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

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202324147)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324147

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

10 February 2025


Our approach

Our 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). We consider the evidence and look 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 us, 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:
    1. The resident’s reports about gases entering the property.
    2. The resident’s concerns about whether the carbon monoxide alarms were working correctly.
    3. The installation of a kitchen extractor fan.
    4. The resident’s reports of the neighbour interfering with her water and power supply.
    5. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of our jurisdiction – the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the neighbour interfering with her water and power supply.
  3. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says that we may not consider complaints ‘which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to exhausting a members’ complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’
  4. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have completed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. We have not seen evidence that the resident has brought a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of the neighbour interfering with her water and power supply. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a mid-terrace 3-bedroom house. The landlord has recorded that the resident has issues relating to her mental health.
  2. Between July and October 2023, the resident raised concerns about carbon monoxide fumes in the property on 6 occasions: on 12, 17 and 20 July; 9 and 23 August and 6 October 2023. On each occasion, either the resident or the landlord contacted the organisation that looks after the gas network in the area who capped the gas as a precautionary measure. Each time the gas was capped, a gas engineer working for the landlord attended the property to uncap the gas, check for carbon monoxide and, after establishing there was no leak, put the boiler back in use.
  3. On 12 October 2023 the gas network company told the landlord they had attended the property following multiple reports of carbon monoxide and gas leaks. They said they were satisfied there were no concerns with the gas supply at the property and had found no evidence of tampering by the neighbours. They said they would write to the resident to say that any further concerns about malicious damage by the neighbours should be reported to the police.
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord through us in March 2024 about her concerns that the water and heating systems in the property were being tampered with by a neighbour and that was leading to fumes entering the property. She said these fumes were affecting her physical and mental health.
  5. On 4 April 2024 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its formal complaint procedures. It gave details of the multiple visits to the property which had found no gas or carbon monoxide leaks. On the following day the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
  6. On 20 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said it had continued to attend the property to assess further allegations made by the resident. It said its most recent investigations, on 15 May 2024, had found no concerns relating to any carbon monoxide or gas leaks. It noted the resident disagreed with that finding and had insisted “something was still not right” in the property. The landlord added it was satisfied that the new smoke and carbon monoxide alarms it had installed in August 2023 were working correctly.
  7. The landlord did not agree that it had delayed installing the kitchen extractor fan as it had attempted to access the property in December and February 2024. In addition, it said it was scheduled to attend in April 2024, but the resident had called to cancel the appointment as she was feeling unwell. It said it would arrange a further appointment for that installation.

 

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident mentions that her physical and mental health have been affected by the matters complained about. We acknowledge the resident’s comments regarding her health and understand this has been a difficult time for her. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the way it responded to her concerns about her health.

The resident’s reports about gases entering the property

  1. The landlord has an obligation to check that gas appliances and flues are safe. It has to carry out annual safety checks of all properties, along with an annual service of any gas appliance that belongs to it. This reflects the landlord’s obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the gas network company when the resident reported a gas leak and had not done so already herself. It also acted appropriately by checking the property for gas/carbon monoxide leaks on each occasion after the gas had been capped by the gas network company before putting the boiler back in use. On each occasion it was established that a gas leak had not occurred.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord reassured the resident that its inspections had found that her heating system could not be accessed or adjusted by the neighbours. The landlord acknowledged it should have opened an ASB case in that complaint response. However, we have seen that it did take appropriate action by visiting the neighbours and inspecting their property. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken action against the neighbours given there was no evidence to link them to the resident’s concerns about gases in the property. A landlord can only take action against its tenants if there is significant evidence that they have committed ASB. There is no evidence to support a leak of carbon monoxide into the property or a problem with the pipework or valves.
  4. In late November 2023 the resident reported to the landlord raised levels of carbon dioxide levels in the property. It acted promptly by sending a surveyor to the property to investigate within 2 days. That was reasonable. They identified that all the trickle vents in the windows were closed, apart from the living room vent which was broken. The survey also found that there was no extractor fan in the kitchen and that the bathroom extractor fan was taped over which restricted the flow of air. The surveyor noted that carbon dioxide levels were normal, but the resident had suggested the high level that had occurred early in the morning might have been a result of visitors smoking late at night in the property. The landlord acted appropriately by raising works to replace the broken trickle vent and bathroom extractor fan and installing a new extractor fan in the kitchen.
  5. The resident told us that her complaint about gases in the property was not limited to carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide but was also about volatile organic compounds, including formaldehyde. We have not seen any evidence that the resident raised this with the landlord until her escalation request. We have not seen any reference to these specific concerns before or since then.
  6. We acknowledge the time and resources that the landlord has spent checking the property for gas leaks. However, give reassurance to the resident, we recommend for it to explore testing the property for volatile organic compounds including formaldehyde, if it has not done so already. As this is a recommendation, the landlord is not obliged to take this action.

 

The resident’s concerns about whether the carbon monoxide alarms were working correctly

  1. While the resident reported the carbon monoxide alarm had been set off on 12 July 2023, the gas network company confirmed to the landlord that it had not been activated. The landlord acted reasonably in response to the resident’s concerns by initially providing a battery carbon monoxide alarm and then replacing the smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarm the next month. After installing them the landlord noted they were working satisfactorily. Given that neither the gas network company nor the landlord identified any carbon monoxide leaks, it follows that there is insufficient evidence to show the alarm did not go off. The landlord took appropriate action to check the alarms were working and was not required to do anything further in this regard.

The installation of a kitchen extractor fan

  1. The landlord appropriately raised the installation of the extractor fan on 30 November 2023, the day of the inspection. We can see that it was unable to gain access on 14 December 2023 and passed the job to its contractor. The contractor tried to gain access on 7 February 2024 and left a calling card. In its complaint handling, the landlord said it did not accept that it had delayed this repair and it had arranged an appointment in April 2024, which the resident had had to change as she was unwell.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the repair was not appropriate. Both the landlord and the contractor should have been aware that there was a 28-day response time in line with the landlord’s responsive repair policy. While the resident did not respond to the calling card left on 7 February 2024, the contractor would have been aware that this repair remained outstanding and should have made contact with the resident to re-arrange the appointment. It was not fair to put the responsibility on a vulnerable resident to do so.
  3. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. That is, to consider the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident which can include distress, inconvenience, time and trouble and what is fair.
  4. Financial compensation of £100 is appropriate for the delay in installing the kitchen extractor fan. We note that at the time of the final complaint response, this matter had been outstanding for almost 7 months. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of such an amount where the landlord has made errors which had no permanent impact on the resident but caused distress and/or inconvenience at the time. We also order the landlord to install this extractor fan, if it has not done so already.

The associated complaint

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. This says it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days and stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
  2. While the stage 1 complaint reply was issued on time, the stage 2 response was delayed by over 2 weeks. That was a service failing which the landlord has acknowledged. Further, we consider it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised the resident’s concerns about communication as a new stage 1 complaint, rather than pass this to a housing manager to consider (s it said in the stage 2 response). Given the resident had raised this as a complaint, she had a right to expect the landlord to respond to it. By not investigating these concerns, the landlord missed a chance to identify and fix issues at an earlier stage. We order the landlord to contact the resident to see if she still wants to pursue a complaint about its communication with her. If the resident does wish to complain about this, the landlord should respond to the complaint in line with the timescales in its complaints policy.
  3. In its complaint response the landlord apologised for that delay and offered compensation of £150 to the resident. We understand it off-set this amount against rent arrears in line with its compensation policy. We consider the landlord’s apology and compensation to be reasonable and proportionate steps to take to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by its poor complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of the kitchen extractor fan.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made satisfactory redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of the associated complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports about gases entering the property.
    2. Concerns about whether the carbon monoxide alarms were working correctly.

Orders

  1. The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to us.
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the delay in installing the kitchen extractor fan. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the impact of the delay in installing the kitchen extractor fan. This sum should be paid direct to the resident and not credited to her rent or any service charge account.
    3. Contact the resident to see if she still wants to pursue a complaint about its communication with her. If the resident wishes to do so, the landlord should respond to the complaint in line with the timescales in its complaints policy.
    4. Install the kitchen extractor fan, if it has not already done so.

 

Recommendation

  1. We recommend that, to give reassurance to the resident, the landlord explores testing the property for volatile organic compounds including formaldehyde (if it has not done so already). As this is a recommendation, the landlord is not obliged to take this action.