the resident’s reports of damp and mould. While repairs to the neighbour’s property were out of the landlord’s control, there were significant delays in repairs which were its responsibility. The landlord also did not contact the local council for further action until 12 months after its survey, despite no response from the private landlord. The landlord was also unable to substantiate how frequently it tried to contact the private landlord before escalating to the local council.
Under our Remedies Guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by service failures. The Remedies Guidance also considers the length of time the resident experienced detriment.
In the landlord’s final response, it apologised for the delays in repairs and that its contractor should have contacted the resident earlier. At stage 1 the landlord attributed the £75 offered to the lack of action and updates by its damp and mould contractor. Whereas, the landlord did not specify how much, if any of the £300 awarded at stage 2 was apportioned for its service failings regarding damp and mould and internal repairs. However, we have taken the total amount of £375 offered in consideration of its handling of damp, mould, and internal repairs. While it attempted to put things right, the £375 offered was not proportionate to the events. Further, there was no learning identified by the landlord for these errors.
If it were not for the landlord’s attempt to put things right and the November 2024 repairs, we would have considered severe maladministration. Given the above, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of damp, mould, and internal repairs. Orders have been made that take into consideration the distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of the home experienced by the resident.
When calculating our order of compensation, we have considered that the landlord’s temporary repairs to address damp and mould should have been completed by 13 December 2023. We have also taken into consideration that the landlord’s contractor did offer to carry out temporary repairs the week of 11 November 2024, but the resident was unavailable. The repairs were completed on 22 November 2024.
This meant the resident was living with the presence of mould in the property for 11 months over the timescales set in the landlord’s Repairs policy. The severity of the issue was known to the landlord who had identified the mould as a category 2 hazard under HHSRS. The contractors confirmed the property was habitable on 22 November 2024. However, the contractor’s position on the property being habitable was not communicated clearly to the resident. There was also no evidence a temporary dehumidifier was provided.
Further, the lack of communication from the landlord about the steps it was taking to contact the private landlord, was over a period of 12 months. Therefore, the landlord is required to pay compensation which totals £650. This is made up of:
1. £550 for the delay in actioning temporary repairs. This equates to £50 per month across 11 months and reflects the distress, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of the home experienced by the resident.
2. £100 for the distress caused by the landlord’s lack of updates to the resident. And for its failure to consider the legal route or contacting the local council earlier than it did.
This award of £650 is also in line with our Remedies Guidance where there has been a significant impact on the resident. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £375 made in its final response.

External repairs and tree maintenance

Under the tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible for maintaining her garden. The landlord’s Repairs policy also states the resident is responsible for pruning trees.
Whereas boundary walls, fences, and outside doors fall under the responsibility of the landlord in the tenancy agreement. These are part of the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord provided us with its policy on trees, which states it would consider repairs to trees if it were damaging the structure of the property.
As noted above, record keeping is an essential element of a landlord’s service delivery. However, the information provided to us regarding the garden area and external repairs was limited. From the resident’s complaint submission, we can see she included repair issues with tree maintenance, a garden door, and a garden wall. We have received conflicting information about the fence, as the landlord refers to this as the neighbour’s brick wall, whereas the resident states she wants repairs to the ‘fence’; however, in her initial complaint submission, she referred to a garden wall only. She has also referred to a lack of fencing. It would have been helpful had the landlord clarified its position and provided a scope of works to the resident as part of its repair response; however, it did not do so.
On 4 September 2023 the resident first reported that the tree in the garden area was overgrown. Due to the overgrown tree, the resident had no fencing at the property and raised safety concerns. The resident also told the landlord she had vulnerabilities as she had seasonal affective disorder. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns on 25 September 2023 and said it would have a gardening contractor look at the issues raised. This was a reasonable response at that stage.
While the landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 13 September 2023, this was to address the resident’s concerns of damp and mould. However, the surveyor did find that the external brick wall was damaged, but this was potentially the responsibility of the private landlord. In our assessment of the damp and mould issues, the landlord was unable to contact the private landlord and escalated to the local council. Although the neighbour’s brick wall is outside the landlord’s responsibility, as above, we would expect the landlord to have chased the private landlord about any necessary repairs to the wall. As above, its record keeping and contact with the resident regarding this was poor.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractors inspected the works required for the tree on 12 February 2024. This meant over 4 months had passed since the landlord said it would arrange an inspection. This was inappropriate, as it exceeded its 20-working day routine repair timescales by 82 working days. It is clear from the evidence this issue had been causing the resident distress.
The landlord was aware that repairs were needed after its inspection of 12 February 2024. However, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated between this period and when it approved the quote on 1 October 2024. In line with its Repairs policy, long term repairs such as these planned garden repairs should have taken 3 months. Therefore, following its inspection the landlord should have completed repairs by 12 May 2024. It not doing so was inappropriate.
The landlord’s final response confirmed that internal works had taken place but acknowledged that it had told its contractors to complete external works too, which had not been completed. This was despite the landlord telling the resident the quote for the tree was approved. The landlord had told the resident to contact it if she had not heard from its gardening contractor. The resident did not do so. However, given that it had taken over 13 months since the resident reported the overgrown tree to the landlord until it told her it would action repairs, it would have been helpful had the landlord had oversight of the repairs and followed these up itself, which it did not do. The landlord was not proactive with its communication or demonstrated it was resolution focused regarding the external repairs.
We acknowledge the resident’s tree was eventually removed by a third party, and not the landlord. As such, no further repair to the tree is required. However, the landlord’s communication regarding this was poor and not proactive. It was clear from the outset the resident was distressed about the overgrown tree affecting her property.
The external works also included issues with a garden door. Ultimately, the landlord was responsible for repairs to the garden door and any fence which it had fitted. These repairs were not completed by its final response, and it had not provided a timeline of when it would. The landlord also missed earlier opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations about repairs to the neighbour’s brick wall or construction of a fence. This has caused her distress and time, and trouble expended.
The landlord also failed to identify learning from its lack of action and external repairs. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of external repairs and tree maintenance. Orders to put things right for the resident have been made.
As there is contrasting evidence as to what repairs remain incomplete, clarifying the scope of works has been made an order.
In terms of compensation, we have considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and use of garden space. We have also considered that the resident was experiencing issues with the external repairs from September 2023. The tree was present in the landlord’s inspection of 12 February 2024. While we have no records of specifically when the tree was removed by the third party, the resident did not chase this following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. We have taken this into consideration as a mitigating factor.
The resident told us that as of July 2025 the external repairs are incomplete. Therefore, 19 months have elapsed since external repairs (excluding the tree) were due in December 2023 until present. In these circumstances, a total of £250 has been ordered for the failings identified. This is made up of:
1. £50 for the 82 working days delay that it took the landlord to carry out an inspection of the tree, which caused the resident distress.
2. £200 to recognise the time and trouble, and the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident for the landlord’s failures to complete external repairs.

Pest infestation

The landlord operates a ‘Pests Policy’. This states cases which are the landlord’s responsibility are to be completed within 60 working days.
The resident put the landlord on notice of potential pest infestation issues on 21 October 2024. The resident also reiterated her concerns about this the following day. This was after the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, and we have commented on this below in consideration if its complaint handling.
The evidence shows the landlord organised pest contractors to attend the property on 3 December 2024. This was 31 working days since the resident reported pest issues and, therefore, was appropriate action by the landlord.
The landlord also confirmed in its final response that a second pest contractor appointment was scheduled for 31 December 2024. This was reasonable action by it and showed it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.
As the landlord acted reasonably and followed its Pests Policy, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of pest infestation.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states complaints must be acknowledged, defined, and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 working days of the complaint being received.
The resident’s complaint email was sent on 5 September 2024. However, the complaint was not acknowledged and logged at stage 1 by the landlord until 27 September 2024. Therefore, the complaint was not acknowledged by the landlord until 16 working days after the resident’s complaint submission. This was 11 working days beyond the timescales in the Code and was inappropriate.
The Code also states that a landlord, at stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure, must:
1. Issue a final response at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged.
2. Decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reasons must be clearly explained to the resident.
The landlord’s final response would have been due 21 November 2024. However, the landlord told the resident it would need more time to respond on 22 November 2024. The landlord extended the response deadline by a further 20 working days. This was a minor delay, taking an extra day to request an extension. However, this itself would not have significantly impacted the resident’s complaint journey.
The Code says where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
After the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, the resident raised the issue of pest infestation in her stage 2 escalation email. In this circumstance, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not log the pest infestation issue as a new complaint. By not doing so, the landlord had taken away the opportunity for the resident to receive a 2-stage complaints process for the pest infestation complaint. The landlord also established that this was a complex complaint. Therefore, adding a separate complaint issue affected her complaint journey and was inconvenient.
Overall, the landlord apologised for the delayed stage 1 complaint acknowledgement in its correspondence of 27 September 2024. However, the landlord unreasonably incorporated the complaint about pest infestation into its stage 2 complaint response only. As such, we have found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In order to put things right, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 to the resident. This is in line with our Remedies Guidance for singular service failures of shorter duration, recognising the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of:
1. Damp, mould, and internal repairs.
2. External repairs and tree maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of pest infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation which totals £950, made up of:
  1. £650 for the distress, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment the resident experienced due to the poor communication and handling of damp and mould issues in the property.
  2. £250 for the distress and time and trouble expended by the resident in chasing external repairs and tree maintenance.
  3. £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident due to its complaint handling.
  4. If any of the £375 offered in its final response had been paid, it can be deducted from the £950 total.
3. Create a scope of works for any other works that remain outstanding from its final response of 20 December 2024 and share this with the resident and us. If it identifies any issues, it is to establish if any further repairs are needed and provide timeframes to complete repairs.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to conduct a case review. This must include both its handling of the damp, mould and internal repairs, as well as the external repairs and tree maintenance. The purpose of the review is to identify learnings from the substantive issues. The landlord is to provide us with the outcome of its review.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.