Believe Housing Limited (202308494)

Decision
Case ID	202308494
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Believe Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	19 March 2026

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in his home. He disclosed to the landlord that he experienced mental ill-health. He no longer lives at the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1.      Damp and mould at the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould at the property.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. There were avoidable delays in the repairs. The landlord did not acknowledge all of its failings. It offered the resident compensation, but this was not proportionate to the findings of our investigation.
5. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint. It did not escalate the resident’s complaint when he expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaints response.

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 16 April 2026
2	The landlord must pay the resident £550, which is broken down as: £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure respond to and escalate the resident’s complaint. £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of avoidable delays in arranging surveys of the property. £250 offered by the landlord during the complaints process. 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 16 April 2026

 

 Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
09 February 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He said: There was a bad smell in the property when it was let to him. The landlord told him that the smell was because the property was vacant beforehand. The smell did not go away. It had affected his furnishings and clothes. The smell was coming from beneath the floor. He believed there were issues with the flooring before his tenancy. The situation was affecting his wellbeing. He could not use the back room.
27 April 2023	The resident complained to the landlord again. It called him to discuss the complaint. He said: He had repeatedly reported damp in his home. The landlord had not repaired it. The landlord’s communication with him was inadequate. His home smelled of wet rot. He wanted to move.
24 May 2023	The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint, saying: The resident reported damp and mould on 16 January 2023, and it logged an inspection the following day. It did a mould wash in the bathroom and bedroom on 22 February 2023. It did a full survey of the property on 26 April 2023. Between 26 April 2023 and 19 May 2023, it did the recommended repairs. This included fixing leaks in the property. The last repair would be done on 26 May 2023. It accepted failures in its communication. It could not show that it had always called the resident back. It said it could have been more proactive in keeping the resident updated. It offered him £100 in compensation in recognition of the impact of its poor communication.
24 May 2023	The resident responded the same day. He did not accept the landlord’s response. He felt it did not fully reflect the impact of his experience.
Around 5 April 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about damp and mould in his home. He said that he wanted to move.
12 April 2024	The landlord responded at the first stage of its complaints process, saying: It attempted to survey the property on 30 November 2023, but the resident was not home. Its process meant that it needed to do 2 surveys of the property. It did an initial survey on 4 March 2023. It would schedule a second survey. It would ask its lettings team to discuss his rehousing options with him within 5 working days. It would send him an insurance claim form.
4 July 2024	Following contact from the resident, we asked the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint.
2 August 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It discussed the resident’s complaint with him by phone on 5 July 2024. He wanted the landlord to repair the damp and mould. If it could not, he wanted to move. The resident had not provided access for 2 damp and mould inspections in July 2024 although he had agreed to them. The inspection was completed on 29 July 2024, and it did some repairs the same day. It had been able to bring forward the resident’s next appointment by 1 week. It was booked for the week of 12 August 2024. It wanted to install a positive ventilation input (PIV) system in the resident’s home. However, the resident had declined the system. It gave appointment information for repairs in August and October 2024. It offered the resident £150 in compensation, made up of: £100 for distress and inconvenience. £50 for the impact of its failure to complete follow up actions.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He told us that the property still smelled of damp. Although he could not see any damp in the property, he did not believe the underlying cause had been fixed.

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 damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

6. The resident told us that he had reported concerns with smells in his property, which he feels were connected to damp and mould, from when he first moved into his home. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, usually 12 months. There is evidence that the resident first reported smells from the floor (which were attributed to cat urine) in January 2022. This was 2 months after the resident moved into the property. However, there is no evidence he complained about the smell, damp, or mould, until February 2023. As such, we will not investigate reports the resident made to the landlord prior to January 2023. This was the first time he reported concerns with smells in the year before his complaint.
7. The resident told the landlord that the damp and mould in the property affected his mental and physical health and contributed to his decision to end his tenancy. It is accepted that damp and mould can have a negative impact on health. However, it is beyond our remit to determine if there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s physical or mental health. This would be better suited to a court or insurer as they can seek expert medical opinion.
8. We can consider any distress and inconvenience caused by any failings by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health. In this case the resident explained that worry about the damp had a significant impact on the resident’s wellbeing.

Insurance claim

9. The landlord has an in-house insurance department. The resident told the landlord that damp in his home had damaged his belongings. The landlord advised him that he could make a liability insurance claim and sent him the relevant forms. This was appropriate advice, as matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process. The landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature.
10. The resident made 2 claims on the landlord’s liability insurance. The landlord accepted the resident’s first insurance claim and paid him £1188 in compensation. It refused the second claim. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess the actions of the landlord relating to the provision of social housing. Decision making on insurance liability is not a housing function. As such, we would not comment on the outcome of the resident’s insurance claims. However, we have assessed whether the landlord acted reasonably in relation to processing the claim.
11. The landlord has a clear record of its decision making around the insurance claim. It also explained the reasons for its decisions when it refused one of the claims, and told the resident he could get independent legal advice if he disagreed with the outcome of the case. This demonstrated accountability and transparency in its decision making.
12. In August 2024, after he submitted a second insurance claim form, the resident told the landlord he had difficulty completing the form as he has learning difficulties. The landlord should have either assisted with this, or it could have signposted the resident to local support services. It is not clear if it did so. This was a shortcoming.

Rehousing request

13. When the resident asked to be rehoused, the landlord arranged to visit him at home to discuss his concerns. This was a positive step by the landlord to ensure the resident was aware of his options. Meeting the resident in his home may have helped the landlord to fully assess the resident’s situation and to strengthen the landlord-tenant relationship.
14. There was no indication that the resident needed an emergency move due to the repairs, as the property was habitable and could be repaired. As such, the landlord’s advice to consider applying to the local authority’s choice-based lettings service was reasonable.
15. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it could not evidence that it had always called the resident back. It offered him compensation for this failing, which is discussed later in the report.

Repairs

16. In its damp and mould policy, the landlord says it will do a survey within 20 working days of a new report of damp and mould. Although the landlord recorded that the resident reported damp and mould in his property in January 2023, it did not do a survey until April 2023, 3 months later. It explained this was its first available appointment. As damp and mould can have a negative impact on health, the landlord should have done the survey sooner.
17. However, the landlord arranged an appointment in February 2023 to investigate the cause of the smell. During the appointment it identified a leak. The resident said he would prefer to wait for the survey before it was repaired. The landlord also did a mould wash (treatment designed to remove surface mould and kill the mould spores) in the resident’s home. These steps will have helped to mitigate the impact of the delay in carrying out the survey.
18. The survey in April 2023 recommended repairs to leaks from the toilet and living room radiator, rotten floor joists, and the damp proof course. A damp proof course is a protective barrier built into the walls of a property. It also recommended the extractor fans in the property were upgraded.
19. In its repairs and maintenance policy the landlord commits to completing emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord appropriately identified that the leaks were emergency repairs and completed them within its 24-hour policy timescale.
20. The landlord did the other repairs within its policy timescale of 20 working days for routine repairs. By completing the repairs promptly, and upgrading the fans on the same day as the other bathroom repairs, the landlord minimised disruption to the resident.
21. The resident was unhappy that the landlord only replaced the floor covering in the bathroom. Before the survey, the floor coverings were the same colour throughout the property. They did not match after the vinyl was replaced. While the resident’s frustration was understandable, the landlord met its obligations to fix the damage caused by the survey. It was not required to ensure the flooring matched throughout the property.
22. The resident called the landlord on 26 July 2023, saying that the repairs were not completed. There is no evidence the landlord called him back. This was either a communication or record keeping failure, which caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the repairs.
23. After the resident contacted the landlord again in October 2023, there was a cumulative avoidable delay of around 3 months in the landlord arranging a second property survey:
    1. The landlord initially arranged a survey for 30 November 2023. This exceeded the landlord’s damp and mould policy timescale by 10 working days. The resident was not home for the appointment, which was outside of the landlord’s control.
    2. The landlord rearranged the survey for 4 March 2024. While this was its next available appointment, this was again outside its damp and mould policy timescales.
24. The second property survey on 4 March 2024 showed that there was condensation in the property and further repairs were required. We did not see any evidence that the landlord could have identified these issues during its earlier inspection. External repairs were needed to resolve gaps around the window frame and defective joints in the brickwork. Repairs to damaged internal plaster were also needed, as well as further checks to the cavity insulation.
25. The landlord noted that the extractor fans in the property had a poor flow rate. The fans had been fitted as a result of the previous survey less than 1 year earlier. It is reasonable to expect new extractor fans to function as intended for more than 1 year after installation. As such this may indicate a shortcoming in the landlord’s earlier specification of fans for the property, or a problem with the fans themselves.
26. The landlord recommended a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit be installed. A PIV unit is a ventilation system that lowers indoor humidity. They can prevent condensation and improve air quality. However, the resident was worried about noise from the PIV unit and declined the improvement. The landlord agreed to try upgrading the fans first, to see if it would solve the issue. This showed that it was listening to the resident’s concerns.
27. The landlord did not begin the recommended repairs until May 2024, which was a delay of around 2 months. Its records do not fully account for this delay. As such, we consider that it was an avoidable delay, which will have caused further inconvenience to the resident.
28. The repairs were completed between May and July 2024. While there were some delays within this period, they were not fully within the landlord’s control. We saw evidence that the landlord called the resident on more than one occasion during this period to arrange or bring forward repairs. The resident was not always available, or was not at home during prearranged appointments.
29. He explained to the landlord that he was distressed about the repairs needed in his home. He said that his mental health was poor, and he felt overwhelmed by the appointments. The landlord’s records showed that it took his disclosure seriously, and made reasonable adjustments to its service. For example:
    1. Although there were several occasions where the resident was not home for pre-arranged appointments, the landlord did not consider taking tenancy enforcement or legal action to get access to the property. Also, it did not pass on costs it was charged by its contractor for appointments that did not go ahead. This was reasonable, as it recognised the overall impact of the repairs on the resident.
    2. It arranged a face-to-face appointment with its surveyor and complaints team. This may have helped to strengthen the landlord-tenant relationship. It will also have given the resident an opportunity to raise concerns or questions with the landlord.
30. The landlord did a third property survey on 30 July 2024. This was a reasonable step to ensure the problems were resolved. However, the humidity in the property was still high.  The survey found that the rainwater goods (such as gutters and downpipes) were in poor condition. As the landlord’s records show the rainwater goods were previously assessed as being in good condition, it is possible that they had become damaged in the intervening period.
31. It recommended a series of further repairs including an inspection of timbers in the bedroom and bathroom, installing air bricks, and renewing window seals and a gap around the soil vent pipe.
32. After the complaints process, the landlord’s records show that it completed all the repairs recommended in its reports, including carrying out the timber inspections. We did not see evidence of significant avoidable delays in the landlord completing the repairs. After the repairs were done, the landlord post-inspected to confirm the moisture readings in the property were appropriate. These were positive steps to ensure a permanent fix to the issues.
33. Overall, a large number of surveys and appointments were required at the property over an extended period. However, the landlord’s approach to the repairs was thorough. We did not see evidence that the landlord missed opportunities to identify repairs at an earlier stage.
34. The landlord’s records show that it tried to bring repairs forward for the resident on several occasions. It was positive that the landlord tried to do the repairs promptly. However, in the circumstances of the case, it may have been helpful if the landlord asked whether the resident would prefer the repairs to be completed as quickly as possible or grouped together to reduce disturbance.
35. The landlord made significant efforts to ensure that repairs appointments went ahead, including:
    1. Calling the resident on numerous occasions to book repairs appointments. The landlord’s records showed it often attempted to call the resident several times on one date, or on several consecutive days.
    2. The landlord’s operatives called the resident from outside the property as well as knocking the door. On some occasions, the landlord or the contractor then made additional calls to the resident.
    3. The landlord monitored the appointments closely to see if they had been successful and rebooked missed appointments quickly.
36. In its repairs and maintenance policy the landlord says that if a resident does not provide access for an appointment, the appointment will be cancelled. The resident will be notified. As such, the landlord’s actions went beyond its policy requirements, demonstrating its desire to put things right for the resident.
37. The landlord offered the resident a total of £250 compensation in recognition of the impact of errors in its handling of the case, including that:
    1. It could not evidence it had always called the resident back.
    2. The repairs had caused him distress and inconvenience.
    3. It did not follow up adequately after the resident’s second stage 1 complaint.
38. We have awarded the resident additional compensation to recognise the impact of the delays in arranging the surveys and completing the repairs, discussed above.
39. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website), which says that awards in this range are appropriate where failures by the landlord have adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

40. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
41. The landlord’s records showed that the resident complained on 9 February 2023, but the landlord did not respond. This was a failing which caused the resident time and trouble pursuing the complaint. After this, the landlord met its policy timescales throughout the complaints process.
42. After the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 24 May 2023 the resident responded the same day, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. When the resident said this, the landlord should have asked him if he wanted to escalate the complaint to the second stage of its complaint process. There was no evidence that it did so. This was a failing and a missed opportunity to put things right for the resident, and may have led to him feeling his concerns were not being heard.
43. When the resident complained again in April 2024, the landlord had discretion to decide if it escalated the resident’s previous complaint or responded at stage 1 of its complaints process. Its decision to issue a new stage 1 response was reasonable in the circumstances of the case, due to the time passed. It was also reasonable given that it had completed the repairs discussed in its first stage 1 response.
44. After the landlord’s stage 1 response in April 2024, the resident contacted our service. He said that the damp had not been resolved. We asked the landlord to confirm if it had issued a final response to the resident. As it had not, it escalated the case to the second stage of its complaints process, appropriately.
45. However, given its earlier failure to escalate the resident’s complaint, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation. The compensation awarded aligns with our remedies guidance (available on our website). Awards in this range are suitable where the landlord has not recognised its failings.

Learning

46. Landlords should seek to ensure they are adequately resourced to meet timescales set out in their policy and procedure documents. As the landlord was not able to offer a damp and mould survey within its policy time scale on at least 2 occasions during this case, it may wish to consider whether its resourcing is adequate.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord had clear records of its handling of the case, which was an example of good practice.
48. On some occasions a representative contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The landlord appropriately recorded that it had the resident’s consent to talk to the representative. However, the landlord was inconsistent in how it referred to the representative. On some occasions it described them as a support worker, and in others it described a personal relationship between the resident and the representative. While this did not affect its handling of this case, the landlord should have clarified the relationship between the representative and the resident to ensure its records were accurate.

Communication

49. The landlord and its contractor demonstrated a strong working relationship in this case. For example, the landlord proactively asked the contractor for updates on the repairs allocated to it, and there was regular communication between the contractor and the landlord about the repair. This enabled it to have oversight of the job and avoided unnecessary delays.