Believe Housing Limited (202503113)

Decision
Case ID	202503113
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Believe Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	9 April 2026

Background

The resident raised concerns about damp and mould in his property, along with other repairs. He also raised concerns about harassment from a neighbour and the conduct of the landlord’s staff. The landlord took steps to resolve the issues, but the resident remained unhappy. The landlord was aware that the resident had vulnerabilities due to anxiety and depression.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about repairs, damp and mould in his property.
2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Concerns about the conduct of its staff.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs, damp and mould in his property.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

There is no record that the landlord fully followed its damp and mould policy. Although it encountered no access issues to the resident’s property, its communication with him was lacking. The evidence also shows it did not fully follow its repairs policy or consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not provide the resident with a clear answer about his concerns about its staff’s conduct. Its evidence does not fully support its comments that it took such reports extremely seriously.

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 07 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £325 compensation made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of his concerns about repairs, damp and mould in his property. £25 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures in its handling of his concerns about the conduct of its staff. £200 compensation its stage 2 response offered him, if it has not already paid this.	No later than 07 May 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to: Confirm what evidence it considered during its investigation into his concerns about the conduct of its staff. Clearly tell him what the outcome of its investigation was. Discuss any vulnerabilities he has and record these on its management system.	No later than 07 May 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure it inspects the resident kitchen to confirm whether the mould mite issue has been resolved. It the issue is still present it must confirm to the resident and us what action it will take to resolve the issue. The landlord must clarify what parts of the property required repointing.	No later than 07 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 February 2025	The resident raised his complaint with the landlord. He said: He was unhappy with the standard of its plastering repairs to his property. There were also splinters in his banister. There was a level of mistrust with it due to the allegations made by its staff about his medical cannabis use. He twice had pneumonia which he felt was caused by damp in his property. He was receiving support from his doctor and a private clinic for his cannabis use and anxiety. He felt the landlord had not supported him over concerns about his anxiety and a notice seeking possession (NOSP) it had served him.
13 March 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: It had passed photos he sent of damp and mould in his kitchen on 6 September 2024 to its repairs team. It inspected his property on 12 September 2024. It applied an anti-fungal treatment to his kitchen units on 26 September 2024. Its plasterer assessed his staircase wall on 10 October 2024 upon recommendation of its surveyor. It completed an inspection of an extractor fan on 19 November 2024. It was confident it had taken the correct steps with repair works carried out in line with its policy. It would need to refer a mould mite issue to the local authority. It understood he had contacted the police on 29 and 30 September 2024 about allegations of harassment from his neighbour. It gave him advice about legal guidelines related to his concerns about his neighbour’s security cameras, which the police had also done. It had opened an ASB case, completed a risk assessment and action plan in line with its ASB policy. It had contacted him in a timely manner and gave updates at regular intervals in line with its ASB action plan. It had completed repairs in line with its legal obligations: Plastering repairs on 24 and 25 February 2025 A repair to his banister on 5 March 2025 A post repair inspection on 6 March 2025. It would start plastering repairs to his lounge on 13 March 2025. It could not find a record it had contacted him about follow on works to repoint brickwork to the outside of his property following an inspection on 18 September 2024. It apologised for this and the work was booked for 1 May 2025. It had addressed his concerns about its staffs conduct in a previous complaint response on 24 September 2024. Due to the concerns he raised about its staff’s conduct it could not share the process of its findings, but it took such complaints extremely seriously. It had a 2-stage complaints process to ensure objectivity, equality, and consistency. It had acknowledged and responded to his previous complaint within the timeframes of its complaints policy. It acknowledged he was unhappy with the NOSP it had served. It was unable to retract this, and it would remain active until 11 October 2025. He could seek legal advice about this. It offered him £100 compensation for its delays in completing repointing repairs to external brickwork.
15 and 17 March 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said: He was not satisfied with its response and rejected its NOSP. It should consider giving him compensation to reflect “3 years of constant suffering.” There were 2 occasions where damp and mould in his property had led to respiratory issues. The situation had caused him significant distress, and he felt it had invaded his privacy.
17 April 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: It had referenced some issues it considered in a previous complaint, but it would not reinvestigate those matters. It was confident that it had reviewed all concerns he raised alongside the new matters raised more recently. It had fairly and reasonably responded and offered resolutions where appropriate. He told it on 25 March 2025 that he did not have damp and mould in his kitchen. The issue related to mould mites, and it did not arrange any further appointments after he confirmed there was no damp and mould. It could referred the mould mite issue to the local authority as part of its stage 1 investigation. It was sorry it did not do so but was satisfied it offered him the correct advice. It restated its stage 1 response about its repointing repair. It had also arranged a visit for 6 May 2025 to inspect garden repairs he reported on 28 March 2025. It was satisfied it handled his previous complaint in line with its complaints policy. It had taken his complaint against its staff seriously. It escalated this to an appropriate manager who completed an internal investigation. He raised concerns about its stage 1 complaint handler. However, it had escalated his complaint upon request to be reviewed by a senior member of staff. This was in line with its complaints policy. Its insurance team had sent him a claims form on 8 August 2024 and 12 March 2025. However, he had not returned the form to it. It had not investigated his concerns about its handling of reports of ASB and counter allegations by him. This was because it had reviewed its handling of the issues in a previous complaint he had raised with it. The NOSP would remain in place until 11 October 2025. It would offer him a further £100 compensation for the impact its delay in completing repointing repairs had on him.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us. He said: The damp and mould in his kitchen remained unresolved despite multiple repairs by the landlord over a 3-year period. Mould mites in his property were caused by damp and mould. It took the landlord months to repair holes in external walls, and it had not completed repointing work. The allegations of ASB against him were baseless. The landlord had escalated these despite him giving it evidence he had been prescribed medical cannabis. The landlord’s staff had made false allegations about him. Their attitude was dismissive and aggressive. The landlord had failed to acknowledge his request to reject the NOSP it served. It had rejected his invoice to pay him costs for repairs he had done to his property and damage to his belongings. The issues had impacted on his physical and mental health. He suffered with anxiety and stress, which were increased by the feeling the landlord had not listened or treated him fairly.

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.

What we did not consider

The resident has said that the landlord escalated an ASB case regarding his use of medical cannabis against him due to baseless complaints from his neighbours. This was despite him providing it with evidence of a prescription for him to use this. We considered this issue in case 202434869. Upon review we found that the landlord acted reasonably in its response to the issue and there was no maladministration. In the interests of fairness, it would not be appropriate for us consider the matter again in this investigation.
The resident has said he felt the notice seeking possession the landlord served him was unjustified and flawed. As an outcome to his complaint, he wanted the Ombudsman to remove the notice. This is not something that we are able to do as it concerns matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within our authority to provide. We also considered reasonableness of the landlord serving the notice in case 202434869. In the interests of fairness, it would not be appropriate for us to consider the matter again.
The resident has asked that we investigate the landlord’s refusal to pay an invoice he sent it for damages to his belongings. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider this part of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
In his communication the resident has also referenced how the situation has impacted his health. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord gave due regard for the resident’s health conditions.
Part of the resident’s complaint he raised with the landlord was its handling of a previous complaint. This related to case 202434869, which we investigated. The investigation did not consider the landlord’s handling of the complaint, and the resident did not ask us to review our determination. In the absence of a review request from the resident and in the interests of fairness, it would not be reasonable for this investigation to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s previous complaint.

Complaint	Repairs / Damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

The resident contacted the landlord on 19 March 2024. He said he had health problems due to damp in his property. He told it on 17 February 2025 he had pneumonia which he felt was caused by the damp and mould. When he escalated his complaint, he said the issue had caused him respiratory problems. There is no record that the landlord offered him any support following this and its stage 2 response did not identify this. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its damp and mould policy that says it will treat customers reporting damp and mould with respect and empathy and provide support where required.
The landlord was unable to gain access to the resident’s property to complete mould treatment and an inspection on 22 April, 3 May and 30 May 2024. However, the landlord took steps to resolve damp and mould in the resident’s property in line with its damp and mould policy:
1. It applied a mould wash to kitchen cupboards on 29 June 2024 and 26 September 2024.
2. It installed an extractor fan on 12 August 2024. At this visit its records note it could not apply a mould wash to the staircase wall as the resident was taking the wallpaper off. It also found it needed to complete a repair to the roof and repoint an external wall.
3. It completed a roof repair on 13 August 2024.
4. It completed a plastering repair to an understairs cupboard using salt retardant render, on 23 August 2024.
5. It inspected the staircase wall on 12 September 2024, after the resident had removed the wallpaper.
6. It inspected external brickwork on 18 September 2024 and found it needed to repoint 12 square metres of brickwork on the side of the property.
7. It repaired an extractor fan on 19 November 2024.
8. It completed plastering to the staircase wall on 24 and 25 February 2025 and applied a mould wash to the wall on 22 April 2025.
We acknowledge the no access issues impacted the landlord’s ability to resolve the damp and mould. However, there is no record that it told the resident of its repair visits in advance or used different ways to communicate them with him. This was a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will use technology to keep customers up to date with the status of their repair from reporting until completion.
The resident chased the landlord for updates on the repairs on 12 November 2024, 10 and 20 February 2025. On each occasion there was nobody available to take his call and it arranged to call him back. However, there is no record it did so. This was a communication and record keeping failure.
When the resident contacted the landlord on 12 November 2024, he said mould mites were still present in his property. He wanted it to come and inspect the issue. There is no record that it contacted him to discuss this. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s records show the resident told it on 25 March 2025 that there was no damp and mould in his property and the issue related to mould mites. It told the resident on 26 March 2025 that it was working with the local authority to resolve this. Its stage 2 response confirmed following its referral the local authority had assessed the issue at his property on 10 April 2025. They found the issue was caused by a leaking vent pipe and it said it would repair this on 17 April 2025. There is no record of this repair in the landlord’s evidence, and the resident has told us that the issue has not been resolved. This was a record keeping failure.
There is no record of the landlord’s referral to the local authority about the mould mites. However, it accepted their diagnosis and arranged for the required repairs. There is no record that the landlord inspected the vent pipe before the local authority did. Had it done so after he asked it to on 12 November 2024 it is reasonable to conclude it would have found it to be leaking and taken steps to repair it. This could have resolved the issue at an earlier date. This was a failure to follow its repairs policy that says it will provide a reliable service to ensure its properties are protected and well maintained.
When the resident raised his complaint on 27 February 2025, he said his banister rail had splinters in it. The landlord’s records show that it repaired this on 5 March 2025. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy to complete appointed repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord found it needed to repoint the side of the resident’s property on 18 September 2024. It did not contact him about a follow up appointment. The repair was left outstanding until it completed this on 1 May 2025. Its stage 1 response recognised the inconvenience caused by its delays and offered the resident £200 compensation. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance.
The resident told us that the landlord had not completed repointing work to the brickwork at his property. The landlord’s evidence shows it completed this repair on 1 May 2025 and included photos upon completion. The evidence indicates he was expecting the landlord to repoint all his property. There is no record that it clarified with the resident what parts of his property it would repoint. This was a communication failure.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the quality of its plastering repairs to his staircase walls. It is unclear from the evidence what his specific concerns were. However, the landlord completed an inspection of the repair on 6 March 2025. Its records show it found it completed the repair to an acceptable standard and “changes in levels” were related to the age of the property. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s response to the repair issues was lacking in parts. It took some action to resolve the issues. However, the evidence shows it did not fully follow its damp and mould or repairs policies. For example, it did not provide support where required or use technology to keep the resident updated. Its approach to the mould mite issue was confused and its communication with the resident and record keeping was poor. Its stage 2 compensation offer of £200 related only to its delays in repointing repairs. As a result, we have found there was service failure by the landlord.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises minor failures that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge. We have also ordered it to confirm with the resident whether it needed to complete repointing work to the rest of his property

Complaint	Antisocial behaviour
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s evidence shows that the resident sent it video footage of an “altercation” with his neighbour, on 12 September 2024, that showed he made claims to the neighbour that they were harassing him. It looked to arrange a visit with the resident and his neighbour to discuss this. This was reasonable. Its records show it visited the neighbour on 10 October 2024. However, its evidence shows the resident refused its request to visit him.
The landlord’s records show the police contacted it on 4 October 2024. They told it the resident had contacted them on 29 and 20 September 2024, about alleged harassment from his neighbour and the use of security cameras. The police said they had told the resident to seek advice from the Information Commissioner’s Officer about security camera usage. The landlord restated this in its stage 1 response which was reasonable.
There is no evidence that shows the resident reported harassment from his neighbour on any other occasions. The landlord acted upon the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy that says it will take appropriate action to resolve ASB at the earliest opportunity and give support to victims. Its records show it had concerns about the resident’s behaviour from the video footage of the incident on 12 September 2024. We can find no evidence of maladministration by the landlord.

Complaint	Staff conduct
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had addressed the resident’s concerns about its staff in a previous complaint. We did not consider this matter in the resident’s case 202434869. It is reasonable that we assess the resident’s concerns as part of this investigation.
The landlord made an unannounced visit to the resident’s property on 17 June 2024. This related to reports of ASB against him. Its records show he told its staff they were harassing him. He contacted it on 4 September 2024 and said he felt its staff were stalking and harassing him.
The landlord’s records show it held an internal meeting about the resident’s allegations against its staff on 5 September 2024. It concluded it did not need to involve its human resource team about the matter. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s complaint responses said the resident emailed it on 18 November 2024. He was unhappy with the approach and professionalism of its staff. However, there is no record of this in the landlord’s evidence. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord’s complaint responses said it had completed an internal investigation about the resident’s allegations. However, it is unclear if it completed a new investigation or it was referring to the one it had done on 5 September 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it could not share the findings of its investigation with the resident. We acknowledge it would not have been reasonable for it to have provided him with full details of the investigation. However, it would have been reasonable to have said what evidence it considered and whether it concluded that its staff’s conduct was appropriate or not.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not say whether it upheld this part of the resident’s complaint. This was not reasonable. It should have clearly explained its decision into this matter and considered offering the resident a remedy for the ongoing concerns he had about its staffs conduct. For example, by offering him a single point of contact or completing a further investigation, if it had relied on its investigation from 5 September 2024.
The landlord told the resident that it took complaints about its staffs conduct extremely seriously. However, its complaint responses do not demonstrate that it did this and left the resident without a clear answer about the matter. For this reason, we have made a finding of service failure.
We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £25 compensation for the distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises minor failures that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge. We have also ordered it to confirm what evidence it considered during its staff conduct investigation and what the outcome of this was.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgment and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord sent acknowledgement at both stages within the timeframe of its complaints policy. This was reasonable.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response 10 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It sent its stage 2 to him 18 working days after its acknowledgement. This was reasonable and within the timeframe of its complaints policy.
The landlord’s evidence shows that it contacted the resident as part of its stage 2 investigation to discuss his complaint. Its records show it told him it could not investigate ASB issues that it had addressed in a previous complaint. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy. This says it will contact residents to confirm matters it is not responsible for such as complaints it has already investigated.
The resident has said the landlord did not acknowledge his request that it withdraw the NOSP it had served. However, its complaint responses were clear on its position about this. Its evidence also shows it sent him an email on 19 December 2024 advising it would not be withdrawing this.
The resident told us he felt the landlord’s complaint handling was dismissive and inconsistent. Its stage 2 response explained different complaint handlers investigated at stage 1 and 2. It said it had reviewed its records and could find no evidence that it had not investigated his complaint impartially. The evidence we have seen supports its conclusion and we can find no evidence of maladministration.

Learning

There is learning for the landlord from the resident’s complaint. It should ensure it shows evidence it has complied with its policy’s and avoid general statements that it was satisfied it acted in line with these. This will ensure it provides an accountable and transparent service to its residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s response to the issue the resident raised. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

Landlords should ensure that residents are kept updated throughout the repairs process. With particularly complex repairs, it is good practice to assign a single point of contact and agree update intervals. This manages resident expectations and can strengthen relationships.