Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited (202511433)

Decision
Case ID	202511433
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Phoenix Community Housing Association (Bellingham and Downham) Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 December 2025

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of a one–bedroom first floor flat since September 2024. The landlord was aware the resident suffers from mental health issues from the start of her tenancy. The resident said she was given misinformation by the landlord prior to agreeing the tenancy of the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports it misinformed her about the:
1. Rent due in advance when she viewed the property.
2. Building’s security measures when she viewed the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports it misinformed her about the rent due in advance when she viewed the property.
2. There was maladministration in how the landlord handled reports it misinformed her about the building’s security measures when she viewed the property.
3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports it misinformed her about the rent due in advance when she viewed the property

The landlord acknowledged it had given the resident conflicting about the amount of rent due in advance of her signing the tenancy agreement. The landlord subsequently agreed to collect the payment in instalments, rather than a lump sum. Following the resident’s complaint the landlord apologised for the information given and said it would review its letters to avoid the situation happening again. In the circumstances the measures taken by the landlord were satisfactory to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports it misinformed her about the building’s security measures

The landlord initially told the resident there were security measures in the building, although they were not in operation. The landlord apologised and offered compensation to the resident for misinforming her and said it would take action to rectify this. Although the landlord has since installed lift restrictions, the CCTV has yet to be set up in the building.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord identified it had delayed in sending its final complaint response to the resident. It offered £50 compensation for its failing, which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

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 13 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports it misinformed her about the building’s security measures. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident, and the landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure the sum of £600 offered during its internal complaints process, if already paid.	No later than 13 January 2026
3	Works order The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works to install CCTV in the building is completed by the due date. The landlord should notify the resident and us when the works are completed. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 13 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should update the resident on the status of her request for it to permanently relocate her. If the landlord is unable to permanently relocate her within an agreed timescale, it should signpost her to relevant alternative options to request permanent relocation.
If it has not already, the landlord should pay the £50 compensation it offered for its complaint handling failure.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 April 2025	The resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She said she had been misinformed about the rent due and the security measures that were in place when she was offered the property.
20 May 2025	The landlord sent its response to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. It apologised and offered her £100 compensation for giving incorrect information about the security measures in the building. The landlord also agreed to contact her about rehousing her in a different property, to discuss the security in the building and maintenance of communal areas.
21 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint.
24 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised and offered £650 compensation made up of: £500 for giving her incorrect information about the security measures in the building. £100 for the delays in carrying out the actions agreed in its stage 1 response. £50 for the delayed response to her complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and asked us to investigate it.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports it misinformed her about the rent due in advance when she viewed the property
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

The resident has told both us and the landlord as a resolution to her complaint she would like to be permanently moved to a different property. We are not able to tell a landlord to move the resident or comment on how it should allocate its housing stock. Our investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
The resident also told us that the landlord’s actions caused her stress which has affected her health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have considered

The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 September 2024 inviting her to view a property on 5 September 2024. The letter said if she accepted a move to the property, she would need to pay one week’s rent in advance before she was given the keys.
The resident viewed the property and on 10 September 2024 she signed the tenancy agreement for it. The tenancy agreement stated she was due to pay the first month’s rent in advance on accepting the tenancy. The landlord’s records say the resident questioned the amount due as she had been told it was one a week’s rent previously. The landlord told her it would arrange for the month’s rent advance to be collected later in instalments.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 November 2024 as her rent account was in arrears. She agreed to pay £10 a fortnight towards the initial month’s rent advance from 5 November 2024.
The resident complained to the landlord on 28 April 2025. She said she was misinformed about how much rent she was due to pay in advance prior to signing the tenancy agreement.
During May 2025 the resident emailed the landlord several times, unhappy with the information she had been given. The landlord’s housing officer met with the resident on 9 May 2025, and they apologised she was given conflicting information about how much rent was due before the tenancy started.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 May 2025. It said she signed the tenancy agreement which stated she was to pay a month’s rent in advance. The landlord added that although this put her rent account in arrears, she agreed a payment plan to pay it back in instalments and it would take no action to collect it in a lump sum unless she stopped paying. This was reasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 May 2025 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
On 24 July 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint to the resident. The landlord accepted that the letter inviting the resident to view the property could have been clearer regarding how much rent was due in advance. It apologised that the tenancy agreement held different information to the invite letter and said it would review the letters it sent to residents to ensure the requirement to pay a month’s rent in advance was clearly stated.
The evidence shows the landlord misinformed the resident regarding the amount of rent she was due to pay in advance on starting her tenancy. The resident was put in more rent arrears from the start of her tenancy than she expected to be. The landlord recognised this and did not arrange for her to start paying this back until 2 months later. The landlord apologised for giving conflicting information following the resident’s complaint, and it said it would review its letters to stop the situation happening again.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right, and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Our remedies guidance states in some circumstances where there has been a failing by a landlord, an apology is an appropriate way by which a landlord can resolve a complaint. In this case the landlord identified what it could have done better, apologised and said it would review the information it gave to residents to avoid it happening again. The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s complaint about the misinformation it gave her regarding the rent due were proportionate to its failings and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports it misinformed her about the building’s security measures
Finding	Maladministration

The resident viewed the property on 5 September 2024, and she was told by the landlord there was CCTV in the building and security restrictions were in place that meant residents could only access their own floors via the lifts. Although the landlord told the resident they were in place, the tenancy agreement does not state the landlord is required to provide CCTV or lift restrictions, and the resident does not pay for either security measure as part of service charges for the building.
The landlord’s records from September 2024 show it decided that month not to activate the CCTV or lift access restrictions as no security issues had been reported in the building. The building’s residents were not informed of this decision.
The resident complained to the landlord on 28 April 2025. She said there was no CCTV in the building, and the lifts did not have restricted access, despite being told otherwise. She said she wanted compensation and for the landlord to move her to a different property. The landlord’s housing officer met the resident on 9 May 2025 and apologised she had been misinformed about the security measures in the building.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 20 May 2025. The landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation for its failure to inform her of the decision not to activate CCTV or lift access restrictions. It said it would reconsider the decisions on whether to activate the security measures and it would contact her about it within 10 working days. The landlord also said it would contact her with information about how she could apply to move to alternative accommodation within 5 working days.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 May 2025. She said she would not have accepted the property if she knew it did not have security measures in place, so she wanted to be moved.
On 27 June 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident and said it would arrange for her to permanently relocated to another one–bedroom property on medical grounds, following receipt of a recommendation from her GP. On 15 July 2025 the landlord offered to move the resident to a different property, but she declined it. The resident told the landlord she wanted to be moved into a hotel while it found suitable alternative accommodation.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 24 July 2025. It apologised to the resident and increased its compensation offer to £500 for giving her incorrect information about the CCTV and lift access restrictions before she moved into the property. The landlord also offered £100 compensation as it had not contacted her about the options for moving property and its decision on the building’s security measures within the timescales set out within its stage 1 response.
The landlord told the resident it would contact her within 10 working days with an update on the building security matters. The landlord also said it would contact her when it identified a suitable property for her, but it would not relocate her to temporary accommodation in the meantime. On 4 August 2025 the landlord emailed the resident and said CCTV should be fully operational within 2 weeks. The landlord added that it had asked its lift contractor to arrange for lift access to be restricted. The landlord told the resident it was still seeking to find a suitable property for her to move to.
The landlord has told us the earliest record it has of the lift restrictions being put in place is 11 November 2025. It also confirmed to us that CCTV in the building has yet to be finalised and was expected to be completed by January 2026. The landlord added that it has offered the resident 3 alternative properties since her complaint, but she has declined them due to them not being in the same condition as her current property.
When considering the landlord’s compensation offer against the criteria set out in our remedies guidance, its offer of £600 when it was made may have been proportionate to its failings for misinforming the resident there was CCTV and lift restrictions in place, and its delays in updating her following its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord has also sought to find alternative accommodation for the resident.
However, for the resident’s complaint to be fully resolved it would have also required the landlord to take the actions it agreed to in its stage 2 response. The evidence suggests the lift restrictions took a further 3 months to be put in place, and the CCTV is not yet operational, despite the landlord saying it would be ready in August 2025.
The misinformation given to the resident by the landlord and the failure to take action to install the security measures as agreed meant the resident had to pursue a complaint through us. The landlord’s failings lead to a determination of maladministration in its handling of reports it misinformed the resident about the security measures in place in the building. The landlord is ordered to pay £700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance and is inclusive of its stage 2 offer. In addition, it is ordered to complete works to make the CCTV operational in the building.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint handling process. Its complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It should send its response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. At either stage the landlord can decide to extend its response timeframe by 10 or 20 working days, but it must contact the resident to explain why and confirm the extension timeframe in writing.
The resident complained to the landlord on 28 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 May 2025, and it replied at stage 1 of its complaints policy on 20 May 2025, which were both within its policy timescales.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 21 May 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 May 2025, which was within the timescales of its complaints policy. The landlord said it aimed to reply to her complaint by 26 June 2025.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 June 2025 and said it was still investigating the matters she raised, so it would reply to her complaint by 24 July 2025. The extension was within the options available to the landlord as per its complaints policy.
On 24 July 2025 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for its delay in replying to her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged and replied to the resident’s complaints at each stage of the complaints process according to its complaints policy, including extending the stage 2 response time. The landlord apologised and offered compensation to the resident for the complaint process taking longer than it originally told her. The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with an amount consistent with our remedies guidance. It fairly reflected the impact caused by the delayed response and was a reasonable offer in the circumstances. As such, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord put things right for the resident for its complaint handling failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord demonstrated sufficient record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in this case.

Communication

There were periods from when the landlord failed to contact the resident with updates on agreed works. This lack of communication contributed towards the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and is reflected in the compensation order above.