Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202418797)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202418797

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

29 August 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 about dampness, humidity and mould.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy on a flat owned by the housing association. The tenancy agreement began in November 2022. The landlord’s records show the resident is considered vulnerable due to her mental health.
3. The resident reported damp, mould, condensation, and humidity to the landlord in August 2023. The landlord arranged inspections in September 2023 but was unable to gain access to the property. The resident contacted the landlord again on 12 October 2023, asking to be moved due to the impact of the damp and mould on her health. The landlord inspected the property in November 2023 and found that the external wall had high moisture levels due to a leak from the property above, however, no mould was found in the resident’s property. The landlord attended to repair the leak on 17 January 2024 but could not gain access.
4. The resident raised her formal complaint on 22 January 2024, saying the humidity in her home had reached 90% and she could not breathe properly and was gasping for air. She said the humidifier had been running nonstop for 14 months, costing her £3.33 per day in electricity. The landlord moved the resident to a hotel the following day while it carried out the necessary repairs. However, upon her return to the property the resident continued to report the damp and mould.
5. Throughout the complaint process including in its final response letter on 21 March 2024, the landlord said:
   1. Following the inspection on 10 November 2023, it failed to carry out the repairs to the exterior wall within its target of 28 days in accordance with its repairs policy. It offered £150 in compensation to the resident.
   2. All its inspections to date concluded that the property was not in poor condition. It moved the resident to a hotel and found the humidity levels were satisfactory. It said the property should be ventilated which will prevent condensation and aid reducing the humidity.
   3. It did not consider that the use of a dehumidifier was necessary, therefore it would not reimburse the resident with the cost she incurred running it.
   4. It identified learning from the complaint and said it would review its process for managing damp and mould to ensure repairs are completed within its policy timeframes.
6. The resident brought her complaint to us saying she had moved into the property in 2022 and had wet walls since then. She said her health had deteriorated and she now started using asthma inhalers. She also listed several other health conditions which she said had developed while living at the property. To resolve the complaint, she would like to be reimbursed for the cost of running the dehumidifier, and to be relocated to a different property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident’s assertion that the landlord’s handling of this case has negatively impacted her health has been noted. It is beyond the expertise of the Service, however, to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack thereof) and the impact on the resident’s health and well-being. These matters are better addressed by the courts, which are better equipped to determine the reason a health condition has deteriorated. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, she may want to seek independent legal advice first. This investigation will consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy, legal obligations, and treated the resident fairly in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about dampness, humidity and mould

8. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly and following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.
9. The resident initially reported issues with dampness and humidity in August 2023. The landlord sent its operatives to the property on several occasions in September 2023. However, operatives were unable to gain access to the property.
10. The resident reported the issue again on 12 October 2023. The landlord contacted the resident the following day and informed her that her home was classified as ‘category 1 damp and mould’. According to the landlord’s damp and mould policy, properties may be identified as category 1 where they pose a risk to the health of vulnerable residents. The policy says in these cases the landlord will provide support and assistance through an action plan, centred around the resident’s needs. It will act quickly and consider whether a temporary relocation is necessary.
11. The landlord returned to inspect the property on 10 November 2023. Although its policy does not specify a target time to inspect a property following damp and mould reports, given the landlord identified the property as type 1, it would have been reasonable to have completed the initial risk assessment sooner. This took almost a month.
12. In its inspection of the property on 10 November 2023 the landlord found that the external wall of the resident’s home had excessive moisture. It traced this to a leak from the property above. It also found loose pointing to the external wall. The landlord, however, failed to progress the repairs within its target repair time of 28 days in accordance with its repairs policy.
13. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 January 2024, saying she struggled to breathe properly. In response, the landlord acted appropriately by moving her to a hotel the next day and began remedial works the following day. However, it is unclear what work it had carried out during this time. On 29 January 2024, the landlord contacted its operatives for an update on their progress before the resident returned to the property the next day. Operatives responded that the landlord might need to manage the resident’s expectations due to outstanding snagging jobs. In the absence of clear communications from the landlord, the resident reasonably expected that the remedial works in her property had been completed.
14. However, from the records available to us, it appears that the landlord only contacted the property above to repair the leak on 6 February 2024. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the remedial works during the resident’s stay at the hotel were incomplete. This could have caused frustration and distress to the resident and damaged her trust in the landlord’s ability to carry out the required works.
15. The landlord returned to the resident’s property on 8 February 2024, and upon inspection, it found that the trickle vents were closed, and the bathroom extractor fan had not been used effectively. The landlord followed its policy here as it provided the resident with information on how to reduce humidity levels in the property. It also asked its damp and mould consultant to comment on the resident’s reports of 90% humidity levels within her home. The consultant advised that it was not possible to comment on humidity measurements without also taking indoor and outdoor temperatures simultaneously. They reiterated that, in their professional opinion, the resident’s property had no structural defects and that they believed the issues stemmed from insufficient ventilation.
16. The landlord appropriately explained this to the resident in a letter dated 8 February 2024 and within its complaint responses. It provided her with appropriate tips on how to increase ventilation and reduce humidity and prevent condensation, which was in accordance with its damp and mould policy. The landlord further committed to continue working with the resident to investigate the excess moisture in her home. It told the resident on 21 February 2024 that it could arrange to remove the plaster on the affected wall which would enable the landlord to inspect the moisture level within the brickworks. This was appropriate and demonstrated it taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
17. In its March 2023 final response letter, the landlord acknowledged there were shortcomings in its handling of the repairs, for which it apologised. To put things right for the resident it offered the resident £150 compensation which was fair and proportionate. The landlord also identified learning from the complaint. These were reasonable steps to take and proportionate to the landlord’s oversights.
18. While we acknowledge the resident’s concerns and distress, based on the evidence available to us, the landlord acted reasonably in accordance with its policies, procedures, and legal obligations. It recognised there were shortcomings and in response took reasonable steps to put things right and to learn from the outcomes. The landlord has shown that it took the resident’s concerns seriously by committing to work with the resident to find solutions. Overall, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to resolve the resident’s complaint reasonably.

Determination

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

Recommendations

20. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the expectation that the landlord would pay the resident £150 in compensation, if it has not already done so.