Believe Housing Limited (202414395)

Decision
Case ID	202414395
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Believe Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a new build property. He raised a complaint with the landlord about a possible leak to a roof window as there was an ongoing issue with water running down the bedroom wall. He said the wall around the window was damp and mouldy. He also said that there was an ongoing problem with his loft. He said there was a strong smell of damp when he opened the hatch. He said he had been told that there was no ventilation or insulation in the loft. He said the ongoing issues within the property had affected the health of his family as his wife and son had ongoing breathing difficulties.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of a leaking window, concerns about a lack of insulation and ventilation in the loft, and damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leaking window, concerns about a lack of insulation and ventilation in the loft, and damp and mould.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of a leaking window, concerns about a lack of insulation and ventilation in the loft, and damp and mould

5. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication and failed appointments. However, it did not adequately acknowledge the overall time the issue had been ongoing. It did not recognise its delays in treating the mould, its delays in assessing and replacing the window, or the confusion around the loft insulation. There was no meaningful resolution to the complaint as the issues remained outstanding. There was no real plan of action in place to resolve them long term. It offered compensation but this was not proportionate to the identified failings.

Complaint handling

6. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the stage 1 complaint, which caused an overall delay in the complaint response. The landlord offered some compensation but this was not quite proportionate to the identified failings.

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 provided by a senior manager. 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 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order   The landlord must pay the resident: £728.95 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £488.95 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to reports of a leaking window, concerns about a lack of insulation and ventilation in the loft, and damp and mould. £50 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £10 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) to recognise the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Order   The landlord must confirm the full outcome of the independent survey carried out on 9 April 2025 in writing to the resident and provide us with a copy. The landlord must confirm what work it has completed as part of the recommendations and what work remains outstanding. The landlord must offer to complete the outstanding work to the resident by the due date. If the resident accepts the work, the landlord must agree and confirm the appointment dates with the resident in writing and provide us with a copy of the letter.	No later than 07 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 November 2023	The resident raised a formal complaint about water running down from the bedroom window, which had caused damp, mould, and damaged the wall. He also said that there was an ongoing problem with his loft. He said he had been told that there was no ventilation and when he opened the hatch, there was a strong smell of damp.
23 January 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint and said: it cancelled an appointment on 17 February 2023 and it did not rearrange to a later date. It had booked an appointment for 2 February 2024 to assess the window it missed call backs to the resident in March and April 2023. The resident made contact on 10 occasions and it only responded on 2 occasions it delayed in repairing the window due to miscommunication within its repairs team and new build team. There were further delays in resolving the window issue as it had passed the job to a specialist contractor environmental health made contact on 19 December 2023 about the loft insulation. An operative found there was no loft insulation on 5 January 2023. It had booked an appointment for 6 February 2024 to investigate further it apologised and offered £363.95 compensation. This was made up of £80 for a lack of communication, £160 for a failure to meet repairs timescales, £10 for complaint handling failures, £10 for a cancelled appointment, and £103.95 compensation for damaged blinds
21 May 2024	The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He said the landlord had not completed the repairs/investigations promised at stage 1.
26 June 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response. It apologised to the resident and said: it was sorry for the lack of communication and failed appointments it had completed the work to the window on 18 June 2024 and the resident confirmed he was happy on 19 June 2024 it would carry out the work to repair the wall around the window, including the plastering it was waiting for a report from its appointed contractor following an inspection of the roof and loft. It would arrange appointments once it received the information it had increased its offer of compensation to £488.95. This was made up of £100 for distress and inconvenience, £80 for a lack of communication, £160 for the failure to meet repairs timescales, £10 for complaint handling failures, £10 for a cancelled appointment, £103.95 for damaged blinds, and £25 decoration voucher
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as he said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint. He said he wanted all outstanding repairs completed and compensation for stress and inconvenience.

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 response to reports of a leaking window, concerns about a lack of insulation and ventilation in the loft, and damp and mould.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

7. The resident told us that the ongoing issues with damp, mould, and ventilation have affected the health of his family. 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 investigated

8. The resident first reported that his bedroom window was wet every morning on 22 November 2021. He told the landlord that the damp/condensation appeared to be coming through the side of the window and was dripping down the walls. As the property was still within the defects period, the landlord appropriately contacted the developer. The developer told the landlord that condensation was a naturally occurring event, especially during winter months. It said there was a lot of moisture present in a new build property. It said the resident should allow the property to ventilate by leaving window vents open to help the drying out process.
9. The landlord appropriately contacted the developer again on 14 December 2021 as the resident was continuing to have issues. The developer agreed to inspect the property on 7 January 2022. It informed the landlord on 17 January 2022 that the issue was condensation and not a build defect.
10. The landlord and developer completed an end of defects survey on 31 January 2022. The landlord noted that there were water droplets on the glazing and that water was running down the frame. It also noted some mould and staining around the window likely caused by the condensation. The developer agreed to treat the mould as a gesture of goodwill.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 May 2022. He said the developer had not treated the mould as agreed. He also reported continuing issues with the window. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s contact, raised a repair, or that it chased the developer to complete the work.
12. The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 August 2022 to report that there was no insulation in the loft. He asked the landlord to call him back. The evidence shows that the landlord tried to call back and left a voicemail message for the resident.
13. The resident made further contact with the landlord on 2 September 2022 about the loft insulation. The landlord called the resident on 8 October 2022 and told him that the roof was a ‘warm roof’ design, which meant the insulation was in the roof and not on top of the ceiling. While the landlord provided the resident with a reasonable response to his query, it had taken over a month to get back to him. Had it responded to the resident sooner, it may have reduced the likely distress and inconvenience caused due to the delay.
14. At some point in November 2022 the landlord appropriately agreed to go back to the developer to find a solution to the resident’s window problem. This was because of concerns it would void the building warranty if it altered the fabric of the building. An appointment was made to inspect the window on 5 January 2023.
15. An operative attended the resident’s property on 5 January 2023. He noted heavy condensation running off the windows. He also queried the lack of loft insulation. The landlord raised follow on works for a roofer to externally inspect the roof windows for possible leaks. Although the follow on work was an appropriate next step, the operative querying the loft insulation likely caused the resident confusion. This was because the landlord had told him the insulation was in the roof. This raises concerns that the landlord’s operative was not fully aware of the different types of construction used in the properties he was visiting.
16. Following the operatives visit, the landlord completed a ‘type B’ damp survey at the resident’s property on 20 January 2023. This was within the 20 working days set within the landlord’s damp and mould policy. A type B survey consists of an inspection, mould treatment, and painting of the affected areas. The policy says that a written report will be completed for all surveys. However, the landlord has not provided us with a copy of the survey. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices.
17. The resident contacted the landlord again about his loft insulation on 23 January 2023 and 17 February 2023. There is no evidence to show that the landlord provided an update or a response.
18. The landlord cancelled the roofing job (to check for window leaks) booked in for 17 February 2023 due to bad weather. However, it did not rebook the appointment. The resident chased the landlord for the new appointment date on 9 March 2023. It had been over 2 months at this point from the date the landlord agreed the follow on works and it had still not checked the roof. This was outside of its timeframe of 20 working days for appointable repairs set within its repairs and maintenance policy.
19. The landlord carried out a ‘type A’ damp survey on 17 April 2023. It is unclear from the evidence provided what prompted this survey. Type A surveys are more in-depth and carried out by an accredited surveyor. The report noted that the resident had 2 young children and that his partner had asthma. It also noted that there was blackspot mould and water stain marks on the bedroom window wall, window reveals, and walls to the storage cupboard. The report said that there was no visible loft insulation. The landlord recommended a mould wash and 2 coats of thermal paint to all affected areas. It also said the developer and/or a window specialist should assess the window for potential defects, which would require scaffolding.
20. The landlord confirmed internally on 19 April 2023 that the loft insulation was between the rafters and not sat on the plasterboard. There is no evidence to show that the landlord re-confirmed this with the resident. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 25 April 2023 and 9 May 2023. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for an update.
21. The landlord carried out the mould treatment works on 4 July 2023. This was over 2 months from the date of the type A damp survey and outside of the 20 working days for appointable repairs.
22. A joiner attended the landlord’s property on 6 September 2023 to assess the window. This was over 4 months from the date of the type A survey. There is no timescale set within the landlord’s repair and maintenance policy for pre-inspections. However, considering the length of time the issues had been ongoing, a further delay of 4 months was inappropriate. The joiner passed the job to a contractor as the window needed to be assessed externally and the job needed scaffolding. However, the landlord had already noted that it needed scaffolding to check the window on the damp report in April 2023. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices and internal communication.
23. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 11 September 2023. It said there was nothing wrong with the window. It said, in its opinion, the issues were due to a latent defect to the ventilation and the fabric of the building. The landlord said the property was a ‘warm roof’ design but it could not move the tiles as they were very tight. It said it was questioning whether the developer had installed the over insulation ventilators correctly. It said it thought this was the reason the condensation was forming around the roof window and bedroom cupboard wall. It said in an internal email dated 12 September 2023 that it could not involve the developer as the warranty provider covered latent defects. Had the landlord arranged for an independent survey at this point, given that there were differing opinions as to the cause, it might have been able to identify and resolve the issues much sooner.
24. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 September 2023 to ask for an update. The landlord contacted the resident on 29 September 2023 and said it would pursue a latent defect with the warranty provider. It said it would be a lengthy process. It did not give the resident any indication of when it would provide further updates. Had it agreed an action plan or contact plan, it may have reduced the frustration, time, and trouble likely caused to the resident.
25. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 15 November 2023. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s request.
26. An environmental health officer (EHO) contacted the landlord on 19 December 2023 to discuss the loft insulation and ventilation. There is no evidence to show that the landlord called the EHO back. The EHO emailed the landlord on 1 February 2024. She said she had visited the resident’s property on 13 December 2023 as he had reported possible disrepair to the roof and a lack of ventilation causing excess moisture. The EHO said there was no visible loft insulation so wanted to check the roof had been insulated by another method. The EHO also asked what issues the landlord had identified with the ventilation and what work it had booked in to resolve the issues.
27. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 2 February 2024 to check the window frame. It found that there were no internal issues and raised follow on works for a roofer to check the window externally. It is unclear why the landlord checked the window internally again as it had already done this on 6 September 2023 when it said a roofer was required. This also contradicts the outcome of the landlord’s visit on 11 September 2023 when it said there was nothing wrong with the window. This raises concerns with the landlord’s record keeping practices and its internal communication.
28. The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 6 February 2024. It also altered the loft underlay to allow ventilation across the loft area. However, the resident said he thought the landlord needed to replace the window.
29. It is unclear from the evidence provided when the landlord contacted the EHO to confirm that the roof was insulated. However, the EHO confirmed on 9 February 2024 that it was satisfied that there was no current disrepair that would warrant its involvement.
30. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2024 asking for an update on the roof window. He said a roofer had checked it and said it needed replacing. The resident also said the landlord was not keeping him updated. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident. The landlord has not provided us with any details or evidence relating to the external window inspection.
31. The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 February 2024 for an update. The landlord responded and said it had asked its roofing contractor to provide a quote for a new window as the developers had not installed the trim when the property was built. It said the roofers would also rectify the ventilation issue when they fitted the window. It is unclear from the evidence provided what ventilation work the landlord had asked the roofers to complete. The evidence shows that the landlord completed the ventilation work on 6 February 2024.
32. The resident called the landlord for an update on the window replacement on 3 occasions between 19 April 2024 and 3 May 2024. The evidence shows that the landlord did not respond until 7 May 2024. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates until it replaced the window on 19 June 2024. This was almost 4 months from the date it agreed to fit the window and outside of the 40 working days set within the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy for planned repairs.
33. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 June 2024. He said the landlord had replaced the window, but all other work was still outstanding.
34. In the stage 2 response, the landlord did appropriately apologise and acknowledge that there had been a lack of communication and failed appointments. However, it did not adequately acknowledge the length of time the issues had been ongoing. It did not recognise the confusion caused by its operatives reporting a lack of loft insulation. It did not recognise its delays in carrying out the mould treatment, or its delays in assessing the window both internally and externally. It also did not recognise its delays in replacing the window.
35. There was also no meaningful resolution offered by the landlord through the complaints process. The issues with the condensation and ventilation remained outstanding with no real plan of action in place to resolve them long term. The stage 2 response said the landlord would complete the work to the wall around the window. However, the resident has told us that this work is still outstanding and the landlord has not provided evidence of the completion of the work. It also said in the stage 2 response that it would arrange appointments after it had inspected the roof and loft. It was unclear what this meant, considering the landlord had already inspected the roof and loft. There were also no timeframes in place for the inspections or the updates.
36. The resident has told us that the issues are still ongoing. The landlord has told us that an independent survey was carried out on 9 April 2025. It said the survey recommended the replacement of the current extractor fans in the kitchen and ground floor WC. It also said it recommended planing the bathroom door to allow better ventilation. However, the landlord said the resident did not want the fans replacing on the ground floor because they were noisy.
37. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
38. Given the observations above, the landlord has not shown that it put things right through the complaints process. As such, it has not done enough to fully resolve or learn from the complaint. We consider the offer of £488.95 compensation insufficient given the impact of the landlord’s failings. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £728.95 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer) to be appropriate. This is made up of £600 for distress and inconvenience, £103.95 for the replacement blinds, and £25 for decoration. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

39. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022 and April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complies with the Code.
40. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 27 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 December 2023. This was 14 days from the date of the complaint and outside of the 5 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord sent the resident a complaint extension letter on 8 January 2024 to extend the response timeframe by a further 10 working days. It sent the stage 1 response on 23 January 2024. This was just outside of the 20 working days, including the extension, set within the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord recognised the delays and offered the resident £10 compensation.
41. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 21 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 29 May 2024. This was within the 5 working days set within the policy. The landlord sent the resident the stage 2 complaint response on 26 June 2024. This was within the 20 working days set within the landlord’s policy.
42. In light of the identified failings, we consider the compensation offered insufficient to put things right given the length of the delay. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to be appropriate (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer). This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not fully put them right.

Learning

43. The landlord should ensure it communicates effectively and shares information between teams so it can keep residents updated and ensure that repairs and inspections are not duplicated. It should ensure its repairs operatives and surveyors are aware of the different types of construction used within its stock.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The evidence provided by the landlord was sufficient to conduct the investigation. However, it did not provide some key documents and there was some missing repairs information.

Communication

45. The communication with the resident was poor throughout this case. There were several occasions over a prolonged period where the resident contacted the landlord asking for updates, yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded.