Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202334224)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334224

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

5 June 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the property.
2. Decision to not decant the resident during repair work.
We will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The resident’s tenancy commenced in December 2007. The landlord owns the property.
The property is a 2 bedroom house. The property has 1 toilet.
On 14 November 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding its repair service. In summary the resident said:
1. The landlord had delayed in repairing damaged plaster in the hallway. Despite chasing the landlord on many occasions for an update on when the repair would be completed it had not replied. While the repair was outstanding the plaster was deteriorating and causing damage to the property. Earlier that day the bottom stairs which were attached to the area of damaged plaster had come away from the wall.
2. The previous week she reported a leak which was affecting the kitchen ceiling. The contractor who attended the repair stated that the ceiling was not wet and left. On 9 November 2023 she re-reported the leak as it was getting worse. An appointment was made for 21 November 2023 to repair the leak. She was concerned regarding the timescale for the repair.
3. The property also had damp.
4. She was on long term sick leave due to “disabilities and mental health conditions”. The state of the property was impacting on these conditions. She was also concerned for the safety of her 4 year old son who lived with her.
5. She would like the landlord to arrange a property transfer as the property was not habitable.
On 16 November 2023 the resident submitted an addendum to the complaint. In summary she said:
1. On 15 August 2023 an operative attended the property to repair the damaged plaster in the hallway. The operative could not complete the repair as they believed that the plaster may contain asbestos and therefore a sample needed to be taken for testing. Despite the test results coming back negative for asbestos in September 2023 the repair had not been completed.
2. An emergency repair had been undertaken to fix the bottom stairs. The plaster was in a worse condition following this repair.
3. The leak into the kitchen continued to get worse while the repair was outstanding.
4. During a phone call with the landlord on 15 November 2023 it confirmed that it would arrange for the property to be inspected.
5. The property was “falling apart”.
Within her correspondence the resident reiterated that her health conditions were getting worse due to the condition of the property.
On 22 November 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 response. In summary the landlord said:
1. On 1 August 2023 the resident reported “crumbling plaster” in the hallway. A plasterer attended on 15 August 2023 however was unable to complete the repair as they believed that the plaster contained asbestos. The plaster was tested for asbestos with the results coming back negative on 14 September 2023. An appointment had been made to complete the plaster repair on 12 December 2023. It was sorry for the delay in completing the repair following the asbestos test.
2. The repair to the fix the bottom stairs was completed on 18 November 2023. This included “all floor board and skirting board replacement and the refitting of the carpet”.
3. On 6 November 2023 the resident reported a leak to the kitchen ceiling. An emergency operative attended who confirmed that there was not a leak. The operative’s assessment was incorrect. On 23 November 2023 it traced the leak to the bath and completed a repair. This was within its 28 day service standard.
4. Due to the recent repair issues in the property, it inspected in November 2023. The inspection found:
  1. “An escape of water from the bath has stained the kitchen ceiling. On inspection possible ingress occurs as a result tiled splashback delaminated. Through wall fans not working. The cast hopper on the rear external is rotten. The concrete slabs form the patio are tight against brickwork. Adjacent to the stairs and half landing, (had collapsed) recently renewed and strengthened. Mould is evident to walls and window surround of front bedroom. Textured paint finish on all plastered walls (hall/stairs and landing)”.
5. It was in the process of raising work orders to complete the repairs identified by the inspection.
6. It understood that the resident wanted to move to alternative housing as she believed that the condition of the property was “too much for [her] to manage” and was impacting on her “physical and mental disabilities”. A permanent decant would need to be identified by a surveyor’s recommendation. The recent inspection did not indicate that the property was of a substandard condition which required a decant. The resident could however see if she qualified for a medical priority need to be rehoused or seek alternative accommodation via a mutual exchange. It confirmed the resident’s housing officer was happy to assist with either of these options.
The landlord concluded by awarding the resident £100 compensation for its handling of the repair to the damaged plaster which had caused her “inconvenience and distress”.
On 30 November 2023 the resident requested clarification on the repairs which would be completed following the inspection. She explained that she was concerned that not all repair issues would be completed, as not all issues were referred to within the landlord’s stage 1 response. This included “cracks in the ceiling” and damaged plaster around the front door. The landlord responded confirming that it would seek clarification from its repairs team.
Throughout early December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to request an update on the repairs identified by the inspection as she had not heard anything. In response the landlord confirmed that it would make internal enquiries.
On 12 December 2023 the resident requested to escalate the complaint as she felt that her concerns had not been addressed. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on the same day. It also confirmed that it had arranged to inspect the property on 5 January 2024 in order “to establish exactly what works [were] required in [the] property”.
On 18 December 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that the plaster repair which had been completed was “terrible”.
On 28 December 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming it was unable to escalate the complaint. It explained that before it could escalate the complaint it must recall the plaster repair and await the outcome of the inspection on 5 January 2024. The resident replied confirming that she was upset with the landlord’s decision. She reiterated that the situation was having a significant impact on her health while the repairs were outstanding.
On 24 January 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the complaint had been accepted for a stage 2 investigation.
On 26 January 2024 the landlord visited the resident at the property as part of its stage 2 investigation. The landlord’s record of the visit set out that the resident was “very distressed by the delays and lack of communication” on the outstanding repairs.
On 2 February 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that she was pleased that works had been scheduled to start the following week. She noted that the landlord had confirmed it would provide her with a scope of works shortly.
On 6 February 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding the repairs. She set out that she was “worried about the toilet situation” while the repairs were in progress. She explained that one of her health conditions was “bowel related” so not having access to a toilet would be very uncomfortable and distressing. She also noted that her son would be in the property during the works which was impractical. She therefore asked the landlord to consider temporary accommodation. The landlord responded on the same day setting out that it “recognised [her] anxiety” and “hopefully” its repair team could come up with a solution.
Throughout February 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord on several more occasions. In summary the resident said:
1. She had not been provided with clear information on the repairs to be completed in the property, including a schedule of works.
2. While some repairs had been completed many were still outstanding or had not been completed to a satisfactory standard. She was unsure when the works would be finished.
3. It was unacceptable that the landlord had not arranged a temporary decant for the duration of the works to the property. She stated that “the last 2 weeks” had been “hell”. She believed the landlord had not taken her mental and physical health conditions into account when determining that a decant was unnecessary.
4. During the works she had not been able to use the bathroom or kitchen. She noted that she had been unable to prepare food and had spent money on takeaways.
5. The contractors had left the property in a “disgusting state” with dirt and dust everywhere.
6. While the landlord had arranged a hotel for a few nights, while it completed works to the main bedroom, she had to return to the property during the day “to make sure everything was going ok”.
On 28 February 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2, final, response following a visit to the property to help it understand the issues subject of the complaint. In summary the landlord:
1. Opened its response by providing a chronology of the complaint:
  1. A repair to stop the leak from the bath causing damage to the kitchen ceiling was completed at the end of November 2023. During the appointment a temporary cover was placed over the bathroom tiles as “further works would be required”.
  2. Decorative works to make good the kitchen ceiling following the leak were completed by 23 December 2023.
  3. In response to the resident’s report that the bottom stairs had come away from the wall it completed a same day repair to make safe.
  4. It inspected the property on 22 November 2023 as the resident had raised concerns regarding its condition. The inspection identified that works were required to the kitchen, bathroom, front bedroom and to the external of the property. The works included new extractor fan, mould washes, renewal of bathroom tiles, plastering,
  5. On 12 December 2023 the resident contacted it for assistance as the bathroom tiles were coming away from the wall. In response it inspected the property on 5 January 2023 which confirmed that a new bath was needed in addition to some “further repointing around window frames”.
  6. On 3 January 2024 it raised a work order with its contractor to carry out and manage the works identified by the first inspection. It instructed the contractor to liaise directly with the resident to agree appointments and to explain the process.
  7. On 18 January 2024 it amended the work order dated 3 January 2024 to include the works identified by the second inspection.
  8. It understood that the resident’s first contact with the contractor was on 26 January 2024 when it attended the property unannounced. The resident had provided a recording from her front door which highlighted that the contractor did not have a full list of the works to be completed or details on when the works would start.
  9. On 2 February 2024 the resident contacted it to confirm that she still had not been provided with a schedule of works for the repairs. In response it visited the resident on 5 February 2024. During the visit the resident raised concerns regarding the potential disruption of the works in addition to explaining how the delays and poor communication had negatively impacted on her.
  10. Work had started on 5 February 2024 however the contractors were told to stop work on 6 February 2024 by a supervisor as they were “not wearing appropriate boots”.
  11. In response to the resident’s contact asking when work would start again it visited the property with the contractor on the afternoon of 6 February 2024. During the visit it discussed the resident’s concerns regarding the works being completed while she was living in the property. The contractor confirmed:

(1) The internal works would start on 9 February 2024 and the resident would be required to stay in a hotel for 2 nights to complete the repairs in the bedroom.

(2) The external works would start on 19 February 2024.

(3) All works would be completed by 26 February 2024.

On 11 February 2024 the resident contacted it to express frustration about the slow progress of the works and the contractor’s disorganised approach.
On 19 February 2024 the resident contacted it setting out that the schedule of works which the contractor was working to did not include all repair items.
On 20 February 2024 the resident contacted it to confirm that she believed that she should have been offered temporary accommodation for the duration of the works.

It was sorry that the repairs to the property were “not completed within a reasonable time”. It acknowledged that:
1. It missed opportunities to “grip all issues at an earlier time”.
2. It was unacceptable that repairs which were identified in November 2023 did not start until February 2024.
3. It was slow in arranging for the package of works to be passed to the contractor following the inspections.
4. Its contractor did not manage the planning and sequencing of the works as required.
5. While the repairs were outstanding its communication with the resident was “poor”.
6. Its coordination of “operative and surveyor visits” was “poor” which lead to “unnecessary delays and confusion”.
Its Repairs Contract Manager had visited the property and a “few” internal repair items were outstanding which were due to be completed by the end of the week, this included the kitchen. The Repairs Contract Manager anticipated that the external works to address the patio, pathway and drainage issues would take up to a month to complete.
Decants were offered where a surveyor identified that repair work was “so intrusive” that a resident could not stay in a property. Consideration would also be given to “any known vulnerabilities/ medical conditions”. In the resident’s case neither inspection identified that the nature of the works would require her to be away from the property for the duration of the works. It also noted that the resident’s tenancy record did not hold any alerts in relation to her personal circumstances; this was therefore not factored in. It confirmed that had it known how long the contractor would take to carry out the work and how the disruption would affect the resident it would have considered a “longer stay away” from the property. It was sorry this did not happen.
It was sorry for the delay in escalating the complaint and that it incorrectly informed the resident that she could not escalate the complaint in December 2023.

The landlord concluded by confirming that it upheld the complaint due to shortfalls in the provision of its repairs service, decision making on a decant and complaint handling. The landlord confirmed that it would like to increase its offer of compensation to £1,150 comprising:
1. £400 – 7 month delay in completing repairs.
2. £100 – complaint handling errors.
3. £100 – not offering a decant for the duration of the works.
4. £450 – stress, inconvenience and upset.
5. £100 – takeaway food expenses.
On 29 February 2024 the resident replied to the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. While she appreciated that the landlord had “admitted its mistakes and the distress” she had experienced not all of her concerns had been addressed.
2. She believed that her physical and mental health had not been properly considered by the landlord, especially in respect of its decision on a decant. She reiterated it had been distressing that she had been unable to use the bathroom to manage her bowel condition during the works.
3. The internal works were still ongoing in the property. Currently she had no access to the cooker.
4. The external works had not yet been scheduled.
5. She would like the landlord to increase its offer of compensation.
On 5 March 2024 the resident confirmed that all internal works had been completed.
In early March 2024, exact date not known, the landlord increased its offer of compensation by £100 to cover additional food expenses.
Following the conclusion of the complaint procedure the resident continued to raise concerns regarding the condition of the property and the repairs undertaken.
On 10 March 2025 the landlord inspected the property. The report following the inspection highlighted multiple repair issues which required addressing. This included damp in kitchen, damp in bathroom and external works to the back elevation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the property

Landlords have a legal obligation to carry out repairs in the properties it rents out. A landlord’s main repairing obligations are set out under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 11 requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. These obligations are set out in the tenancy agreement for the property.
A landlord is not liable to carry out any repair until it has been put on notice of the need for repair. The landlord must then carry out the repair within a reasonable time thereafter. As the repairs reported by the resident fell within the repair obligations of the landlord it was required to investigate and to make good any issues it identified.
The landlord has provided its contemporaneous records to demonstrate how it responded to the repair issues subject of the complaint.
The repair records show that at the start of August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report damage to the plaster in the hallway. The repair was attended in mid-August 2023 but put on hold due to the operative suspecting asbestos in the plaster. This was reasonable as asbestos is classed as a significant health hazard. Despite the results of the asbestos test returning negative in mid-September 2023 the repair did not progress thereafter. The evidence shows that the repair was only progressed after the resident made the complaint in November 2023. This is unsatisfactory. On receipt of the results the landlord should have taken steps to complete the repair promptly. The landlord acknowledged this within its complaint response which was appropriate.
The repair records show that on 6 November 2023 the landlord sent an electrician to the property in response to the resident’s report earlier that day of a damp patch on the kitchen ceiling around the light fitting. The record of the appointment noted “light fitting dry but damp stains on ceiling next to light – plumber scheduled to visit in 2 weeks’ time – advised tenant to call again if leak gets worse…” It was appropriate that the landlord attended the repair as an emergency as its policy states that it will complete an emergency repair when there are immediate and serious health and safety implications. The landlord acknowledged within its complaint response that the electrician’s assessment of the leak, that it was not active, was incorrect and therefore apologised within its complaint response. This was appropriate.
The records show that the landlord re-attended the repair on 23 November 2023. The record of the appointment confirmed that the operative rectified a leak under the bath and requested that a work order was raised to relay bathroom tiles and to make good kitchen ceiling. The records show that the kitchen was repainted by 23 December 2023 which was within a reasonable time. The evidence shows that the work order for the bathroom tiles was not progressed at that time. This is unsatisfactory.
The repair records show that on 14 November 2023 the landlord attended the property to complete a same day repair following the resident’s report that the stairs had come away from the wall. This was appropriate.
In response to the repair issues in early November 2023 and the complaint the landlord inspected the property on 22 November 2023. This was appropriate due to the repairs which had been brought to the landlord’s attention and to determine if there were any other issues which required its intervention. The inspection identified several issues internally and externally which needed addressing. This included:
1. Kitchen – plastering, new skirting boards, repair to kitchen units, new flooring, new extractor fan and decoration.
2. Stairway – plastering, new skirting and decoration.
3. Bathroom – all tiles to be removed and replaced. Installation of humidistat fan.
4. Bedroom – remove ceiling tiles and replaster. Mould wash around windows.
5. External – down pipe, guttering and waste pipes renewal or repair. Windows sill repairs to rear. Installation of French drain. Pointing repairs to brickwork, Repairs to concrete pathway in rear garden.
The evidence shows that despite the inspection works to address the issues identified were not immediately progressed. This is unsatisfactory. We have not identified a reason for this within the evidence.
During early December 2023 the evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to request information on when the repairs would start in addition to a schedule detailing all the repairs to be completed. Despite internal enquiries for the information the landlord was unable to provide this to the resident. The landlord therefore arranged to inspect the property again on 5 January 2024. This is unsatisfactory. A second inspection should not have been required in order for it to generate a scope of works as the information was already available to it.
From the evidence we understand that the inspection on 5 January 2024 identified that a new bath was needed in addition to repointing works.
Following the second inspection the internal repairs commenced in mid–February 2024. This is approximately 3 months after the first inspection. This is a protracted period of time. While the works were outstanding the resident will have felt uncertainty in addition to feeling her concerns were not being taken seriously.
Once the repairs were completed in March 2024 there is no evidence that the landlord post inspected the property. This would have been reasonable in order to satisfy itself, and the resident, that the repairs completed had addressed all issues identified by the inspections. It was particularly important to do a post-inspection in this case, taking into account the extent of works needed, the time it had taken to complete them, the issues that had arisen during the course of the works, and that the resident had to make a complaint in order to get her concerns resolved. Given these factors, it was not adequate for the landlord to assume that the repairs had resolved the issues.
Following the landlord’s final response and the completion of the works in March 2024 the resident continued to raise concerns regarding the condition of the property. This included that the repairs were not completed to a satisfactory standard and the property continued to experience damp and mould. We note an internal record by the landlord dated 12 March 2024 which confirmed that the external works had “not been completed to a satisfactory standard”.
In an update to us in Spring 2025 the landlord confirmed that it had inspected the property on 10 March 2025 in response to the resident’s ongoing concerns regarding its condition. The inspection confirmed that further repairs were required to the kitchen, bathroom and exterior of the property to address damp and mould. We further note that the inspection confirmed that some of the earlier repair work it had undertaken had not been completed correctly which had contributed to the ongoing issues within the property.
It is unsatisfactory that, despite the resident’s complaint and the inspections, the repair issues are still ongoing and have not been resolved. This is a period of approximately 16 months. This is a significantly protracted period of time and highlights a lack of oversight and poor management by the landlord.
There was maladministration by the landlord in how it responded to the repair issues raised by the resident. Despite the landlord acknowledging that the repair service it provided to the resident had been unsatisfactory following its complaint investigation the landlord failed to ensure that all repair work was completed to a satisfactory standard thereafter. It is unacceptable that the property is continuing to experience repair issues which should have been addressed by the inspections in November 2023 and January 2024.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that the repairs service it had provided had been unsatisfactory. This included poor communication, delays and poor management of its contractors. The landlord therefore apologised and awarded the resident a total of £850 for this part of the complaint.
The landlord’s apology was appropriate to demonstrate that it recognised that the service it had provided the resident had fallen below what was expected and therefore that she had been impacted.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it may award compensation if its service has fallen short. As the landlord had identified service failures it was reasonable that it engaged its compensation policy. In our opinion the landlord’s offer of compensation was proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint for the period up until 28 February 2024, the date of its final response. This is because the offer was within the range for cases where the Ombudsman considers that there were failings which had a significant impact on a resident. We however consider that a further sum of compensation is due to reflect the shortfalls in service and the missed opportunities by the landlord after February 2024 and up until the date of this determination. This is because the resident has continued to be adversely impacted as a result of the repairs service provided by the landlord.

The landlord’s decision to not decant the resident during repair work

The Ombudsman has no legal power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act – this can only be done by the courts. However we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures. Landlords may be able to show they have properly considered the Equality Act if they consider the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected and that there is an appeals process for decisions to be challenged.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a discrimination law to protect individuals from unfair treatment and promotes a fair and more equal society. The Act requires any person or organisation which carries out public functions to have ‘due regard’ (properly consider) how they can eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations in doing so.
The resident set out within her complaint, dated 14 November 2023, that she had disabilities, mental health conditions and she was on long term sick leave. In early February 2024 the resident advised the landlord that she was anxious about the upcoming repairs due to her bowel condition and limited access to the toilet during the works. The resident also informed the landlord that she was worried about the impact of the works on her young son if he were to remain in the property.
The landlord’s policy on temporary decants sets out that a decant will be approved where “essential repairs cannot be carried out with a tenant and their household living in their property”. The policy does not go on to provide further information on how it will assess whether a tenant cannot continue to live in the property. We suggest that this gives the landlord scope to include factors such as duration of works, health conditions and household members.
Despite the landlord being aware of the resident’s health conditions there is no evidence to show that it formally considered whether a decant was necessary while the works were in progress. In light of the information it would have been appropriate, and in line with the Equality Act 2010, for the landlord to have discussed the resident’s concerns with her at an early stage, seeking medical evidence or other guidance if necessary to ensure that it understood her needs. This would have enabled the landlord to have made and communicated an informed decision on a decant for the duration of the works in February and March 2024 therefore ensuring that it was able to provide a service which met her needs. There is no evidence that it did so. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord and demonstrated that it was not mindful of the resident’s vulnerabilities and individual circumstances.
Should the landlord be considered to be carrying out a public function, the landlord should also have considered the resident’s right under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. This right relates to the resident’s right to private life which would include having regarding for the resident’s dignity. Limiting a person’s access to a toilet when they have a health condition where they rely on this facility could limit their dignity.
We note that the resident was decanted to a hotel for 2 nights while the landlord completed works in the bedroom. This was appropriate as the resident was unable to use this room.
In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that it should have given consideration to a decant for the duration of the works. The landlord therefore apologised and awarded £100 compensation. While it was appropriate that the landlord recognised its failings in our opinion its offer of redress was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case and the impact on the resident and the distress she would have experienced. In particular in relation to access to the toilet to manage her health condition.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its decision to not decant the resident during repair. While the landlord did acknowledge that it had failed to give appropriate consideration to the resident’s request for a decant its offer of redress was not proportionate to the impact on the resident. Despite the resident repeatedly informing it of her circumstances the landlord failed to address her concerns or be clear on its plans and why it thought it was appropriate for her to remain in the property for the duration of the works. There was also no evidence that the landlord had given proper consideration to its duties under the Equality and Human Rights Acts.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 within its service standard and in line with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) – 10 working days. This was appropriate.
The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 12 December 2023 and the landlord provided its response on 28 February 2024. This was a period of 54 working days. This was outside of the landlord’s service standard for responding to stage 2 complaints and the requirements of the code – 20 working days. This is unsatisfactory as the purpose of a formal complaint procedure is to address issues at the earliest opportunity. The landlord did not do this.
In addition to the delay in responding to the complaint at stage 2 the landlord also incorrectly informed the resident on 28 December 2023 that the complaint could not be escalated at that time due to a plaster repair and upcoming inspection. This is unsatisfactory. In accordance with the code a complaint response should not be denied or delayed where there are outstanding actions to be completed.
In responding to the complaint at stage 2 the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in providing its final response and incorrectly refused to escalate the complaint in December 2023. The landlord therefore apologised and awarded £100 compensation. In our opinion the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the impact on the resident.
The landlord also offered the resident an additional £200 compensation to cover food expenses for the duration of the works. This was reasonable as it understood that the resident had been inconvenienced by the works.
While there were shortfalls in the landlord’s complaint handling it has since identified and acknowledged its service failures and offered appropriate compensation in recognition of this. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this part of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman finds:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the property.
2. Maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to not decant the resident during repair work.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this part of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, provide a written apology to the resident in respect of the failings identified by this investigation.
The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, pay the resident a total of £2,250 compensation. This figure comprises the £1,250 which the landlord offered itself in consideration of the complaint, if it has not already been paid, in addition to an extra £1,000 comprising:
1. £800 in respect of the failings in the repairs service provided by the landlord and therefore the impact on the resident including inconvenience, distress, uncertainty and loss of enjoyment of the property.
2. £200 for not considering the resident’s health and other circumstances that meant that she may need a temporary decant and therefore the impact on her including inconvenience and distress.
The landlord should, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, carry out a post inspection of the works completed following the inspection on 10 March 2025. This should include the plaster work. Should the post inspection identify any repair issues which have not been addressed to a satisfactory standard the landlord should provide the resident with a schedule of works to address the repairs within a further 2 weeks. A copy should be provided to us.
Should the post inspection find that additional repairs are needed in the property the landlord must consider whether a temporary decant would be appropriate for the resident for the duration of the works. The landlord should document any decisions within its records.
The landlord should, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination, review the case at a senior level to complete a lessons learnt exercise in relation to its repairs service and decant process to prevent a recurrence of the resident’s situation in the future. Following this exercise the landlord should write to us detailing the outcome and the steps it will take to embed the learning and any changes it will make as a result.

Recommendations

We understand that the resident would like to move from the property. The landlord should therefore, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, review with the resident her options for seeking alternative accommodation. This may include a mutual exchange or an application to the local authority. The landlord should also provide the resident with information on the local authority points or banding system to ensure that any application appropriately reflects her housing need.