Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202406891)

Decision
Case ID	202406891
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

The resident reported cracks in the property which she said the landlord took too long to identify and resolve. The resident occupied the property with her daughter and grandchildren.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the:

a. Resident’s reports of subsidence and the associated repairs.

b. Repair to the bathroom floor.

c. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:

a. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of subsidence and the associated repairs.

b. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the bathroom floor.

c. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord failed to communicate effectively or appropriately with the resident. The resident also experienced delays in getting the temporary repairs completed. The schedule of works to remedy the movement to the property were to be completed by March 2025 but are outstanding. We expect commitments made to be honoured; however, the landlord has not indicated when it intends to complete the repairs.
The resident experienced an unacceptable delay before the bathroom floor repairs were completed. It put things right by its apology and its offer of compensation. It has shown it learnt from the complaint by identifying the need to improve its handling of follow-on repair works.
The landlord delayed in its escalation of the complaint to its second stage. The delay caused uncertainty and frustration to the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £600. This includes the £350 awarded during its complaints process. This is made up as an additional: £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of subsidence and associated repairs. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 15 January 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the schedule of works identified by its contractor in October 2023 are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: · Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 15 January 2026
4	Communication The landlord is to appoint a point of contact for the resident. The landlord should write to the resident giving the contact details and set out the frequency of the updates to be provided. This can be either on a bi weekly or monthly basis.	No later than 15 January 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done, within 3 weeks of the determination so the landlord should pay the resident the £150 it awarded during its complaint process in relation to the bathroom repairs
The finding of reasonable redress is dependent on the above payment being made.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 October 2023	The resident’s daughter represented her mother during the complaint. Any correspondence from the resident’s daughter will be described as being from ‘the resident’ in this report. The resident complained to the landlord. Her key concerns were: The landlord had not confirmed if the property had subsidence. The communication from its technical inspector was poor. The bedroom ceiling had not been replaced. She experienced dust and rubbish coming from the cracks in the bedroom ceiling. She did not know when permanent repairs would be completed. She was unable to get a mutual exchange due to the property condition. She was living in an unsuitable property with screws poking through the bathroom floor. Tape had been temporarily applied. The resident expressed her preferred outcome was to be told when the repairs would be completed. Also, whether it would provide temporary alternative accommodation.
7 November 2023	The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response and said: Cracks and subsidence The bedroom ceiling cracks were assessed on 26 October 2020 and considered to be normal for a property of that age. After it received further reports of cracks to the bedroom ceiling, a technical inspection was carried out on 6 October 2022. This said that the property appeared to be suffering from movement. Structural surveyor attended on 30 December 2022 and advised the property needed to be monitored for 12 months. Temporary repairs were carried out to fill holes and cracks in the bedroom ceiling on 18 May 2023 and throughout the property on 28 September 2023. Bathroom flooring It had inspected the bathroom floor on 25 April 2023 following a report that nails were coming up through the bathroom floor. However, it acknowledged the bathroom floor had not been repaired. A further report was received on 19 October 2023 regarding the nails protruding through the bathroom floor. It apologised for being unable to find the original report and another inspection was arranged for 8 November 2023. Outcome The complaint was partially upheld as its communication was poor. Also, it had not completed the temporary repairs within its repair policy timeframes. For the property to be assessed and diagnosed a period of monitoring was required. The final report would be available soon and then the property placed on a program of works. The works could take place with the resident remaining in occupation. Plastering works would not be carried out to the bedroom ceiling until the structural works were identified. Apologised for the delay in identifying subsidence, poor communication and for being unable to give a start date for the structural works. Compensation of £250 offered. This was made up of £100 for its poor communication, £100 for its delay in repairing the bathroom floor and temporarily filling in the wall and ceiling cracks and holes. £50 for the inconvenienced experienced. It had learnt from the complaint and needed to address its handling of follow on works in line with its repairs policy. Also, it needed to improve its communication to keep residents updated and informed.
15 November 2023	The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. The resident said: The landlord still had not confirmed if the property had subsidence. The landlord had not kept her updated and she had experienced a lack of communication from the technical inspector. She was told the monitoring period would be 6 months. Many of the cracks were too large to be filled and new cracks were appearing. Had brick dust from the ceiling falling on her on a regular basis. Took 2 years for the landlord to arrange an appointment to repair the bathroom floor. Preferred outcome was for the landlord to confirm if the property had subsidence. Also, if the property had subsidence, the action it would take. She would need to be decanted if the repair work would be “messy.” The bedroom ceiling needed to be replaced.
18 January 2024	The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response and: Repeated it had not replaced the bedroom ceiling in October 2020 and a structural engineer attended in October 2022. Apologised it did not give an update following the visit from the structural engineer. However, in September 2023, it did tell her the property would be monitored for 12 months. Confirmed the final structural report had been received and outlined the schedule of works to be undertaken to the property. Upheld the complaint as its communication fell below its standards. Recognised it did not meet its Stage 2 complaint handling timeframes and apologised for this. Offered additional compensation to £500. This was made up of £150 for poor communication, £100 for delays in carrying out repairs to the bathroom flooring and cracks and £250 for inconvenience. It had learnt from the complaint to review its process for managing cases where there is possible subsidence to communicate with residents effectively.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not confirmed whether the property had subsidence. The cracks to the property created large amounts of dust which impacted her and her family. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s communication and her preferred outcome was for the subsidence to be resolved. Also, for the landlord to pay compensation and move her to a more suitable property.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Resident’s reports of subsidence and the associated repairs
Finding	Maladministration

Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. Section 9A of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 also implies a term in the tenancy agreement that the property is fit for human habitation at the time the tenancy is being granted and throughout the lifetime of the tenancy. Both legal obligations are triggered when the landlord is notified of an issue; the landlord has a reasonable period of time to carry out works for which it is liable.
The resident told us around 5 years ago she reported the cracks to the property. While the resident’s account is not disputed, we expect residents to make and escalate complaints within a reasonable timescale. This is usually within 12 months of the matter starting. The reason for this is because the closer in time the complaint is raised to the act or omission by the landlord, the more likely there is to be a resolution. For those reasons, this investigation will consider events from 2022 which were considered in the landlord’s complaint process.
Following the resident’s report of cracks to the main bedroom in August 2022, the landlord arranged a property inspection and raised repairs. The landlord took 85 days to overhaul the main bedroom window and pack out the window frame to resolve any draughts. It was reasonable the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses it did not meet its routine repair time frame of 28 days. This caused the resident to experience an unacceptable delay.
The landlord received the report from the structural engineer in October 2022. This informed the landlord the property was assessed as amber and required underpinning. The property was to be monitored for 12 months. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional advice it received.
We expect landlords to keep residents informed and manage expectations. The resident expressed her frustration with the landlord’s communication advising it did not keep her informed or updated about the action it had taken. The landlord in its complaint responses acknowledged its management of her communication fell below its standards.
It is good practice for landlords to regularly liaise with residents to explain any difficulties and manage their expectations. The landlord recognised it had later informed her the property would be monitored for 12 months. Had it been more proactive with its communication this may have given reassurance to the resident her concerns was taken seriously.
During the monitoring period, the landlord attended on 30 May 2023 to fill in cracks to the bedroom ceiling. This took 85 days from the resident’s report in March 2023. This was not reasonable as the landlord’s repair policy says such repairs should be completed within 28 days. The resident experienced an unacceptable delay.
The landlord carried out a heat loss survey on 7 June 2023 to determine whether it needed to act with regard to the resident having a warm home. No actions were identified. The landlord also attended on 8 September 2023, taking 20 calendar days to apply caulk to multiple cracks to ceiling and walls throughout the property. This was reasonable to resolve the reported cracks to the property.
After the monitoring period ended, the landlord received its contractors structural report. This:

a. Said there was no obvious reason for the cracking. The cracking could result from different factors such as changes in the soil or significant vegetation.

b. Recommended the property be:

c. Stitch repaired of cracked joints.

d. Internally redecorated to specification.

e. Trees removed in the curtilage of the landlord’s properties.

f. Jet and repair the drains if required.

g. Underpinned using grout injection techniques or similar.

h. If necessary, additional boreholes to 5m depth if required.

In its complaint responses the landlord addressed the resident’s concern about the reason for the movement in the property. It explained it had not received a conclusive reason for the cracking in the property. From what can be seen during the monitoring period, there was little evidence of further movement. It was reasonable for the landlord to set out the available information it had and to explain it could not provide a fuller explanation to the resident.
The resident has told us she has been impacted by the amount of dust generated by the cracking to the walls and ceiling in the property. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. We are unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
The resident requested the landlord repair the cracks to the bedroom ceilings advising the room was occupied by her granddaughter who was also affected by the brick dust. The repairs manager determined temporary plastering repairs would not be carried out during the monitoring period to stop works being completed twice. The landlord agreed for the schedule of works to be placed on a programme of works to be completed within the financial year 2024/2025. The landlord also inspected the property on 9 May 2024 and assessed that whilst there were cracks in the property, the cracks had not worsened. It agreed to repair any blown plaster until the structural repairs were carried out. The landlord’s actions were reasonable.
The resident has said due to the property condition she is unable to apply for a mutual exchange. She has also explained she needs a stair lift to help her access the toilet which is in the middle of the staircase. A stair lift cannot be installed as the staircase is curved. The landlord has assisted the resident to made an application for permanent housing, helped upload her medical information and contacted the occupational therapist. This is reasonable as once needs or vulnerabilities are identified, the landlord should take steps to help get them addressed. The resident told us she is in contact with the occupational therapist and aids have been installed to assist her in the property.
There are specific circumstances setting out when the landlord can approve permanent accommodation. Its decant and temporary transfer policy gives the circumstances such as when a redevelopment scheme has been approved and a property is being redeveloped. Alternatively, permanent accommodation is allocated in line with the local council’s choice based lettings system. Any dissatisfaction or delays with the resident being allocated such housing, the resident should make a complaint to the council about this. The resident has also told us she has spoken to the Director of Housing about her housing situation and received advice about the options available. This includes the family agreeing to move as a single unit or the family moving as smaller units for housing to be found to meet their housing needs.
The landlord’s decant and temporary transfers policy says if essential repairs cannot be carried out with the resident and her family living in the property it will seek approval for temporary alternative accommodation. In response to the resident’s request to be moved once works started, the landlord in its complaint review said it had assessed alternative temporary housing was not required. This was because the works could be completed with the resident remaining in the property.
After its complaint process ended the landlord reviewed its position. It agreed to reassess the need for alternative temporary housing once a start date for the works has been agreed. This is reasonable in light of the resident’s medical condition and the vulnerabilities in the property it was aware of.
The landlord in its complaints review apologised for its poor communication and delay in carrying out repairs. Overall it offered £150 for its poor communication and £100 for its delay in carrying out repairs to the bathroom floor and cracks to the property. It also offered £250 for the inconvenience experienced by the resident. We do not know how the landlord apportioned the amounts for the failures it identified.
Based on the evidence, our assessment will reflect the following compensation awards: £150 for its poor communication, £50 for the delay in repairing the cracks and £150 for the inconvenience experienced by the resident. This gives a total award of £350 compensation to reflect its poor communication and failure to complete repairs quickly.
Our Remedies Guidance suggests payments between £100 to £600 are payable when residents have been adversely affected. Whilst the landlord’s compensation award falls midway of our category it is not considered sufficient for the impact to the resident and her family. The landlord took too long to complete the temporary repairs it had agreed to. For those reasons an additional £150 has been awarded to bring the compensation award for this element to £500.
In summary, a delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the matter is complex as it appears to have been in this case. The landlord is expected to proactively manage and complete the repairs as soon as practically possible. It is accepted the property had to be monitored before the repairs required could be established.
However, there was unacceptable delays by the landlord in completing the temporary repairs and a lack of effective communication with the resident. The landlord said it would complete the required repairs by the end of the financial year 2024/2025 and these remain outstanding without a date or explanation provided for when they would be completed. For those reasons a finding of maladministration has been made and additional compensation awarded.

Complaint	Repair to the bathroom floor
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the bathroom floor. The resident reported a defect to the bathroom floor on 31 March 2023. This was described as nails coming through the bathroom floor. The landlord’s record show the repair was completed on 28 April 2024. However, it appears this was actually a temporary repair. The landlord in its complaint review acknowledged its records did not show the work carried out by its operative. To achieve a full and lasting repair, it had to reattend to inspect the condition of the bathroom floor. This was not reasonable as it caused inconvenience to the resident.
The resident made a further report of nails coming through the floor boards in October 2023. The resident said this also affected her grandchildren who lived in the property. There is no evidence the landlord undertook a risk assessment to mitigate any risks to the resident and her family. This was not reasonable as the landlord is responsible for resolving hazards and providing a safe environment for the resident.
From the landlord’s records, it is not possible to determine the exact date the repair to the bathroom floor was completed. This is not reasonable as its records should show the action taken and outcomes to the repair reports received. The resident has said it took 9 months for the bathroom floor to be repaired. There is no reason to dispute the resident’s account. The time taken is not reasonable as the landlord failed to comply with the time limits outlined in its repair policy for routine repairs to be completed within 28 days.
In its complaints review, the landlord recognised and apologised to the resident for its failure to meeting its repair time limits and inconvenience experienced. As explained earlier, the landlord did not breakdown how much it awarded for its delay in repairing the bathroom floor. Based on the evidence, we have assessed the landlord to have offered £50 for the delay and £100 for the inconvenience experienced. Our Remedies Guidance says payments between £100 to £600 are payable when residents are adversely affected by the landlord’s action. The landlord’s compensation award is considered sufficient for the impact experienced by the resident and her family and is therefore proportionate.
The landlord said it had learnt from the complaint and recognised it needed to improve its monitoring of follow on works. Our Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord has repaired the bathroom floor, offered compensation and demonstrated it has learnt from the complaint. The landlord’s apology, compensation offered is sufficient for the complaint. For those reasons a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The resident complained to the landlord on 26 October 2023 about the property condition. This came about as the resident had not received responses to her request for information. Had the landlord contacted the resident to give an update regarding the structural condition of the property and the action it would take once the report was received, the complaint would likely not have been made.
It was reasonable for the landlord to take 8 working days to provide its Stage 1 complaint response on 7 November 2023. The landlord responded within its Stage 1 timescale of 10 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint on 15 November 2023. The landlord took 19 working days to 12 December 2023 before it acknowledged her escalation request. This was not reasonable as its complaint procedure and our Complaint Handling Code, saysescalation requests should be acknowledged within 5 working days. This was not reasonable as its delay caused inconvenience and distress to the resident.
The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 18 January 2024. The landlord told the resident it would provide its complaint response on 4 January 2024, however, it said it requested an extension from the resident when it could not meet its complaint handling timescale. The landlord took 24 working days to provide its Stage 2 complaint response on 18 January 2024, just outside its complaint handling timescale of 20 working days.
The landlord in its review of the resident’s complaint, apologised for its complaint handling delays. However, it did not consider whether it should offer redress for this. This was not reasonable as its delay in escalating the complaint, contributed to the uncertainty experienced by the resident. Our Remedies Guidance recommends payments between £50 to £100 when residents are impacted by its actions for a short period of time. For those reasons a finding of service failure has been made and additional compensation of £100 has been awarded.

Learning

The landlord has identified in its complaint review:

a. It does not have a policy for managing structural works. It should consider whether its repairs policy should be reviewed to give guidance for such circumstances.

b. The need to improve its record keeping especially to ensure follow on works are completed within its published repair timescales.

c. The importance of good communication to improve the landlord and tenant relationship.