Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202325999)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325999

Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited

16 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 handling of the resident’s application to its hardship fund.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She moved into the property with her daughter in July 2013. The property is a 2-bedroom mid-terraced house. The resident is registered disabled with a drop-in carer. The landlord has provided us with information regarding recorded vulnerabilities.
  2. The resident applied to the landlord’s hardship fund on 4 September 2023 as she said that rats had damaged her kitchen appliances. The landlord asked her to complete an income and expenditure form with bank statements. On 6 September 2023 the landlord informed the resident that her application was unsuccessful. The resident responded to ask why she was not eligible, given her mental health vulnerabilities and financial position.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 14 September 2023 as she was unhappy with this decision. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 September 2023 and upheld her complaint. It said:
    1. It did not follow its policy.
    2. It apologised for the poor service and the impact the failures had on her.
    3. It had reassessed her application and found she did meet the criteria.
    4. The wellbeing manager would consider whether compensation would be offered for the resident needing to purchase takeaways.
    5. It offered compensation of £30 in the form of shopping vouchers.
  4. The same day, the resident requested the compensation offer be reassessed. The landlord offered an additional £20 shopping vouchers, bringing the compensation to £50. On 21 September 2023 the wellbeing manager offered an additional £30 in shopping vouchers.
  5. On 22 September 2023 the resident asked for a fridge freezer and confirmed that she would prefer an air fryer rather than a cooker as she needed a timer. The landlord informed the resident that the system it used for ordering appliances was not working and advised it would keep trying. Both items were ordered on 26 September 2023.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 26 September 2023 as she was not happy with the level of compensation as she had spent more than that in takeaways while she had no access to a cooker. She was also unhappy with the delay with receiving her appliances. She believed that the landlord had intentionally chosen later dates for delivery, as she had called the retailer and arranged for earlier delivery herself. On 10 October 2023 the landlord increased the additional £30 award to £50 in recognition of delays with payment.
  7. The stage 2 response was issued on 30 October 2023, and the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said that although it had found service failure with the original decision, it had compensated appropriately during the complaints process. It explained that it did not have control over the delivery dates offered by the retailer, and it had booked the earliest available at the time it made the order.
  8. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her application and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s hardship fund criteria states that the fund is available to all residents but it will prioritise applications from vulnerable individuals. The scheme has a maximum value of £750 per household per year, unless the circumstances are exceptional. It lists the purpose of the fund as:
    1. Enabling purchase of everyday items which will prevent undue hardship to the resident and their family.
    2. Supporting residents to purchase items with the aim of overcoming day to day obstacles.
    3. Providing relief from a situation which is likely to affect the resident’s health or welfare.
  2. The fund is not intended to support with everyday living costs such as food and utilities, and the landlord says it will signpost residents to appropriate support in these areas. The policy does not list specific timescales for ordering or delivery of items and does not specify where it will source items.
  3. It is not clear from the landlord’s internal records why it rejected the resident’s initial application. Its rejection letter did not contain an explanation, and this led to frustration for the resident. When she asked it for its reasons, she did not receive a response. As a result, she felt she needed to contact the landlord again and submit a complaint. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it would have been reasonable to give her the reason for the rejection and manage her expectations.
  4. When the landlord determined that it had made an error, it apologised to the resident and processed her application. It ordered the white goods 6 working days after it accepted the application, and this was reasonable.
  5. We have seen evidence that the expected delivery date was set by the supplier and not the landlord. Its decision not to pay for faster delivery was understandable as this would have used more of the resident’s fund allowance and potentially restricted her from using it again. However, it should have explained this to the resident so she could make an informed decision on whether to use more of the fund for a faster delivery.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may award discretionary compensation as a goodwill gesture, or reimbursements if residents are left out of pocket by something it is at fault for. It also says that it will compensate with vouchers if it feels it is more appropriate.
  7. The landlord’s records show that the vouchers were delayed as a staff member was off sick. It should have a more centralised approach to issuing vouchers to ensure that staff absence does not have an adverse effect on its residents. A recommendation will be added to the end of this report for the landlord to assess how it issues shopping vouchers.
  8. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles which are be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  9. The total compensation awarded in this case was £100, with £50 issued at stage 1 of the complaint process and the other £50 following delays in service. We acknowledge that the resident stated she wanted refunding for takeaways during this period which she said had increased her expenditure. However, the amount and form of compensation were consistent with its policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  10. We do not discount the resident’s experience and acknowledge that this was a stressful time for her. She expressed to the landlord that she was struggling to store and cook food for her and her daughter, and this was causing her a lot of stress.
  11. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to the complaint. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any failures and the steps it has taken to offer redress and learn from the complaint can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In this case both appliances were delivered within 1 calendar month of the initial application, and the landlord compensated her for the delay.
  12. The Ombudsman finds that while there was service failure, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it managed her application which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to its hardship fund.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should consider how it communicates its decisions regarding the hardship fund, particularly when an application is refused. It should ensure that applicants are aware of why their application has been refused and whether their eligibility could change in the future.
  2. The landlord should review how it issues shopping vouchers and consider a centralised process to ensure that staff absence cannot negatively impact the service.