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 (202338818)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338818

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

12 February 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 communications with the resident on her reports of damp and mould in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1bed flat, owned by the landlord. She lives with her young son who has asthma.
  2. According to the landlord’s records, the resident wrote to it on 7 October 2021 under the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (the Protocol). She said she had been reporting damp and mould since 2018. It completed remedial works on 7 March 2022; however, she contacted it under the Protocol again in July 2022 to report that the damp had returned. It agreed to pay £4,500 in compensation in September 2022 and to complete works within 56 days. It arranged a damp and mould inspection which took place on 20 October 2022 and found penetrating damp. The surveyor said that it needed to complete external remedial works, which included areas outside the boundary of the resident’s property.
  3. With the help of her solicitor, the resident reached a settlement agreement with the landlord on 24 July 2023. As the works remained outstanding, it agreed to pay a further £1,500 in compensation and to complete it within 6 months without the matter going to court. Ultimately, the landlord agreed to pay £6,000 in compensation.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 24 October 2023. She said the bedroom was mouldy and uninhabitable and she did not think the works would resolve the problem. It issued its stage 1 response on 22 November 2023 where it confirmed its current progress, which included working with the owner of the property next door. It acknowledged and apologised for unreasonable delays and poor communication, highlighted that it was still within the agreed timescale for the works, and said a surveyor had confirmed that it was safe to use the bedroom.
  5. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 23 November 2023. She said the bedroom remained very cold and she was unhappy at the time taken to complete the works. She also said this was making her son unwell, and was concerned that his health may deteriorate. It reiterated its stage 1 position in its stage 2 response of 22 December 2023 and provided a further update on its progress.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions and its final response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the Ombudsman that there have been further issues since her complaint. We will not investigate these matters, as the landlord has not had an opportunity to investigate and respond to new issues under its internal complaints procedure. It is open to her to raise a new complaint. If she does this and is unhappy with the landlord’s final response, she can ask us to open a new investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
  2. This investigation will not consider the adequacy of the compensation offered and the proposed timescales for the works, as the landlord settled these matters with the resident via an agreement under the Protocol. We will however look at how the landlord communicated with her on the issue, how it responded to her complaint, and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances. This would be from July 2023 when it agreed to make the further payment of £1500. This is because the amount agreed by the parties was regarding the works and its impact on the resident but could not have contemplated any future communication issues. Therefore, this report has not considered any communication issues occurring before this date.
  3. The resident has raised concerns that the condition of the property may have affected her son’s health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of her complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Damp and mould

  1. In the independent inspection of 20 October 2022, the surveyor found that high ground levels and a leaking rainwater pipe from the property next door had caused penetrating damp in the bedroom. It said the neighbour’s drainage system should be investigated and replaced to bring it in line with current standards. The landlord noted that the neighbouring property was privately owned. Under the settlement agreement, the parties agreed the sum of £6,000 by 24 July 2023, with the landlord committing to complete the works within 6 months of that date.
  2. The landlord’s records state that it attended on 1 November 2023 to complete a mould wash, however the resident declined access as she said the damp needed further investigation first. It contacted her to discuss this and completed the mould wash on 21 November 2023. It then scheduled an inspection for 6 days later. This was reasonable and shows that it took her concerns into account.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the owner of the adjoining property was responsible for works to the drainage but had failed to complete these. It said it contacted them 4 times between December 2022 and March 2023, before it decided to conduct the works itself. It said there were then access issues which caused further delay. It accepted that its communication had been poor, and it had not been proactive enough when contacting the owner of the property next door. It apologised for this, which was appropriate as it had been over a year since the inspection, and it is likely that the lack of communication added to the resident’s frustration.
  4. However, following the settlement agreement of July 2023, the landlord’s records state that it conducted a further survey of the resident’s property on 15 August 2023. It then completed works to the neighbouring property on 4 September 2023, during which time it said it had also visited her. It commenced remedial works to her property on 11 October 2023. This was originally scheduled for the following week, however her solicitor contacted it to request this be brought forward. Following its stage 1 response, it contacted her to confirm that a contractor would attend on 27 November 2023 to check that the wall was drying. If not, it would carry out further investigations. It provided a dehumidifier on 13 December 2023 and arranged to attend the following week to check the wall.
  5. The resident did not raise any communication issues with the landlord in her escalation request. that the evidence shows that it was in regular contact with her from the settlement agreement of July 2023 until its final response of 22 December 2023. In its responses, it gave a detailed account of the works which were underway, and said the bedroom wall would be replastered and decorated once it had dried out. It said its surveyor would keep the resident informed, and it would arrange a post-works inspection. It appropriately provided an update and reassured her that it would monitor the situation and check the quality of the works.
  6. The landlord said it would learn from the complaint and make internal improvements to its communication with residents during repairs. It also said it would recommend better management when other properties were involved. This was good practice, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery.
  7. This investigation finds that there were no failings in the landlord’s communication about the repairs following the events leading up to her complaint of 24 October 2023. It had therefore improved on its service delivery as promised in its stage 1 decision.
  8. In her escalation request, the resident also said the landlord should have offered temporary accommodation. Its damp and mould policy states that it will “provide rehousing where the damp and mould issue cannot be remedied if the household remain in the home.” It explained in its response that it had declined temporary accommodation as this only affected a small area, and the surveyor had said the property was safe. This is in line with its policy, and it was reasonable for it to rely on the professional opinion of the surveyor.
  9. The resident further said the property was too small and she wanted to move. She had already applied to the local authority, and the landlord explained that it had no direct involvement with the authority’s housing register. It signposted her to information about how to appeal her banding if she felt this was not correct. It would have been helpful to see whether it had considered alternative options, however it was appropriate to direct her to the local authority.
  10. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. It issued its stage 1 response 6 working days later than its published timescales and there is no evidence that it confirmed an extension. It said this was because she had sent a follow up email to request a response at stage 2, so it needed to spend time checking its records. It was appropriate for the landlord to ensure that it was responding at the correct stage, however it should have been able to clarify this sooner. In the specific circumstances of this case, the delay was not significant as it did not prevent the landlord from carrying out the repairs. It was also reasonable to acknowledge the delay and apologise for this.
  11. Overall, the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable. It acknowledged that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident and had not acted quickly enough when dealing with the property next door. It apologised for its shortcomings and explained what it would do to improve its processes as a result. It provided a detailed update on its progress, and its responses were transparent and showed that it had taken the complaint seriously.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.