Believe Housing Limited (202335100)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202335100

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Believe Housing Limited

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

11 March 2026

Background

  1. The resident lives in a flat on the first floor and has hearing difficulties. In October 2022, a fire incident happened within the building caused by a mobility scooter. In September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and raised concerns about the fire safety within the building and the individual flats. The resident said she was unhappy about the landlord’s response to her concerns and stated that some fire safety improvement works were still outstanding.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety within her building.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety within her building.
  2. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

  1. There were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s reported concerns about the fire safety within the building. There were also delays in it completing the fire safety improvement works.
  2. The landlord acknowledged there were errors in its complaint handling when it provided its responses during its complaints process and offered the resident proportionate compensation to recognise the complaint handling errors.

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

Compensation order 

 

The landlord must pay the resident £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety within her building. This is in addition to the £250 it offered during its 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

08 April 2026

2

Completing the works

The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work required to amend the building’s fire detection system to support a stay put evacuation strategy is completed promptly and in any event by the due date.

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

06 May 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

We recommend the landlord pays the resident its original offer of £100 compensation made during its complaints process if it has not already done so. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

12 September 2023

The resident complained about the fire safety within her building. She said:

  • Since moving into the property, she had raised queries with different members of the landlord’s staff about the fire safety.
  • Fire alarms did not go off in the communal area when there was an actual fire.
  • The alarms in the communal area were not connected with the alarms in the individual flats, and this had been recommended by the fire service.

23 October 2023

The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged that the resident had reported concerns about the fire safety within her flat a few months after she moved into the property. It also confirmed that she reported issues about the fire door and apologised for the delay in addressing the reported concerns. It said:

  • it had identified low risk repair works required to the fire doors and confirmed it would complete these by the end of October 2023.
  • it would be completing fire detection upgrades to the whole building, which will include linking the communal fire detection system to the alarm detections in all of the flats.
  • it expected the works to be completed by the end of December 2023
  • It wished to offer the resident £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reported concerns about fire safety within the building.

27 October 2023

The resident escalated the complaint. She said prior to the fire incident all of the information on the communal notice board was incorrect. She also said that the landlord did not address in its response that it allowed a resident to charge a mobility scooter via an extension cord for several months, which caused the fire incident. The resident said the landlord provided the incorrect date of the fire incident in its stage 1 complaint response and she also confirmed that a fire detection alarm and smoke alarm was not installed on the dates the landlord stated.

7 December 2023

The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for providing the resident with incorrect information and dates in its stage 1 complaint response about the fire incident and alarm installations. The landlord confirmed it recently installed a beacon and vibrating pillow in her flat so she could be alerted of a potential fire incident at night when she removes her hearing aids. It also confirmed that it had linked the communal fire detection system to the resident’s flat and explained it had planned to complete the works to the remaining flats by 22 December 2023. However, it said this was subject to gaining access. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling errors.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she wanted the outstanding fire safety improvement works completed so she could feel safe in her home.

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 the resident’s concerns about fire safety within her building.

Finding

Maladministration
  1. The resident raised as part of her complaint that she had reported concerns about the fire safety in the building since she moved to the property in March 2019. We expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords within a reasonable time. This is usually within 12 months from the date a resident became aware of a problem. Not only does this ensure that evidence to investigate the complaint is available, but also so that effective steps can be taken to put things right.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint in September 2023. While we have seen no evidence of an expression of dissatisfaction prior to this, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s concerns dated back to July 2019. It therefore included this period in its investigation. However, considering the approach set out in our scheme we have given greater weight to the landlord’s actions in the 12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint of September 2023.
  3. In July 2019 and September 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to report concerns about fire safety within her flat. The information provided does not show that the landlord carried out an inspection or a fire risk assessment in response to these reports. The records only show that the landlord tested the smoke alarms in the resident’s property in September 2019. The reason for the delay is unclear, but the landlord’s overall response was unreasonable as it failed to demonstrate a proactive response to the resident’s concerns.
  4. The resident also reported issues with the fire door to her flat. The landlord did not provide the dates of these reports but acknowledged that it delayed in responding. It installed a new fire door at the property in March 2021. After the installation, it carried out occasional inspections to check that the door remained compliant, which was an appropriate step.
  5. The landlord’s fire management policy came into effect in August 2021. However, the information provided does not show that the landlord carried out the actions set out in the policy. This includes completing fire risk assessments or conducting monthly checks of communal areas in the resident’s building.
  6. The fire incident in October 2022 caused damage to the window below the resident’sflat, and downpipe attached to her home. We recognise the events would have been distressing for the resident, especially given the concerns she had already raised in relation to fire safety.
  7. The resident raised concerns to us that since the fire incident she has felt anxious and unsafe in her property. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for the resident. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. 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. However, we have considered whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.
  8. After the fire incident, the landlord began carrying out monthly inspections of the communal areas from January 2023, which aligned with its fire management policy. It also completed a fire compartmentation survey in July 2023. This survey assessed the building’s internal structure to confirm whether it could restrict the spread of smoke and fire. These were appropriate steps. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to carry out the compartmentation survey sooner, and closer to the date of the fire incident.
  9. The resident complained to the landlord in September 2023 because her reported fire safety concerns about the building and her flat remained unresolved. During the same month, the landlord inspected her fire door and identified low-risk repair works, which it completed in October 2023. These repairs were within the 6‑month timescale set out for low-risk fire door repairs in the landlord’s fire safety management procedure. The landlord also installed heat detectors in the resident’s property in November 2023 and, in December 2023, installed a beacon and vibrating pillow to alert her to a potential fire at night when she removes her hearing aids. These were positive steps taken by the landlord. However, it is unclear why this action was not taken sooner.
  10. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its complaint responses that there had been delays in it responding to the resident’s reported concerns about the fire safety within the building and her flat. It offered £250 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. While this was reasonable, this amount was not proportionate given the circumstances of the complaint.
  11. The landlord also confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that it had linked the communal fire detection system to the alarm in the resident’s flat and explained it had planned to complete the works in the remaining flats within the building by 22 December 2023. However, it confirmed this was subject to it gaining access to the other flats. It also confirmed it would complete any outstanding compartmentation works.
  12. In February 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to provide an update on the progress of the fire safety works in the building, which was an appropriate step. It confirmed that works had taken place in the communal areas and to the building’s fire doors. It also explained that most flats had been connected to the communal fire detection system and that it was working with the remaining residents who still had fire safety works outstanding in their homes.
  13. The records show that delays continued because the landlord was unable to gain access to some flats. It took appropriate action by sending letters to the relevant residents, in line with its no‑access policy. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with any further updates on the progress of these works, which was unreasonable. The landlord gained access to the final property with outstanding works in September 2024 and completed the required work.
  14. The landlord confirmed that an external surveyor specialising in fire safety compliance completed a fire risk assessment of the building in September 2025 and made several recommendations. These included installing additional signage, completing repairs to one of the flat doors, and amending the evacuation strategy to a stay‑put approach, which would require residents to remain inside their flats during a fire incident. The surveyor also advised that the fire detection system would need amendments to support a stay‑put strategy. In February 2026, the landlord wrote to the resident to update her on the findings of the fire risk assessment. During the same month, the landlord’s electrical contractor checked the alarm sound levels and the vibrating alert device in the resident’s property, and no issues were identified.
  15. The landlord confirmed to us in March 2026 that it had completed all the recommendations from the fire risk assessment except for the amendments required to the fire detection system to support a stay‑put evacuation strategy. It said it was in the process of sourcing a contractor to complete this work. As these works remain outstanding, we have made an order above for the landlord to complete them.
  16. We have also ordered compensation to put right the distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced. In deciding what would be a proportionate sum, we have referred to our remedies guidance published on our website. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints processes states that a landlord’s complaints process should have 2 stages. The Code states a stage 1 response must be sent within 10 working days from the complaint being logged, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord did not provide us with a copy of the complaints policy that applied at the time of the complaint. The only policy it supplied relates to February 2024 onwards.
  2. The Code also states that a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.
  3. The resident submitted her initial complaint to the landlord on 12 September 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 23 October 2023, which was approximately 29 working days after the resident raised her complaint. The response was late and it is unclear why the landlord was unable to comply with the required timescales.
  4. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it provided some incorrect information and dates in its stage 1 complaint response. It is positive that the landlord recognised these errors and provided the correct information in its stage 2 complaint response.
  5. On 27 October 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 7 December 2023. The response was approximately 4 working days late and outside the 20 working days timescale referenced in the Code.
  6. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that there had been complaint handling errors, and it offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise these errors. The overall compensation offered for complaint handling-delays was sufficient to recognise the inconvenience caused and complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate its overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

  1. There was very limited communication from the landlord to the resident when she initially reported her concerns about the fire safety within the building. Also, there was a lack of updates on the progress of the fire safety works from February 2024 onwards. The landlord may wish to review this and consider how it may improve communication with residents in the future.