Newlon Housing Trust (202526199)

Decision
Case ID	202526199
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Newlon Housing Trust
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

1. The resident has lived at the property, which is a flat, for over 10 years with her child. In November 2024 she reported mould at the property that she thought was from a leak. The landlord inspected but did not identify any signs of a leak. In April 2025 the resident reported that the mould had worsened, and the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend. The landlord then told the resident that all of the property’s flooring needed to be replaced and that, because of the extensive necessary works, it would have to move her while the works took place. The resident reluctantly agreed and then reported that the temporary accommodation was unsuitable, so the landlord provided an alternative property. Once the works were completed, the resident returned home but was unhappy with the landlord’s response to these issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould, repairs, and temporary accommodation for this.
   2. The complaint.

Our decisions (determinations)

3. We have found service failure with the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould, repairs, and temporary accommodation for this.
   2. The complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould, repairs, and temporary accommodation for this

4. Mostly, the landlord responded appropriately in its complaint responses to the issues complained about by the resident, acknowledging and accepting where it had gone wrong and offering compensation. However, it left some issues, including the report of a silverfish infestation, unresolved.

The complaint

5. The landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed and confusingly incorporated the compensation offered in another complaint in its assessment of this complaint.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,150 made up as follows: £950 for the failings it accepted during its complaints process, if this has not already been paid £100 for its failure to address the resident’s complaint about a silverfish infestation and about an ongoing damp issue in her daughter’s bedroom £100 for its delays and lack of clarity at stage 1 of its complaint handling process 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 26 March 2026
2	Specific action order The landlord must contact the resident and enquire what her out-of-pocket expenses were during or around the period it moved her (23 April to 16 July 2025). It should consider offering her a payment to compensate her for those expenses. If the resident is unhappy with its response, she can raise a complaint with us.	No later than 26 March 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the property for an infestation of silverfish and produces a written report of the causes and an action plan to resolve this with timescales and photographs	No later than 26 March 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident about whether it replaced the flooring at the property as it said it would in its stage 1 response. If it has not replaced it, it should do so immediately and consider making an offer to compensate the resident for any continued delay. If the resident remains unhappy with its response she can ask us to look at a new complaint.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 June 2025	The resident raised a complaint, that although she had received a drying out certificate from contractors on 2 June 2025, repairs had not progressed at the property. She explained how this inconvenienced her, including not being able to access childcare. It is not clear if/when the landlord responded to this complaint formally, although it later said it offered the resident £300 compensation.
10 and 11 July 2025	The resident complained about how the landlord handled the repairs to the property and her move. Among other things she said she wanted the landlord to explain why, contrary to what she had been advised would happen, only the kitchen and bathroom flooring had been replaced. She was unhappy that she had been told she and her family had to move when she had since been told this had not been necessary.
17 July 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
20 and 23 July 2025	The resident added to her stage 1 complaint. She said that upon returning to the property there were a number of outstanding issues. These were: persistent mould in her daughter’s bedroom an ongoing water leak from the toilet area, causing damage a silverfish infestation inferior flooring replacement in the kitchen and the bathroom
14 August 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised and gave an account of the events since the resident’s first report about mould in November 2024. It acknowledged: a “significant delay” from November 2024 to April 2025 in addressing the resident’s report of mould the resident’s frustration with its communications about repairs the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation but said better options had not been available It said that the toilet leak had been repaired in July 2025 and it would replace the flooring in the kitchen, which it accepted had been laid incorrectly, upon the resident’s return from holiday. It said it had offered the resident £300 in resolution of her 19 June 2025 complaint. It added to that a further £150 for its handling of the mould issue, making a total of £450.
14 August 2025	The resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the compensation offered did not reflect her serious distress, financial loss and ongoing issues. She said: she had been forced to move to temporary accommodation against her wishes her moving costs had not been paid and she had to stay in unsafe temporary accommodation before returning to new leaks due to poor workmanship
22 August 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation.
22 September 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It acknowledged there had been “significant failings from start to finish”, accepting: the resident had been “wrongly pressured into decanting” the issues at the first relocation were “wholly unsuitable and unsafe” and moving multiple times caused disruption she was not clearly or promptly informed about the landlord’s change of scope regarding the works required at the property a new leak had been caused by the poor installation of the toilet and a dehumidifier and additional repairs had been required again workmanship had fell below standards, which should have been identified in its final checks before she returned home the financial loss, emotional strain and unnecessary inconvenience was “well beyond what is reasonable” It said it would: take new steps to review contractors’ performance and ensure stricter quality control measures review how temporary accommodation properties are inspected and approved before being offered to residents It offered a further: £250 for being placed in unsuitable temporary accommodation and for the disruption caused by multiple moves £150 for poor communication around the change of scope to works £100 in recognition of the further damage caused by poor workmanship and additional repairs Its total compensation offer, including its offer at stage 1, was £950.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained to the Ombudsman that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to the damp and mould, the temporary accommodation she had been placed in, and she said the landlord had not completed the flooring replacement.

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	Damp and mould, repairs, and temporary accommodation for this
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

6. The resident has said this situation has impacted her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. They can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. We’ve not investigated this further. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused her.
7. The resident has raised complaint issues which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. She said that:
   1. She was incorrectly charged for a washing machine repair in November 2024.
   2. The landlord promised to give her a new bathroom and kitchen but only repainted them.
   3. The landlord did not attend an appointment to inspect the property on 4 November 2025.
   4. She had to replace a wardrobe and the kitchen following the works.
8. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. While the landlord did respond to the resident’s complaint about the washing machine repair, the issue did not go through the landlord’s full complaint’s process.
9. As these issues have not been through the landlord’s complaint’s process, we will not investigate them as the landlord has not had the chance to put them right first, so we have no power to investigate. This investigation report, therefore, concerns only those matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaints in June/July 2025 and which were the subject of the landlord’s final response dated 22 September 2025.
10. The resident has the right to make a new complaint to the landlord if she is unhappy with its handling of these other issues. She can then return to us if she remains dissatisfied after receiving its responses.

What we did investigate

11. In its complaint responses the landlord has accepted significant failings in responding to the resident’s reports of issues at the property. It accepted it delayed addressing damp and mould, failed to communicate a change of scope in works, and failed to discuss an alternative solution to temporary accommodation that was, as it later accepted, unsuitable. It also accepted that an inspection had found that the works it had done while the resident was moved were to a poor standard. It accepted that this must have further contributed to her distress about the situation.
12. It set out how it planned to avoid making such mistakes again by reviewing its practices and offered a total of £950 in compensation.
13. When a landlord acknowledges failings, we consider whether the redress it offered was sufficient to put things right and resolve the complaint in the circumstances. In doing so we consider whether the landlord’s actions and its redress package (including its apology, proposed improvements, planned completion of outstanding works, and compensation) are in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
14. The landlord’s apology and acknowledgement of the difficulties the resident experienced was positive. However, it did not address the resident’s report on 20 July 2025 that the property had an infestation of silverfish. The resident said this issue remained outstanding when she complained to us. We have ordered it to address this part of the complaint with a surveyor’s inspection to decide the causes and an action plan to resolve this. Its failure to do so earlier meant the complaint remained unresolved.
15. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s complaint on 20 July 2025 that there was ongoing mould in her daughter’s bedroom. In its stage 2 response in September 2025, the landlord said its operatives had inspected the property on 20 June 2025 and found no damp or mould outside the bathroom and kitchen. It explained this had been the reason why it had not done all the works it initially understood it would have to do.
16. However, a month had passed between the June 2025 inspection and the resident’s July 2025 mould report. This meant, even if it was satisfied this had been dealt with by the repairs, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address her concern in either its August 2025 or September 2025 response. We acknowledge that the resident recently confirmed she no longer considers damp or mould to be an issue. However, at the time of the complaint, the landlord’s failure to address the concern was a missed opportunity and left part of her complaint unresolved.
17. The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s compensation offer. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where there has been a long‑term impact on a resident, including long‑term effects caused by mishandled repairs, an award of £700 or more is appropriate. The policy identifies aggravating factors such as when a complainant has a young child and experiences an extended period in temporary accommodation due to repair delays, causing significant inconvenience and upset.
18. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said its revised offer of compensation would include a consideration of the financial impact of moving, including fuel costs, moving expenses and other direct losses. It accepted that the initial accommodation the resident and her young family were placed in had “entirely unacceptable” safety issues and that moving again caused her family “significant distress and disruption”. It accepted she had direct financial losses, including fuel costs and other out-of-pocket costs, during the move, which lasted from 23 April 2025 to 16 July 2025.
19. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to the accepted failings around the temporary moves did not provide any compensation for the above financial losses or ask for information from the resident so that it could understand how much they had been. We have ordered it to contact the resident to discuss this aspect of her complaint, ask what her expenses were, and consider compensating her for them.
20. The landlord’s offer of £950 compensation was at the higher range of its policy and our remedies guidance but did not address all the issues raised. Because the landlord left parts of the complaint unresolved, we have ordered it to pay this to the resident with an additional amount of £100 to recognise this. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation when such service failures delay getting matters resolved.
21. In its August 2025 response, the landlord said it had repaired a leak from the toilet that had been caused by poor workmanship. The resident does not dispute this. The landlord also said it had arranged for the kitchen flooring to be replaced while the resident was on holiday. It is unclear whether this work has been completed or whether this also included the bathroom flooring, which the resident had also complained about. The landlord’s records show that its contractor invoiced for flooring renewal and other works in August 2025. However, the resident said the flooring has still not been replaced. We have recommended that the landlord check the status of the work with the resident and consider compensating her for any delay.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Service failure

22. The landlord has a 2‑stage complaint process that aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). At stage 1 the landlord should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue a formal response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 the landlord should acknowledge the escalation request within 5 working days and issue its final response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
23. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the 10 July 2025 complaint within 5 working days. However, it took 20 working days between the 17 July 2025 acknowledgement and 14 August 2025 to provide its stage 1 response, a delay of 10 working days.
24. At stage 2 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s 14 August 2025 request to escalate on 22 August 2025 and provided its formal response on 22 September 2025, which were both a working day late. This delay was minimal and would not have caused significant adverse impact to the resident.
25. It is unclear what happened to the resident’s first attempt to make a complaint of 19 June 2025. In its 14 August 2025 stage 1 response to the resident’s 10 July 2025 complaint, the landlord described the 19 June 2025 complaint as resolved and closed. When the landlord responded to our enquiries, it said the 19 June 2025 complaint “does not need to be addressed in this complaint”.
26. However, in its 14 August 2025 stage 1 complaint response, when calculating the appropriate compensation for the complaint, the landlord included the £300 compensation it said it had offered in the 19 June 2025 complaint. It did not explain why it did this and it was therefore a confusing way of calculating the compensation offered. This lack of clarity around its compensation offer and the delay at stage 1, represented a service failure. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for its delays and lack of clarity at stage 1 of its complaints process. This is in with our remedies guidance’s above recommendation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. We did not find any record keeping issues.

Communication

28. Other than the confusion over how the landlord calculated its compensation offer, its communication was clear and detailed.