Be One Homes (202514588)

Decision
Case ID	202514588
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Bolton at Home Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 January 2026

Background

1. The resident was the landlord’s tenant from December 2022 until June 2025. He lived with his children for most of this period. He had an assured shorthold (starter) tenancy. He initially lived in a flat at the landlord’s Family Intervention Unit (FIU). Later, he moved to a 3-bedroom house. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to his mental health. One of his children has asthma. The resident has numerous concerns about the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports and concerns about pests.
   2. Reports and concerns about leaks, damp, and mould.
   3. Related concerns about health impacts and a loss of personal items.
   4. Concerns about a lack of support and staff conduct issues.
   5. Concerns about rent arrears and the termination of his tenancy.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and concerns about pests.
   2. Maladministration in its response to his reports and concerns about leaks, damp and mould.
   3. No maladministration in its response to his related concerns about health impacts and a loss of personal items.
   4. No maladministration in its response to his concerns about a lack of support and staff conduct issues.
   5. No maladministration in its response to his concerns about rent arrears and the termination of his tenancy.
   6. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports and concerns about pests

5. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial report in line with its policy. The delay was distressing and/or inconvenient for him. The landlord has not acknowledged this or attempted to put things right.

Reports and concerns about leaks, damp, and mould

6. The landlord overlooked an initial delay and its contribution to this. Although it recognised a subsequent delay, it did not do enough to put things right for the resident.

Related concerns about health impacts and a loss of personal items

7. The landlord referred the resident to its insurer. There is no indication its referral was delayed. It previously replaced furniture/items for the resident. We have not seen any compelling evidence that it disposed of belongings unfairly.

Concerns about a lack of support and staff conduct issues

8. The evidence shows the landlord’s actions were reasonable and it provided adequate support to the resident. There is a lack of evidence to show that its staff acted in an unprofessional manner.

Concerns about rent arrears and termination of the tenancy

9. The landlord took reasonable steps to help the resident with his situation.

Complaint handling

10. At times, the landlord departed from its policy and the Code. It was responsible for a considerable delay which adversely impacted the resident. When it did address his concerns, there were issues with the contents of its responses. It has not acknowledged these problems or attempted to put things right.

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 relevant 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 24 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £650 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by its response to his reports and concerns about pests. £350 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by its response to her concerns about leaks, damp, and mould. £200 for the distress and inconvenience he was caused by its 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. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid (from the £50 that it awarded during its complaints process).	No later than 24 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 April 2025	The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. Overall, he said it was responsible for significant adverse impacts to his family’s health, wellbeing, and financial situation. He said it should compensate him. In summary, some of the resident’s other key points were: There were pest issues in both of the landlord’s properties. He had reported issues with leaks, damp, and mould. He had experienced some difficult personal circumstances. The landlord had not supported him enough. It had thrown away some of his family’s belongings.
23 May 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It disputed most of the resident’s complaint points. However, it did acknowledge a delay relating to damp and mould treatment works in its second property. It awarded the resident £50 in compensation to address this part of his complaint.
30 May 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said the landlord’s compensation award was insulting given what had happened. He introduced some new concerns at this stage. In summary, his new complaint points were: The landlord had forced him out of his home. It had also sent him a significant bill for rent arrears. Its staff had laughed at him and made inappropriate comments.
26 June 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It largely reiterated its previous position. It also addressed the resident’s new complaint points. The landlord did not identify any additional failures or amend its previous compensation calculation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In his complaint form, the resident said the landlord’s actions prompted him to attempt serious self-harm. He also said a bailiff had contacted him. He wanted the landlord to waive his arrears. We tried to obtain a further update in January 2026. We were unable to contact the resident by phone or email.

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	Reports and concerns about pests
Finding	Maladministration

11. The resident says that the landlord’s flat was infested with various insect pests when he arrived in December 2022. The landlord disputed this assertion. It has supplied extensive records of its interactions with the resident during his tenancy. From the information seen, there is no indication that he reported any pest issues before 23 January 2023.
12. At that point, the resident reported white bugs in the flat’s shower room. The landlord told him it would contact pest control. This was a reasonable approach. Around 7 February 2023, the resident made a further report about silverfish. On 13 March 2023 he reported that insects were biting his children. The above shows his reports changed over time.
13. A pest contractor attended the flat on 16 March 2023. Its records show that it treated fleas and silverfish. This was 38 working days after the resident’s initial report. The landlord supplied a repairs policy that postdates the period in question. We found a more relevant document in our own records. This interim repairs policy was effective in 2023.
14. The landlord’s policy does not include specific timescales for pest control works. It does show the landlord will respond to most repair reports within 21 days. In this case, the evidence points to an unreasonable delay of about 1 month. This may have been distressing for the resident. It is likely that making repeated reports was inconvenient.
15. In mitigation, the landlord did respond promptly when the resident reported insect bites on 13 March 2023. In its complaint responses, it addressed its handling from that date onwards. As a result, it overlooked the above identified delay and the associated adverse impact to the resident. We find that this was unreasonable in the circumstances.
16. From the landlord’s records and correspondence, there is no indication that it was responsible for similar delays or failures subsequently. We note that:
    1. On 16 March 2023 the landlord arranged a short temporary move for the resident. It did this because it did not want the pest treatment works to affect his child’s asthma.
    2. On 21 March 2023 the resident reported ongoing bites. The landlord arranged another temporary move for his family. It placed them in a hotel for about 10 days.
    3. On 31 March 2023 the pest contractor completed another “full insecticide” treatment while the family was away. This was 15 days after its previous treatment.
    4. The resident reported further insects and bites subsequently. In April 2023, the landlord’s pest contractor supplied insect traps.
    5. The landlord subsequently arranged a different pest contractor. The new contractor attended the flat on 10 May 2023.
    6. The contractor said it had completed a “thorough inspection”, but there were “no bugs or other insects”. There is evidence that it was reluctant to treat the flat.
    7. The landlord instructed the contractor to proceed for the resident’s “piece of mind”. Works were completed on the same day. This included spray treatment and “smoke bombs”. The contractor felt that no bugs would survive the treatment.
    8. The resident made further reports about insect bites. In July 2023 he told the landlord that he felt these stemmed from bed bugs.
    9. In August 2023 the resident moved to a new home with the landlord. The landlord moved him through an urgent internal moves process.
    10. On 4 September 2023 the resident reported that there were ants in his new home. The landlord liaised with the resident to arrange a pest control visit. However, its contractor was unable to access the property on 6 September 2023 (2 days later).
    11. On 7 February 2025 the resident made a further report about unspecified “bugs”. The landlord told him to contact pest control directly. The task was relayed to his social worker.
17. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord was broadly responsive to the resident’s various reports and concerns. However, it did not respond to his initial report in line with its repairs policy. The corresponding delay was distressing and/or inconvenient for the resident. The landlord has not acknowledged this or attempted to put things right for him.
18. Given the above, we find there was maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen and our guidance on remedies.

Complaint	Reports and concerns about leaks, damp, and mould
Finding	Maladministration

19. On 23 January 2023 the resident also reported a crack in the bathroom ceiling. He felt it had occurred recently. The landlord observed it was a “deep crack” and agreed to arrange an inspection. There is no indication that the resident raised any repair issues before this date. Other records suggest he was happy with the flat when he arrived.
20. On 7 February 2023 the resident reported silverfish in the bathroom. The landlord replied it would arrange a damp inspection. This was reasonable as silverfish can be linked to damp. From at least mid-March 2023, the landlord was aware of asthma in the resident’s family. It is reasonable to conclude that this information should have been reflected in its key records.
21. Subsequently, the landlord had difficulty contacting the resident to arrange an inspection. This is based on a card which it left for him on 10 May 2023. When it did inspect the bathroom on 24 May 2023, the landlord completed tests and found it was dry. The landlord’s general notes said its specialist was not concerned about the room’s condition.
22. The specialist’s inspection report included various images. These do not appear to highlight any significant damp or mould issues. However, the specialist recommended follow up works to repair a crack in the ceiling. Other records show they were unable to inspect the whole flat because the resident had to leave part way through the visit.
23. On the same day, the resident reported that there was damp in his son’s bedroom. He highlighted his son’s asthma. Records indicate that between 22 June 2023 and 10 July 2023, the landlord tried to access the flat 3 times to complete treatment works. In its case evidence, the landlord told us it did not complete any works before the resident moved out (around 8 August 2023).
24. Based on the period between 23 January 2023 and 8 August 2023, the evidence points to an unreasonable delay that lasted for several months. In mitigation, both parties contributed to this. There is also a lack of evidence to show that the delay had a significant adverse impact on the resident. However, the landlord has not acknowledged it or attempted to put things right for him. We find that this was unreasonable.
25. On 2 October 2023 the resident reported damp in his new home with the landlord. Records referenced wet patches in a bedroom and hallway. They also mentioned respiratory issues. The landlord raised an inspection at this point. This was reasonable.
26. On 29 November 2023 the resident reported that water was leaking through a light fitting. He also reported an outstanding damp inspection. The landlord’s policy shows it should respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. In this case, the landlord says it repaired the leak and electrics on the same day. Records support its assertion, and the resident has not disputed this. There is no indication that he reported further leaks subsequently.
27. In February and May 2024, the resident chased the landlord about the damp. On 3 June 2024 it completed damp and mould works to several areas. This was around 8 months after the resident’s initial report. Given the landlord’s standard repair timescale (21 days), there was an unreasonable delay. There is no indication the resident contributed to this.
28. Repair records include pictures taken before and after the above referenced works. These appear to show moderate damp issues and limited mould patches. From the information seen, it is likely that these were distressing for the resident. The evidence shows he reported the matter at least 4 times. It is likely this was inconvenient for him.
29. The parties discussed damp again on 16 July 2024. Related notes indicate that the resident raised a query rather than a report. Ultimately, there is a lack of evidence to show the resident was adversely impacted by further delays or failures subsequently.
30. The landlord acknowledged the delayed works during its complaints process. It awarded the resident £50 in related compensation. Its calculation was based on our remedies guidance. Ultimately, the landlord believed its failures were minimal, only lasted for a short period, and did not have a significant adverse impact. Its view was not consistent with the evidence. As a result, we find that the landlord’s calculation was unreasonable.
31. In summary, the landlord overlooked an initial delay and its contribution to this. As a result, it did not attempt to put things right. Although it recognised a subsequent delay, it did not award sufficient compensation to address it. Overall, we find there was maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation.

Complaint	Concerns about health impacts and a loss of personal items
Finding	No maladministration

32. In summary, the resident holds the landlord responsible for a loss of personal items and health/welfare impacts. For example, he says it threw some of his belongings away while he was moving between its properties. He also says that his son developed asthma due to unresolved damp and mould issues. The landlord has disputed his claims.
33. There is no indication that the resident raised any similar concerns before he complained to the landlord in April 2025. In its final response, the landlord signposted him to its insurance team. Its relevant compensation policy (effective October 2024) says residents can claim against the landlord’s insurance if they feel it is responsible for injury, loss, or damage to items. Ultimately, the landlord took appropriate action in line with its policy.
34. The landlord also said it replaced furniture, carpets, and bedding for the resident during its pest works at the flat. Similarly, that he left items there when he moved out. It claimed it had given him sufficient time to collect the items. We have seen evidence that supports the landlord’s version of events. This includes invoices for replacement furnishings.
35. It also includes call notes from 21 and 22 August 2023. These suggest that, on more than 1 occasion, the resident told the landlord he did not want the items he had left at the flat. The notes said he was happy to be “recharged” for these (presumably for removal). It was reasonable for the landlord to check his preferred approach to the items at the time.
36. Overall, the landlord referred the resident to its insurer in line with its policy. There is no indication its referral was delayed. It replaced furniture/items during the period in question. We have not seen any compelling evidence that it disposed of belongings unfairly. As a result, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	Concerns about a lack of support and staff conduct issues
Finding	No maladministration

37. The resident says the landlord failed to support him in a variety of ways. For example, he feels that members of its staff should have helped him to move his family’s belongings between the landlord’s properties. He says that he previously attempted to end his life. He also says he may not have done this if the landlord had done more to support him.
38. During its complaints process, the landlord disputed the resident’s comments about a lack of support. It said it had helped him multiple times over a prolonged period. It also said it was not obliged to arrange or fund removal services when he moved out of its FIU. In this case, the resident paid the landlord for additional support through service charges.
39. The resident’s initial tenancy agreement says the landlord’s additional services “may include the provision of general advice and support”. It shows the landlord may provide general advice and support when the resident moves to another property. Ultimately, there is no indication that the landlord failed to comply with any specific obligations.
40. In its responses, the landlord detailed some of the support it had provided to the resident. For example, it referenced accompanying him on a visit to his doctor. In relation to its overall level of support in this case, the landlord’s records show it also took the following steps (among other measures):
    1. Completed a risk assessment and support plan for the resident in 2022.
    2. Updated the support plan subsequently.
    3. Participated in meetings with various parties including the family’s school.
    4. Signposted the resident to relevant services including a church group, youth club, and place where he could access computers.
    5. Questioned the resident in August 2024 to establish if he was at risk of self-harm.
41. The landlord is a charity that aims to provide “targeted support to its most vulnerable residents”. This includes providing debt and money advice, supporting residents into training/employment, and helping them “to remain independent” in their homes. To achieve its aims, the landlord will work in partnership with various external agencies.
42. Overall, the evidence shows the landlord took numerous steps to support the resident in line with its aims and obligations. It monitored his situation and was broadly responsive to welfare issues as these arose. Ultimately, we have not seen compelling evidence of any support related failures on the landlord’s part.
43. The resident also mentioned staff conduct issues in his complaint. For example, he said he could evidence unprofessional comments by a specific officer. He also said that some of the landlord’s office staff had laughed at him. The landlord requested his evidence before it issued its final response. Records indicate that it also checked CCTV footage from the relevant office. This was a reasonable approach to the resident’s concerns.
44. Ultimately, the landlord disputed the resident’s claims about unprofessional conduct. From the information both parties provided, we have not seen any compelling evidence to support these. On that basis, we find that the landlord’s approach was reasonable.
45. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord’s actions were reasonable and it provided adequate support to the resident. There is a lack of evidence to show that its staff acted in an unprofessional manner towards him. As a result, it was reasonable for the landlord to dispute his claims. We find there was no maladministration on its part.

Complaint	Concerns about rent arrears and termination of the tenancy
Finding	No maladministration

46. The resident says the landlord forced him to end his tenancy and then (unfairly) sent him a significant bill. The landlord has disputed his version of events. It says arrears began to accumulate after his housing benefit was stopped in October 2024. It says it tried to help him resolve the matter. It also says that he chose to terminate his tenancy in May 2025.
47. The evidence broadly supports the landlord’s position. For example, records show that:
    1. In September 2024 the landlord was helping the resident with some distressing personal circumstances. These did not relate to arrears.
    2. From 20 September 2024 it was unable to contact him for several months.
    3. On 20 November 2024 it was notified that his housing benefit had been stopped.
    4. It re-established contact with the resident on 4 February 2025 and referred him to its money advice team.
    5. On 19 March 2025 it issued him a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) due to rent arrears.
    6. On 14 April 2025 the resident told the landlord he was thinking about ending his tenancy.
    7. Around 8 May 2025, the landlord took part in a call with the resident and other parties. The resident said he was not living at the property and asked for a termination form.
    8. On 10 May 2025 he told the landlord’s repairs team that he was terminating his tenancy due to arrears.
48. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord took steps to help the resident with his situation. There is a lack of evidence to show that its approach was unreasonable or unfair. As a result, we find that there was no maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

49. The landlord has supplied a complaints policy that postdates the period in question. We found a more relevant policy in our own records. This policy was effective from November 2020. We used our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) to assess the landlord’s complaint handling after April 2024. The Code became statutory at that point. The Code sets out how and when landlords should respond to complaints.
50. On 13 April 2023 the resident told the landlord that he was unhappy with its services. He asked about its complaints process. The landlord queried what his complaint was about. The resident referenced insects and cracked plaster. He also said the flat was full of damp. There is no indication that the landlord raised a formal complaint at this point.
51. The landlord’s relevant policy defines complaints as an expression of dissatisfaction. It says this can be about the landlord’s services. In this case, the resident’s comments were consistent with the landlord’s definition. The landlord should have logged a complaint in line with its policy. Its approach was inadequate.
52. There is evidence of similar interactions between the parties subsequently (for example, on 11 February 2025). Based on the period between 13 April 2023 and 25 April 2025, there was an inappropriate delay of around 24 months. If the resident felt that some of his concerns were ignored during the interim period, it is likely this was distressing for him.
53. It took the landlord 19 working days to issue a stage 1 response. The Code shows landlords must respond to complaints within a maximum of 15 working days at stage 1. More time is available providing the resident is updated before the deadline expires. In this case, the landlord updated the resident on 8 May 2025 (8 working days after it had logged his complaint). The landlord issued its stage 1 response in line with the Code.
54. It took the landlord 19 working days to issue a stage 2 response. The Code shows landlords must respond to stage 2 complaints within a maximum of 25 working days. In this case, the landlord issued its response in line with the Code.
55. There were some issues with the landlord’s responses. For example, at stage 1 the landlord said that the resident did not report any infestation issues after he moved to its house. Since he reported ants, this statement was inaccurate. Inaccurate information may have undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s complaint handling.
56. At stage 2, the landlord did not include a decision in its response (upheld, not upheld). The Code shows that compliant responses must include a clear decision in “plain language”. The landlord’s lack of clarity may have been confusing for the resident.
57. In summary, the landlord departed from its policy and the Code at times. Significantly, it was responsible for a considerable delay which adversely impacted the resident. When it did address his concerns, there were some issues with the contents of its responses. The landlord has not acknowledged these problems or attempted to put things right.
58. As a result, we find there was maladministration by the landlord. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation in line with the evidence and our remedies guidance.

Learning

General learning

59. The landlord should be able to recognise complaints and respond to these. Overlooked concerns can undermine relations. In this case, unresolved issues added to the complexity of the resident’s complaint in 2025.The landlord could provide related feedback to its staff.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

60. There were some issues with the landlord’s record keeping. It should promptly record information about vulnerabilities in its systems. This approach can help it prioritise repairs.

Communication

61. Our investigation did not highlight any significant communication issues.