Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202431391)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431391

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

24 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. An ongoing leak causing damp and mould.
   2. Her needing a kitchen replacement.
   3. How the out of hours team dealt with her request to remove a dead rat.

Background

2. The resident has occupied the property, a ground floor 1 bedroom flat, since March 2018 on a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy. The landlord is a housing association. The property above is occupied by a leaseholder.
3. In October 2021 the resident issued a letter of claim for disrepair. This related to several issues, one of which was a leak from the property above on to the ceiling of the bathroom, causing damp and mould. The claim was settled in August 2023.
4. On 6 December 2023 the resident complained that the leak in to her bathroom was still an issue, that the kitchen ought to be replaced and about how the landlord had dealt with her reporting a dead rat by her property.
5. The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued on 19 December 2023 and the complaint was not upheld. The resident escalated it to stage 2 on 7 January 2024 and its stage 2 response was sent on 5 February 2024. Again, the complaint was not upheld.
6. The resident feels the landlord was responsible for removing the dead rat as it was in a communal area, and that the kitchen should be replaced as the units were not fitted correctly when it was installed. She also says the leak from the property above has not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. In this case, it is evident that the resident began reporting issues, including a leak into her property around 2021 and this led to her making a claim against the landlord which was settled in August 2023. We have not considered the claim itself, but since the matter was settled, the resident has reported that the leak has continued. We have therefore referred to the claim by way of context but have only considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from September 2023. We have also considered events following the landlord’s final response as the issue remains unresolved. 

Landlord’s handling of an ongoing leak causing damp and mould

8. The resident told the landlord on 2 October 2023 that the leak from the property above was still an issue. However, there is no evidence of it taking any action at that time, which is unacceptable. This led to the resident complaining on 6 December 2023. On 19 December 2023 the landlord said it had added it to the schedule of works and would mention it to the neighbour upstairs in order to get them to check their property. However, no evidence has been provided to show the landlord did get in touch with the neighbour at that time.
9. The resident complained that the leak was causing damp and this was affecting her health. While we are an alternative to a court, we are unable to establish whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action, had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
10. When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, the landlord said she would be contacted in order for an inspection in to the cause of the leak to take place. It is clear the resident heard nothing more as she chased the landlord regarding this on 5 March 2024. A contractor did attend the next day and recorded the bathroom ceiling was dry, finding no obvious leak. This is supported by an internal email sent on 19 March 2024. It said the neighbouring property had been inspected the week before and found there was no leak but “there was minor mastic to be repaired around the shower and the leaseholder has advised this has been completed”.
11. While the landlord did therefore investigate a potential leak from the neighbouring property in March 2024, it took 5 months from when the resident re-raised the issue in October 2023 and 3 months from when it said it would contact the neighbour. The resident was not only frustrated by the delay in the landlord taking action, but she was also put to the trouble of having to chase it as no progress had been made.
12. After this initial 5 month delay, the landlord was more proactive. Between April 2024 and March 2025, 11 attempts were made to get access to the resident’s property in order for a healthy homes assessment to be carried out. There were some visits which were recorded as ‘no access’ and the available evidence indicates that the landlord also struggled to confirm an appointment with the resident. It wrote to her on 18 July 2024 and 20 December 2024 asking her to make contact as it had been unable to arrange a time when she would be in. It offered a number of different appointments and having agreed dates and times to visit, the resident sometimes cancelled them on the day (for example on 3 and 11 March 2025).
13. In the meantime, the resident reported the leak again on 25 November 2024, however, the neighbour was not visited until 5 February 2025. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says a repair should be carried out within 28 calendar days. This Service’s Spotlight on Damp and Mould report, It’s Not Lifestyle (October 2021) says landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions and should ensure that responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. While it is appreciated the neighbouring property was occupied by a leaseholder, there is no evidence of the landlord trying to get access to the neighbouring property for over 2 months. This failure to adhere to its policy, resulted in a further delay.
14. Having attended the neighbouring property, the landlord did indicate it had found the source of the leak. It advised the resident it had identified a problem with the neighbour’s shower cubicle tray. The tray had dropped and showed a gap of 4mm between the tiles and the shower tray. The neighbour was told the water was going into the ground floor riser cupboard externally and wetting the resident’s bathroom ceiling. They were advised how to fix it and the landlord checked a month later to see if the repair had been done but found it had not.
15. While the landlord did update the resident on what was happening on 25 February 2025, this was only after she chased for information the day before and complained about how long the issue had been going on. It rightly explained that because the cause of the leak was related to a repair within a neighbouring leasehold property, it was not responsible for that repair. However, it should not have taken the resident to have to chase for information, to be told what was happening. The landlord should have ensured someone was monitoring the job and keeping the resident updated.
16. The landlord did follow up with the neighbour when it found out the repair had not been done. It was told the leak had since been repaired, so it asked for evidence of that. However, the neighbour said they could not provide any. It therefore explained to the neighbour on 1 April 2025 that it would have to take their word for the repair having been done but advised that in future they should ask for a job report as proof of work done. At that point, the landlord accepted what the neighbour had said. This was not unreasonable, because without evidence indicating a repair had not been done, there was no reason to escalate matters unnecessarily.
17. Despite the resident’s neighbour having said the repair had been done, the resident has reported there is still a leak. While this is bound to be frustrating for her, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the neighbour having not carried out an adequate repair. It has arranged for the resident to be removed temporarily from the property in July 2025 while a variety of works are done. This provides the landlord with the opportunity to assess the cause of the leak and advise the resident what options it has available to address the issue going forward. It should also provide timeframes for any action it takes.
18. The evidence shows the leak from the property above was very intermittent, so signs of the leak were not always visible when visits were made. This made it difficult to assess and there were difficulties at times with agreeing dates with the resident to be available for an assessment as she worked full time.
19. Overall, there has been maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the ongoing leak causing damp and mould. There was a delay between October 2023 and March 2024 when the landlord did not take any action to address the leak. From April 2024 it was more proactive, but its communication with the resident was at times poor. There was also a further delay in assessing the leak coming from the neighbouring property between November 2024 and February 2025. To recognise the delay and poor communication the resident experienced, the landlord should pay the resident compensation.
20. When the landlord addressed the complaint, it failed to acknowledge that no action had been taken to address the leak or liaise with the neighbour from October 2023. There was a delay of about 5 months in the landlord initially contacting the neighbour over the leak and the resident had to follow this up in order for progress to be made. A further 2 month delay from November 2024 meant added to that. These delays and poor communication should be acknowledged by way of compensation being paid. The landlord did go on to take steps to try and address the issue, so the detriment is limited. Therefore, in accordance with our remedies guidance, compensation of £400 would be a reasonable in the circumstances.

Resident’s reports of her needing a kitchen replacement.  

21. As already mentioned, the resident instigated a disrepair claim and following a survey of the property, a schedule of works was prepared. In terms of work needed in the kitchen, only the following points were noted:
    1. Replace combined waste and overflow to kitchen sink waste.
    2. Strip paper to external wall of kitchen and prepare plaster ready for embossed paper.
    3. Hang Embossed paper to match as close as possible to existing and apply two coats of emulsion to the walls to the nearest corner.
22. There was no mention of the kitchen having been fitted incorrectly or needing to be replaced.
23. A stock condition survey was carried out on 5 October 2023 which concluded the kitchen should be renewed in 2030. The landlord explained to the resident that it was satisfied the kitchen did not need replacing at that time, but she was invited to report any specific issues, which it could then address.
24. No evidence has been provided of specific repairs being reported. Rather the evidence shows the resident asking for a reassessment of the kitchen by a surveyor because she felt it should be replaced. When addressing the complaint, the landlord did not agree to that and reiterated it was satisfied the kitchen met its homes standard and did not yet need replacing/renewing.
25. The landlord has carried out some minor repairs that were needed and said the kitchen will be replaced but not until it is due under its cyclical repairs programme, as the surveyor did not find anything that warranted a replacement any earlier. It is noted the resident does not agree with that, but the landlord was entitled to act on the findings of the stock condition report. Overall, we are satisfied it complied with its obligations and there was no maladministration.  

Landlord’s response to how the out of hours team dealt with a request to remove a dead rat

26. The resident’s complaint of 6 December 2023 said she was unhappy that when she reported the rat that both the person she spoke to, and his manager decided they were not going to take any action. She has told us that she feels it is the landlord’s responsibility to address a rat issue around the building/property.
27. The landlord has a pest control policy which sets out its responsibilities, and that of the resident. This explains that while the landlord does take responsibility for addressing some pest issues in the building and communal areas, it states, “We will not treat the following: rats – local authorities offer baiting treatments for free or a low cost.” The landlord’s explanation that it did not provide a service for removing dead rats was therefore correct. It follows that there was no obligation for it to remove it.
28. In response to the complaint, the landlord said its call handlers could have explained things more clearly, but we do not know what was said or how it was said. It also does not mean that its service fell short. The landlord’s response did contain an apology and it said it would be feeding back to its out of hours service, so it did take the resident’s concern seriously. It also confirmed the caretaker did move the rat the next day. While the resident’s views are noted, there was no obligation on the landlord to remove the rat, and that was explained to her. Therefore, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of an ongoing leak causing damp and mould.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of:
    1. The resident’s reports of her needing a kitchen replacement.
    2. How the out of hours team dealt with a request to remove a dead rat.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Paid the resident £400 compensation for the delay addressing the leak and its poor communication.
    3. Issued advice to the resident about the options it has to address the leak from the neighbouring property, if the leaseholder fails to address it.