Newlon Housing Trust (202219557)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219557

Newlon Housing Trust

6 March 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 handling of:

a.     the resident’s reports of repairs to the district heating system in her apartment block.

b.     the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal lifts in her apartment block.

c.      the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated July 2018. She lives in a flat on the first floor of a purpose-built apartment block which has 2 lifts. The landlord is a housing association and is a leaseholder. A separate head leaseholder appointed a management agent to handle communal repairs. The occupancy agreement shows that the resident lives with 3 children. However, in later emails the resident says she lives with 5 children. The resident said she has reduced mobility due to a back injury.
3. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 September 2022 and said that the lifts had not been working for a while. She asked how long it would take to repair them as she had been in a car accident and had discs removed from her back. The landlord responded on 8 September 2022 and told her that it had referred the issue with the lifts to the management agent to action urgently. It emailed the resident again on 16 September 2022 and told her that 1 lift was in operation in the building that stopped at all levels.
4. The resident emailed the landlord again on 15, 16 and 25 November 2022. She said the lifts had not been working since August 2022 and repeated her concerns about her back. She said the landlord was aware of this and she wanted to claim her service charge back. She complained that the landlord had taken money from her account for rent when it was aware there were no lifts. The landlord responded on 28 November 2022 and apologised for the issues the resident had reported. It explained that her apartment block had a management agent who was responsible for communal repairs. The landlord said it had contacted the management agent about the repair of the lifts.
5. The resident emailed the landlord again on 30 November 2022 and said it was not good enough. She repeated her concerns about the landlord taking rent and service charges but not fixing the issue. The landlord responded on the same day and provided information on how to report communal repairs to the management agent. The resident emailed the landlord on 3 December 2022 and raised the same concerns about the lifts. The landlord treated that as a stage 1 complaint and acknowledged it the same day.
6. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 14 December 2022. It provided a summary of action taken to repair the lifts from 5 September 2022 to 1 December 2022 when engineers completed the repair. The landlord also said:

a.     the resident had complained about reoccurring lift breakdowns.

b.     the resident wanted it to complete the repairs as soon as possible and complete a review to identify any service failures to resolve her complaint.

c.      engineers had to attend lift repairs within 48 hours to either remedy or make safe.

d.     engineers had repaired the lifts, and no further work was required.

e.     due to the lifts breaking down the landlord would reimburse the service charge the resident paid for communal repairs of that nature in accordance with its policy. This would be in the next financial year.

f.        it was sorry for the inconvenience caused and its service not meeting the resident’s expectations.

7. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2022 and repeated her dissatisfaction. The landlord did not respond. So, the Ombudsman emailed the landlord on 12 December 2023 and told it to provide a complaint response to the resident by 5 January 2024. The landlord resent its stage 1 response to the resident on 4 January 2024. It then sent a stage 2 complaint response on 6 March 2024. It said:

a.     it was responding to the resident’s complaint about various incomplete repairs including its handling of repairs to the communal lifts.

b.     its response at stage 1 was mostly fair as it correctly responded to points raised in the resident’s original complaint and included a summary of the repairs history for the communal lifts.

c.      the stage 1 response also informed the resident that the landlord would reimburse any service charges relating to repair of the lifts where applicable.

d.     however, it did not explain that in accordance with policy and procedure the resident would have to complain to the management agent.

e.     for that reason, it was partially upholding the resident’s complaint.

f.        the lifts had been repaired, and it was sorry for the resident’s experience.

g.     it offered £325 compensation (although the letter incorrectly said £375) consisting of:

1. £25 for not advising resident to complain to management agent in stage 1 response.
2. £250 for impact and inconvenience.
3. £50 as a gesture of goodwill.

8. The resident told the Ombudsman that the delays in repairing the lifts and poor communication severely impacted her and her family. She said the level of redress offered by the landlord did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused. She said she wanted the lifts to be maintained and the landlord to pay £2,375 compensation (inclusive of the £375 offered at stage 2 of the complaint process).

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

9. What the Ombudsman can and cannot investigate is called our jurisdiction and is set out in the scheme. The resident said she has issued court proceedings about the heating issues she has experienced. The landlord has also provided evidence of this. Paragraph 41.c of the scheme states “the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgment on the merits was given.”
10. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to consider issues about the resident’s reports of repairs to the district heating system in her apartment block. This is because legal proceedings have been issued on the same matter. This is in accordance with paragraph 41.c of the scheme.

Scope of the investigation

11. The Ombudsman also acknowledges that in communication with the landlord the resident expressed concerns about paying a service charge when the lifts were out of service. Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. This falls outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s concerns about service charges. However, we can consider whether the landlord followed its policies correctly when handling repairs to the communal lifts.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal lifts in her apartment block

12. The resident’s occupancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining communal areas including lifts.
13. The landlord’s repairs policy supports this and says:

a.     a non-functioning lift comes under emergency repairs which it aims to resolve in full within 24 hours. Where it is unable to do this, it aims to assess the situation in this timescale and where it can carry out a temporary fix.

b.     for significant communal repairs such as lifts the landlord will keep residents updated with regular texts on the progress of the repair. The lift contractor would be responsible for this.

c.      where it does not complete repairs within the published timescales it should escalate the matter to the relevant team to monitor and progress.

14. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with managing agents from March 2022 recommended that:

a.     landlords should review their operational response to service or repair requests in buildings owned and managed by third parties to ensure they are effective, including provision of interim support and maintaining accurate and robust records.

b.     where these records are held or made on behalf of managing agents landlords should try to ensure that they are provided either with copies of, or other clear information on, technical assessments, decisions, and future plans.

15. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 September 2022 about the lifts being out of service. The landlord emailed the management agent the same day. It said residents had reported that the lift had been out of order for 6 days and asked if this had been actioned and when the lift would be repaired. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the management agent regarding the lifts within 24 hours. This is because the landlord’s repairs policy states that it should treat faults with communal lifts as an emergency repair which it aimed to assess within 24 hours.
16. The management agent emailed the landlord on 5 September 2022. It said:

a.     the lifts started to fail towards the end of the previous week. An engineer attended and managed to get them working.

b.     after a day or two the lifts started to fail again so engineers attended again with senior technicians to find the root cause of the problem.

c.      they restarted the lifts, but they failed again while the engineers were monitoring them.

d.     the engineers decided to shut the lifts down as they deemed it safer than residents getting stuck inside.

e.     the cause of the problem was the phase relay, and it had ordered parts to replace it.

f.        it was constantly interacting with the lift manufacturer to source the part as soon as possible.

g.     as soon as it heard back it would inform the landlord when engineers would attend.

h.     it hoped that could be relayed to all residents.

17. It was appropriate for the engineers to close the lifts for safety reasons in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. However, it is unclear if an engineer initially attended within 24 hours or if engineers closed the lifts within 24 hours when they failed again as stated in the landlord’s repairs policy. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to assess if the landlord took appropriate action regarding repair of the lifts.
18. Additionally, as the management agent had to order a part to repair the lifts the delay was unavoidable. The landlord sent a text message regarding the lifts to its residents in the block on 6 September 2022. It has not provided a record of what was in the text. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to send this text in line with its repairs policy. Although its repairs policy says that the lift contractor was responsible for sending texts.
19. The landlord emailed the management agent on 8 September 2022 regarding the lifts being out of service. The landlord asked the management agent to action that urgently as it had a resident who had been in an accident and found it difficult without use of the lifts. The landlord emailed the resident and informed her of this the same day. It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident that it had contacted the management agent. However, there is no evidence it relayed any of the information provided by the management agent on 5 September 2022 to her. This was unreasonable.
20. The landlord emailed the management agent on 15 and 16 September 2022. It asked for an update on when the lifts would be repaired so it could inform the residents. It also asked if the management agent had communicated the progress of the repair to all residents in the block. It was appropriate for the landlord to check if the management agent had been updating the residents. This is because its repairs policy says that for lift repairs a lift contractor would be responsible for updating residents by text message.
21. The management agent responded on 16 September 2022. It told the landlord that:

a.     engineers managed to get 1 of the lifts working 2 weeks ago.

b.     when the lifts were down it allowed residents access to their block via other apartment blocks.

c.      it was awaiting parts from the lift manufacturer and once received engineers would repair both lifts.

d.     it had ordered the parts from overseas and there was a high lead time which had caused the delay.

e.     it was constantly chasing the lift engineers and manufacturer.

f.        it had put notices in the apartment block lobby that day to make residents aware and it was answering residents’ queries by phone, email and in person at the concierge desk.

g.     in its emails it had asked the landlord to inform residents as it only managed communal areas. It assumed the landlord had updated the residents.

h.     it would be happy to put notices with updates in the lobby or send letters if the landlord wished.

22. The landlord confirmed with a resident in the apartment block that they had access to 1 working lift the same day. It also emailed the management agent and said they could send updates via letter. The landlord said that when the management agent provided an update it would send text messages to the residents in the block. Also, on 16 September 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and relayed the update it had received from the management agent. This was appropriate in line with its repairs policy. It was also reasonable to allow residents access to the block through other blocks while both lifts were out of service.
23. The landlord emailed the management agent for updates on the lifts on 21 and 23 September 2022. The landlord’s records from 23 September 2022 show that the management agent would get a quote for the part the following Monday and would then pay the manufacturer. The management agent said it would update the landlord by the following Wednesday. There is no evidence that the management agent provided this update or that the landlord contacted the management agent to chase this. This was not appropriate in line with the spotlight report which recommended that landlords should ensure third parties provided clear information on decisions.
24. The landlord received reports that the working lift had started to fail on 6 November 2022. It emailed the management agent the same day regarding the issues with this lift. The landlord asked the management agent to treat it as an emergency and inform it of any issues The management agent responded the same day. It said it had noted the issues with the lift, and it would make management aware. It was appropriate for the landlord to ask the management agent to treat this as an emergency in line with its repairs policy.
25. However, although 1 lift was in operation there is no evidence that the landlord monitored this between 23 September 2022 and 6 November 2022 or requested an update from the management agent. Additionally, the landlord did not update the residents, and it is unclear if the management agent did this. This was not appropriate because the repairs policy says that where the landlord did not complete repairs within published timescales it should monitor and provide regular updates to the residents.
26. The landlord received further reports about the lifts from other residents in the apartment block on 10 November 2022. They raised safety concerns as people were getting stuck in them. The landlord did not email the management agent again about this until 13 November 2022. This was not appropriate in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which says it should treat issues with communal lifts as an emergency repair and attend within 24 hours.
27. The landlord emailed the management agent 3 times on 14 November 2022 for an update on the lift repair so they could inform residents. It also requested that the management agent urgently investigated the matter. It was appropriate for the landlord to request an update from the management agent to relay to its residents in line with its repairs policy.
28. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 November 2022 and reiterated her concerns about the lift. There is no evidence that the management agent updated the landlord. However, the same day the landlord sent a text message to the residents in the apartment block. This was appropriate in accordance with its repairs policy. The landlord said:

a.     it was aware both lifts were out of service.

b.     it had been advised that engineers were aware and would be attending as soon as possible to repair them.

c.      in the meantime, if residents were struggling with bags or pushchairs, they could visit the concierge in another block who would be happy to assist.

29. The resident emailed the landlord again about the lifts on 16 November 2022. The landlord then called the deputy managing director of the management agent on 18 November 2022. The managing director told the landlord that they were chasing the contractors, and it had escalated the issue to the director. It was appropriate for the landlord to escalate the lift repairs to the deputy managing director of the management agent as it had not received an update. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report which recommended that landlords ensured management agents provided clear information.
30. The management agent emailed the landlord on 21 November 2022. It said it had updated residents about the lifts through the portal. The landlord’s records show that the management agent did not have their resident’s details. So, on 25 November 2022 the landlord sent a text message to its residents in the block. This was appropriate in line with its repairs policy. The landlord told residents that:

a.     it was aware that the lifts were out of service.

b.     parts had been ordered from abroad which had delayed repair of the lifts.

c.      once it had more information it would provide an update.

d.     it was sorry for any inconvenience caused.

31. The resident emailed the landlord and raised the same concerns about the lifts on 25 and 28 November 2022 and 3 December 2022. The landlord’s records from 6 December 2022 show that the management agent had confirmed that the lifts had been in service since 1 December 2022. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it contacted the management agent for an update on the lifts between 21 November 2022 and 6 December 2022. There is no evidence that the landlord or the management agent informed the residents that the lifts were serviceable. This was not appropriate as the landlord should have provided regular updates in line with its repairs policy.
32. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 14 December 2022 which informed her that the lifts had been repaired. However, although the response included detailed repairs summaries for the lifts. It incorrectly said the landlord had 48 hours to either repair or make the lifts safe. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s injuries and how the lack of lifts would have impacted her due to this. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s complaint policy states that it should carefully consider all information.
33. After contact from the Ombudsman in December 2024 the landlord contacted the management agent for further information regarding the lifts breaking down in the resident’s block in 2022. It is unclear why the landlord did not request this at the time or if the management agent informed the residents. The management agent emailed the landlord on 12 December 2024 and said that:

a.     its records showed that the second lift started to trip on and off on 3 November 2022.

b.     engineers managed to reset both lifts but after a few days they needed to shut them down to avoid people getting trapped in them.

c.      it allowed residents access to the block through another block which accessed the resident’s block on the first floor.

Summary and conclusions

34. The Ombudsman recognises that the delay to repair the lifts was unavoidable as the management agent had to order the required part from overseas. We also acknowledge that 1 lift was in operation for much of the time the second lift was out of service. Additionally, when both lifts were out of service the management agent arranged alternative access to the resident’s block through other blocks which accessed the resident’s block on her floor. The Ombudsman also recognises the difficulty the landlord faced in having to contact a management agent for information.
35. In summary:

a.     although the landlord was mainly proactive in contacting the management agent when it received reports that the lifts were out of service. The information provided was not always sufficiently detailed and the landlord did not seek clarification on this.

b.     the landlord did not always contact the management agent quickly enough after receiving reports that the lifts were out of service including safety concerns.

c.      the landlord did not monitor the repairs to the lifts when it went beyond published timescales.

d.     the landlord did not ensure that residents were regularly updated about the repairs to the lifts.

e.     in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord failed to acknowledge how the lack of lifts may have impacted the resident due to her injuries.

36. The Ombudsman considers that these were failings and therefore the landlord should pay the resident compensation.
37. The resident has demonstrated the frustration, upset and distress she faced by the issues with the communal lifts in her emails to the landlord in September and November 2022.
38. The landlord in its complaint responses offered £300 for distress, inconvenience and a goodwill gesture for issues with the communal lifts and the heating system. The landlord did not breakdown this amount however based on the evidence provided it is reasonable to conclude that half of this amount is attributed to the issues with its handling of repairs to the communal lifts. 
39. After careful consideration of the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance. We consider that the landlord has offered reasonable redress of £150.  This appropriately recognises the distress, inconvenience and upset caused by the failures in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

40. The landlord’s complaint policy is compliant with the provisions of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and states that:

a.     the landlord is responsible for handling complaints involving third party management agents appointed by the head leaseholder.

b.     residents do not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such.

c.      the landlord should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and outline its understanding.

d.     the landlord should respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgement at stage 1.

e.     the landlord should carefully consider all information provided.

f.        lack of clarity is not a sufficient reason for not escalating a complaint.

g.     residents do not have to explain their reasons for requesting an escalation. The landlord should make reasonable efforts to understand why they remained unhappy.

h.     the landlord should provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.

41. The resident contacted the landlord 5 times between 15 November and 3 December 2022 and showed her dissatisfaction with the lifts being out of service in her block. She said the landlord was aware she had been in a car accident which had caused neurological issues and problems with the discs in her back. She also complained about the lack of heating.
42. Although the landlord replied on 28 and 30 November 2022 and explained how to report communal repairs to the management agent. It did not raise a stage 1 complaint until 3 December 2022 when it sent acknowledgment to the resident. However, it did not define the complaint to show understanding. This was not appropriate in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. This is because a resident did not have to use the word complaint to raise one. Additionally, the landlord should have outlined its understanding of the resident’s complaint.
43. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 14 December 2022 within the 10 working days from acknowledgement stipulated in its complaints policy.
44. The resident emailed the landlord the same day and continued to demonstrate her dissatisfaction. Although this was about the heating issues as the lifts had been repaired by this point. The landlord had 20 working days to respond to the resident’s escalation. However, it failed to take any action at this point which was not appropriate. This is because the landlord’s complaints policy says that residents did not have to explain why they were requesting an escalation. Additionally, landlords should make reasonable efforts to understand why residents remain unhappy.
45. The resident and the landlord exchanged emails between 16 December 2022 and 3 April 2023. The resident continued to show her dissatisfaction. The landlord’s records show that a complaint for the resident was open. However, the landlord did not escalate it to stage 2 or provide a response. This was not appropriate in line with the landlord’s complaint policy as it had gone well beyond the 20 working days to provide a stage 2 complaint response.
46. The landlord did not attempt to call the resident to discuss her complaint until 7 June 2023. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s complaint policy said it should make reasonable efforts to understand a resident’s complaint.
47. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 12 December 2023 and told it to send a complaint response to the resident by 5 January 2024. The landlord resent its stage 1 response on 4 January 2024. However, it decided to escalate to stage 2 of the complaint process as the resident had approached the Ombudsman and was still unhappy. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 6 March 2024.
48. This was almost 15 months after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord has not produced any evidence to show that the delays were outside its control or necessary to answer the complaints. There is no evidence that it agreed an extension of time to respond with the resident. On this basis the landlord failed to comply with its own complaint policy and the Code.
49. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response. Additionally, it partially upheld resident’s complaint because the stage 1 response did not inform her that she had to direct her complaint about communal repairs to the management agent. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it is responsible for handling complaints involving management agents appointed by the head leaseholder.
50. The landlord was not the head leaseholder in the resident’s apartment block and did not appoint the management agent. Therefore, it was not appropriate to tell the resident that she had to direct complaints about communal repairs to the management agent.
51. The compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response for the failures and a gesture of goodwill amounted to £325. Although the landlord incorrectly asked the resident to contact it if she wished to accept £375. The landlord offered £25 for not advising the resident to complain to the management agent. However, it is unclear how much of the £300 offered for impact and inconvenience and as a goodwill gesture related to the issues with the communal lifts and how much was for the heating issues. Additionally, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 and did not offer any redress for this.
52. It is essential for landlords to break down any offers of compensation so that a resident can understand to what extent they have acknowledged the impact of each individual failure. The landlord offered the resident £300 compensation in its final complaint response. This was in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident and as a goodwill gesture. It did not provide a breakdown, so it was not clear how much was attributed to each issue. Therefore, for the purpose of the investigation this has been attributed equally with £150 considered to be for each complaint aspect.
53. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord did not recognise that the resident was making a complaint at stage 1 and unreasonably delayed in escalating her complaint to stage 2. This delayed the resident in seeking help through this service. Additionally, the landlord did not make clear how much of the compensation offered was for the issues with the communal lift repairs and did not offer any redress for its complaint handling failures.
54. Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to the resident. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and level of redress offered to the resident.

Determination

55. In accordance with paragraph 41.c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the district heating system in her apartment block. This is because legal proceedings have started for this matter.
56. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal lifts in her apartment block.
57. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

58. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:

a.     write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in its complaint handling.

b.     pay the resident £200 to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. This payment must not be offset against any arrears.

59. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the letter of apology and evidence that it has made the payment within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

60. If it has not already done so the landlord should pay the resident £150 considered by the Ombudsman to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal lifts in her apartment block.
61. In its complaint responses the landlord indicated that it may reimburse service charges to the resident. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord follows this up if it has not done so already.