Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202324032)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324032

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

12 May 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 response to the resident’s compensation request for replacement flooring.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant since 1996. She shares the property with her husband. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom end of terrace house. The complaint and repair requests have been brought to the landlord from both the resident and her husband. For clarity, this report refers to both members of the household as “the resident.”
  2. In November 2020, the landlord carried out a structural survey of the property. It found that a tree outside the property boundary was causing structural issues and damp. On 17 June 2021, a councillor emailed the landlord on behalf of the resident. They reported that there had been cracks in the wall of the property and uneven floors. The resident was unhappy that the landlord wanted access to the property to replaster walls before it had addressed the subsidence issue. On 23 June 2021, the landlord advised that the structural engineers had concluded that the tree was “seriously compromising the stabilisation” of the property. It said that it may need to remove the tree when it identified its owner.
  3. On 4 August 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. They said that the property was affected by damp and subsidence. These problems had been raised with the landlord on several occasions over the past few years. They said that the landlord’s action to resolve the issues had been ineffective and the communication was poor. They said that damp issues in the property and an uneven floor in the kitchen were because of subsidence caused by the tree. They wanted the landlord to confirm the cause of its delay in repairing the issue, what works it planned to do to resolve the issue, and when it would carry out the works.
  4. On 10 August 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It accepted that the subsidence repairs should be complete before any flooring or plastering works took place. The landlord said it was in contact with the council to have the tree removed. It said that a surveyor would visit the property on 23 August 2021, and it would contact them with a plan to complete the works.
  5. On 24 September 2021, the resident escalated the complaint. They said that they noticed that the laminate floor in the hall was moving. When it was lifted, they could see that the wood underneath was damp and had disintegrated. They asked the landlord to repair it.
  6. On 29 July 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord reviewed its response to the resident’s repair requests dating back to 2015 and noted substantial issues with damp and mould dating back to 2015. It found that it delayed in carrying out a structural survey by 6 years. As a resolution to the complaint, it offered £7500 of general damages compensation and committed to completing the structural works to the property in the near future.
  7. On 20 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and said that the compensation offered did not include goods purchased as a result of the repairs. The resident requested compensation for items to be replaced because of the repair including the flooring. On 17 April 2023, the resident sent a letter to the landlord requesting compensation and detailed a list of expenses and replacement items as a result of the repair. This included replacing and fitting the lounge flooring at £1315.89.
  8. On 3 October 2023, the landlord provided a further stage 2 complaint response which considered the further compensation request. The landlord agreed to pay the requested compensation except for the flooring. It said that this element of compensation should be the subject of an insurance claim.
  9. When the resident brought their complaint to the Ombudsman, they remained unhappy because the landlord refused to pay for the flooring replacement. They said that their insurance company would not pay for the flooring because it was not damaged, rather, it was removed and disposed of by the landlord. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident wants the landlord to pay for the replacement flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures. The resident may wish to seek legal advice.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s compensation request for replacement flooring

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy refers to its responsibility for floor coverings when investigating or repairing the floor. It states that “when required, we will ask you to take up any floor covering that you have put down. It further states that it “will not be responsible for replacing or reinstating any floor or wall coverings that are disturbed because of investigation or repair works.”
  2. The landlord has a contractor’s charter that sets out that all contractors must maintain minimum insurance policies to cover any liability which may arise under the contract.
  3. It is not disputed that the landlord removed and disposed of the resident’s floor covering. In its final complaint response, the landlord stated that the floor covering should be the subject of an insurance claim. As this is the only substantive element of the complaint brought to us, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for replacement flooring.
  4. On 20 September 2022, before the works began, the resident provided the landlord with a quote for replacement flooring for the front room and hall. At this point, the landlord should have advised the resident that it would not be responsible for the floor coverings, and it should have asked the resident to remove the flooring in line with its repair policy. The landlord’s failure to advise the resident that it would not be responsible for the floor covering was inappropriate and it failed to follow its repair policy.
  5. As part of a previous repair, the resident removed flooring in the hall and asked the landlord to investigate damp underneath. The resident provided evidence that they labelled the flooring in order to replace it after the landlord completed the repair to the hall. On this basis, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident would have removed the lounge flooring had they been put on notice that the landlord intended to remove and dispose of it. We cannot determine if the resident could have removed and replaced the flooring, after the sub floor was repaired, however, the landlord should have allowed the resident the opportunity to consider this option.
  6. When the resident advised that their insurers refused the claim because the flooring was not damaged, rather, the contractor removed and disposed of it. The landlord should have carried out further investigations and assisted the resident. The landlord should have provided the resident with the contractor’s professional indemnity insurance. Its failure to do so closed down a potential avenue for compensation.
  7. We find that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s compensation request for replacement flooring. In the first instance, the landlord failed to set out clearly the resident’s responsibility for the flooring and it failed to ask the resident to remove the flooring before the works began in line with its repairs policy. It also failed to provide the resident details of its contractor’s professional indemnity insurance.
  8. The landlord’s failures caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. An order for compensation of £350 has been made below in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance considering these failures.

Complaint handling  

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
  2. On 24 September 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to report further damp and requested an escalation of the complaint. The landlord replied on 27 September 2021 and advised that it was currently investigating the issue and asked the resident if they still wanted to escalate the complaint. The resident chased the escalation again on 25 May 2022 and the landlord then escalated the complaint. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint was inappropriate as the resident had made a clear request to escalate. This caused time and trouble to the resident in navigating the complaint process.
  3. The evidence indicates that the landlord agreed to consider further compensation, after it completed the repairs. On 17 April 2023, the resident requested compensation for the replacement flooring in the lounge. While the landlord acknowledged this correspondence on 27 April 2023, it did not provide the resident with a further stage 2 complaint response until 5 months later on 3 October 2023. It is unclear why the landlord delayed in responding to the resident, but this was an unreasonable delay.
  4. Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights for problems and help the landlord with organisational learning. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right.
  5. The landlord failed to effectively use its complaints policy to identify its failures and put things right for the resident. It failed to identify that it did not follow its repair policy when it did not ask the resident to remove the flooring before it carried out the repair. It also failed to consider compensation to the resident for this failure and the complaint handling failures identified.
  6. We find that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to appropriately escalate the complaint, it delayed in providing a response to the resident’s compensation request, and it failed to put things right for the resident in the form of compensation.
  7. These complaint handling failures caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident. We have made an order of £150 compensation in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance to represent these failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s compensation request for replacement flooring.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord writes to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £500 compromising:
    1. £350 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in responding to the resident’s compensation request for replacement flooring.
    2. £150 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
  3. It is ordered for the landlord to carry out a review of its complaint handling in this case to ensure that it has adequate oversight of its complaint management processes that ensure the adequacy and timeliness of its complaint investigations and responses.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.