Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Newlon Housing Trust (202401967)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401967

Newlon Housing Trust

18 July 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy which commenced on 2 November 2009. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The housing records confirm the resident has a number of medical conditions
  2. The resident submitted a rehousing application form on 13 August 2023. She said the property was not suitable for her needs given her medical conditions. This included noting she struggled to access the upstairs toilet and she had difficulty using the shower. She provided the landlord with medical evidence in support of her rehousing application on 15 August 2023.
  3. The landlord told the resident on 23 August 2023 that her rehousing transfer application had been assessed and she did not meet the criteria to warrant a move on medical grounds. It was noted that the resident’s upcoming surgery would alleviate the problems she experienced and she could submit a new application if her symptoms persisted after the operation. The landlord noted the resident could appeal the decision if she wanted to or seek rehousing on medical grounds with the local authority. It also said she could seek a mutual exchange.
  4. The resident submitted an appeal on 3 September 2023. She said her housing conditions had a significant impact on her quality of life and well-being. The landlord told the resident on 20 September 2023 that her request for a transfer had been considered by the appeals panel and it had been agreed she could be placed on the rehousing list for a 1- bedroom property.
  5. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 4 January 2024. She made a complaint on 5 February 2024. She said she was unhappy with the delays in finding alternative accommodation and noted that her medical conditions had deteriorated.
  6. The landlord told the resident’s MP on 9 February 2024 that it failed to update the resident following her emails of 4 January 2024 and 5 February 2024. It also noted it had been unable to find alternative accommodation for her due to a lack of suitable properties. It recommended the resident approached the local authority and bid for properties owned by other housing providers. It also said she could register for a mutual exchange and it might be able to help by providing some disabled adaptations.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 July 2024 and said:
    1. It did not reply to the resident’s request for an update made on 4 January 2024.
    2. The delay in finding alternative accommodation was due to the lack of suitable properties.
    3. It would contact the resident once a property had been identified, although it could not give a timeframe as to when this would happen. It was not rare for residents to wait several years before being rehoused.
    4. Its communication with the resident could have been clearer.
    5. It would offer the resident £150 compensation. This included £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, £50 for the lack of communication and £25 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by having to pursue the matter.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 July 2024.
  9. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 August 2024 and said:
    1. It failed to refer to the resident’s medical needs in its stage 1 complaint response.
    2. It could not advise the resident when a suitable property would become available. She should explore other housing options whilst waiting for a transfer.
    3. It would increase its offer of compensation from £150 to £250. This included £150 in recognition of the poor communication and inconvenience, £50 for failing to address all the points in the resident’s complaint and £50 as a goodwill gesture.
  10. The resident told this Service that she was still waiting to be rehoused by her landlord. She noted the property was not suitable for her needs given her medical conditions and the landlord had recently advised her that it could make no adjustments to the shower.

The Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

  1. The landlord operates a choice-based lettings (CBL) system, with the majority of its empty properties allocated through the local authority’s housing waiting list. Transfers are offered to residents who are deemed to be in urgent medical need and where their housing conditions have a major adverse effect on their health condition. An independent medical adviser is used to assess medical priority.
  2. The landlord’s transfer policy says it will notify residents on the outcome of their medical assessment. It also says it will give residents advice on their housing options and information about mutual exchanges. Residents are provided with a copy of the landlord’s ‘‘reality of transfers’’ information sheet.
  3. Residents who are accepted onto the landlord’s transfer list are required to register for a mutual exchange and where appropriate, advised to contact the local authority. Residents that are not eligible for a transfer can appeal the decision. Appeal requests are considered by an appeals panel.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Residents do not need to use the word complaint for it to be treated as such by the landlord. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer compensation where there has been a service failure that has had an impact on the resident. Awards between £50 and £250 are made where there has been a service failure which is short in duration and has not significantly impacted the outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.

  1. It is not this Service’s role to determine whether a resident should be rehoused. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. The housing records confirm the resident submitted a rehousing transfer application form on 13 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the application form on the following day and offered to carry out a vulnerability assessment. It said this was to ensure it understood the resident’s needs and to establish if it could provide any additional support. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord told the resident on 23 August 2023 that her request for a transfer had been assessed by an independent medical adviser. This was consistent with the landlord’s transfer policy. It was noted that she did not meet the threshold for a move on medical grounds and she could not be placed on the transfer list. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its medical expert when reaching its decision. It confirmed the resident could appeal the decision and any evidence she provided would be considered by an appeals panel. This was consistent with the landlord’s transfer policy. It also said the resident could approach the local authority or seek a mutual exchange.
  4. The resident submitted an appeal on 3 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the appeal request on 5 September 2023. It noted the next transfer panel meeting would be held on 13 September 2023 and it would provide the resident with an update within 10 working days. This provided clarity.
  5. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 20 September 2023. It confirmed that she would be placed on the transfer list for a 1- bedroomed property. It also noted she needed to register on the mutual exchange register. It said this would increase the resident’s chances of moving given it was unable to transfer many residents. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of its ‘‘reality of transfers’’ information sheet. This was consistent with its transfer policy and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. There is no evidence the resident approached the local authority or registered for a mutual exchange.
  6. The resident asked the landlord for an update on 4 January 2024. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request or her subsequent email of 5 February 2024 in which she noted she was still waiting for a response. This meant the resident was unclear on what action was being taken by the landlord to address her concerns.
  7. The landlord told the resident’s MP on 9 February 2024 that it had failed to respond to her emails of 4 January 2024 and 5 February 2024. It apologised for the lack of response and said it would take the matter up with the team concerned. This demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for her.
  8. The landlord noted that it had been unable to find alternative accommodation for the resident given the lack of suitable properties. It recommended the resident contacted the local authority or sought a mutual exchange given the limited availability of properties. It said it would help the resident to do this if required and would contact her once a property became available. The landlord also offered to fit disabled adaptations in the resident’s home if it was identified by an occupational therapist that they were needed. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  9. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 22 April 2024, following further contact from her MP. This included noting that it did not have many properties and residents requiring a transfer waited a long time before being made an offer. This ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. Again, the landlord told the resident to contact the local authority or seek a mutual exchange.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 July 2024. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
  11. In this case, the landlord apologised for failing to respond to the resident’s emails and noted that its communication could have been clearer. This demonstrated it took learning from the resident’s complaint. The landlord also confirmed alternative accommodation had not been found due to the lack of suitable properties. The landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for the lack of communication. This was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
  12. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 July 2024 and noted that her home lacked the necessary facilities and adaptations to accommodate her medical needs. She asked the landlord to urgently reconsider her request for a transfer to more suitable accommodation.
  13. The landlord noted on 13 August 2024 in its final complaint response that it had failed to refer to the resident’s medical needs in its stage 1 complaint response. It said it could not advise the resident when a suitable property would become available and encouraged her to explore other housing options whilst waiting for a transfer. The landlord reconfirmed its offer of £150 compensation that was made in its stage 1 complaint response.
  14. In summary, the landlord undertook an assessment of the resident’s housing needs in a timely manner and agreed to place her on the transfer list following her appeal. It also told the resident that it did not have alternative accommodation that met her needs given the limited supply of properties. The landlord told the resident to contact the local authority and consider a mutual exchange if she wished to improve her chances of rehousing. The landlord also acknowledged its communication was poor at times and offered an apology and compensation for this. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) says residents do not need to use the word complaint for it to be treated as such by their landlord. This approach has been adopted by the landlord in its complaints policy. In this case, the resident told the landlord on 5 February 2024 that she was unhappy with the delays in processing her request for a transfer and she was still waiting for a response to a previous email.
  2. The landlord did not log a complaint at this point. This was not consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy or the Code. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint caused delays and led to her MP chasing up the matter on her behalf.
  3. The landlord logged a complaint on 12 June 2024 following contact from this Service. The complaint was acknowledged on 19 June 2024. The landlord said it would provide a response within 10 working days. This was consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 July 2024 in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It offered an apology and £25 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble she spent pursuing her complaint. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not consistent with its compensation policy.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 July 2024. This was acknowledged on 16 July 2024 in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord said it would provide a response within 20 working days.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 August 2024. This was in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord increased its offer of compensation. This included £50 compensation for the failure to address all the points in its stage 1 complaint response and £50 compensation as a goodwill gesture. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. In summary, the landlord did not initially respond to the resident’s complaint. This led to her contacting this Service and her MP chasing up the matter on her behalf. Once the complaint was logged, the landlord took action in accordance with its complaints policy. The landlord’s offer of compensation was fair in the circumstances. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to move.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord pays the £250 compensation it previously offered the resident, if not already done so.