Be One Homes (202533215)

Decision
Case ID	202533215
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Be One Homes
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 May 2026

Background

1. The resident was pregnant at the time of the complaint. Her baby was born prematurely during the period considered by this investigation. She complained to the landlord about high levels of humidity in her home, resulting in damp and mould. She remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to her concerns.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. High humidity and damp and mould.
   2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Damp, mould and high humidity in her home.
   2. Antisocial behaviour.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There were avoidable delays in responding to the repairs. On 2 occasions the landlord failed to prioritise repairs in the resident’s home appropriately.
6. The landlord did not keep the resident updated as it had agreed. It failed to identify that the resident’s wider circumstances may put her at increased risk of vulnerability. It did not  contact her about reports of disturbance she made through the complaints process. It did not send her a closure letter when it closed her case.
7. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged that it failed to respond to the resident’s escalation request in a timely manner and it should have opened a new complaint for her ASB concerns. The landlord offered proportionate compensation.

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 25 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £500 in recognition of the impact of failings in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s home. £200 in recognition of the impact of failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. 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.	No later than 25 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The resident told us that there is a leak from under her bath. We recommend that the landlord contacts her to arrange a convenient appointment for the area to be inspected.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her options for rehousing.
As the resident has confirmed that there is new mould growth in her home, the landlord should arrange a damp and mould inspection. It should explain in writing any steps it agrees to take to resolve the issue. It should arrange a follow up inspection to ensure it is satisfied that any repairs are successful.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 November 2024	The resident complained to her landlord through her MP. She said: The landlord inspected her property on 22 November 2024. It said the humidity in her home was 90%. She was pregnant, and worried this could affect her baby’s health. The situation was having a significant impact on her wellbeing. It was affecting her sleep and increasing her anxiety. The landlord had not responded to contact since the inspection, or her request for a dehumidifier.
11 December 2024	The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint saying: It inspected the resident’s home on 22 November 2024. It found minimal mould in the property, but the humidity was above comfortable levels. During the inspection the windows were closed, and the fans were switched off at the fuse. It would renew the bath seal, regrout, install new extractor fans, and renew the window seals. It had noted the resident’s desire to move, but although the property had high humidity levels, this could be resolved. The resident did not need to move. It had advised what steps it would take, including arranging for the mould to be cleaned and providing a dehumidifier. Repairs began on 9 December 2024. Its contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange for the fans to be installed.
27 October 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She said: The mould was a longstanding issue. Based on advice from her health visitor she had contacted the landlord about it in September 2024. It had caused her significant worry. The landlord had decanted her (moved her temporarily) in May 2025. This was stressful as she had a small, premature, baby. The mould had recurred and her baby had breathing problems. She had reported the issues and felt that the landlord was ignoring her. She was advised to open the windows for 5 minutes daily. She often had them open for 5-6 hours. This affected her ability to keep her home warm. The humidity in the property remained too high. Her neighbour was disturbing her with loud music, fighting and parties. Although she had reported the issue to the landlord, nothing had been done to resolve it. She wanted the landlord to move her to a suitable property.
8 December 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process. It upheld her complaint. It said: The resident first reported mould in her home on 24 February 2023. It did a mould treatment on 13 June 2023. It reiterated the findings of its inspection on 22 November 2024. It had completed the repairs identified in its 22 November 2024 inspection by 27 January 2025. On 27 January 2025 the resident phoned it to ask for an update. It accepted that she had to chase it for a reply. It did another inspection on 21 February 2025, following contact from the resident’s MP. It found minimal mould but identified further repairs. It decanted the resident and her baby so that it could do the repairs. They were complete. It reimbursed her £600 for additional costs associated with her use of a dehumidifier from 2 December 2024 until the repairs were done. On 1 October 2025 the resident’s MP contacted the landlord, saying the issues had returned. It arranged a mould treatment and inspection. The extractor fans were not working. The only mould in the property was around the bath, so it replaced the bath seals. The resident also reported issues with her storage cupboard floor. It could not fully inspect the area as there were items in the cupboard. She should clear the cupboard and re-report the issues. It signposted the resident to its third-party insurer. Its handling of the reports of antisocial behaviour was appropriate. It offered her £100 in compensation, made up of: £50 for the delay in its complaint response. £50 for communication failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the landlord had not resolved the underlying issues in her home. She wants to be permanently rehoused, and increased compensation.

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	Handling of reports of humidity, damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

8. In her complaint the resident raised concerns about the impact of damp and mould on her baby’s health. Courts or liability insurers are best placed to deal with this type of dispute. They have the benefit of independent medical advice.  As such, we have not considered this element of the resident’s complaint. The landlord sent the resident information about claiming on its liability insurance, which was appropriate.
9. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience and consider if the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s disclosure of concerns about her child’s health. This is discussed later in the report.
10. The landlord does not have a standalone damp and mould policy and sets out its response to damp and mould in its repairs policy. Awaab’s law came into effect on 27 October 2025, and it has updated its policy to reflect the requirements of Awaab’s law. However, some of the resident’s reports of damp and mould predate Awaab’s law, and for these the following repairs policy timescales applied:
    1. The landlord commits to doing urgent repairs within 7 calendar days.
    2. It commits to doing other responsive repairs within 21 calendar days.
11. The landlord’s records show that the resident first reported damp and mould in her home in February 2023. It did a mould treatment in her home in June 2023. Mould treatments are an effective way to reduce the impact of mould on residents but may not resolve the underlying cause of damp and mould. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider what was causing damp and mould in the resident’s home. There was no evidence it did this. This was a missed opportunity to achieve a first-time fix.
12. There was no indication that the repair was urgent, so the landlord should have completed the repair in 21 days. It has not explained why it exceeded this timescale by around 3 months. In the absence of any other evidence, we consider that this was an avoidable delay.
13. Our spotlight report on attitudes respects and rights (available on our website) says that ‘landlords’ approach to vulnerabilities is vital, including the need to recognise, adjust and respond to their residents’ individual circumstances’. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 October 2024 and 31 October 2024 to report damp and mould in her home. While it is not clear if the resident disclosed her pregnancy before 31 October 2024, the landlord’s records show it was aware of her pregnancy on this date.
14. During pregnancy, people are more susceptible to negative health impacts from mould, because of changes to their immune system.  As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to prioritise the resident’s damp and mould inspection as urgent, and arrange the inspection within 7 days. There was no evidence it did this. This was a failing.
15. The landlord inspected the property on 22 November 2024, 30 days after she notified it of the issue. This exceeded the landlord’s policy deadline for responsive repairs by 9 days. As the landlord has not explained this delay, we conclude that it was unreasonable.
16. The resident told us that during the initial inspection, the landlord told her the level of humidity in the property meant that it was not suitable for her to live in and she would need to move.  She said it later denied having told her this and said that the property was safe. She explained that this incident had a significant impact on her trust in it.
17. In the absence of evidence, we are unable to verify the resident’s account. None of the other evidence we have seen shows that the landlord recommended the resident move during the initial inspection. As such, we cannot say its actions were inappropriate in this instance.
18. In the days after the inspection, the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions to discuss the surveyor’s recommendations. The landlord responded to the resident in a reasonable timeframe. It explained that it intended to repair silicone around the bath and the grouting and replace the fans in the resident’s property.  It also arranged a precautionary mould wash and provided a dehumidifier. These were reasonable steps to manage the condition of the property before the repairs were completed.
19. The resident disputed the surveyor’s findings that her bathroom floor was not wet. The landlord arranged a further inspection in December 2024 and discovered a leak from the toilet downpipe. As a result, it needed to replace the toilet and bathroom flooring, and skirting boards. The reason for the initial incorrect findings is unclear. However this ultimately delayed matters, and frustrated the resident leaving her to feel that her concerns were not heard.
20. The resident was not available for 1 of the appointments suggested by the landlord’s contractor, but this was outside of its control. We saw no evidence of avoidable delay in the landlord completing the repairs identified in the initial survey. They were completed on 27 January 2025.
21. Contractor records sent to the landlord show that the resident told it that she thought it was going to install window vents and repair pointing at the property on 27 January 2025. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to look into this for her, but there is no evidence it did. It accepted that, when she, or her representative, called to follow this up, it could not find evidence that it had responded to her. This compounded the resident’s distress as she was in hospital with her baby, who had been born prematurely.
22. The landlord repaired the toilet, flooring and skirting on 19 February 2025. This was around 1 month beyond its policy timescale for responsive repairs. However, the repair was complicated, requiring the landlord to ensure it appointed a contractor who could remove floor tiles which may contain asbestos. As such it was reasonable that it took longer for the landlord to do the repair.
23. In February 2025, the landlord did a further property survey. It identified that it needed to install wall vents, re-seal the windows, and replaster. The landlord arranged to move the resident to alternative accommodation while it did repairs in her home. This was appropriate, as the resident had a newborn baby who could not stay in the property while the works were being done.
24. The resident told us that, when she returned to her home after being decanted, the dehumidifier had been removed. The landlord reimbursed the resident £600, at a rate of £30 per week that the dehumidifier was in her home. This was appropriate, as dehumidifiers are known to result in additional electricity usage, which incurs an additional cost to residents.
25. On 23 September 2025 the resident told the landlord that there was still high humidity in the property. She said that her doctor told her that her baby’s cough may be related to her home conditions. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to respond as a matter of urgency.
26. The landlord did a mould wash in the property on 6 October 2025 and a property inspection on 16 October 2025.  While this was outside of its urgent repair timescale, the delay was not excessive. The landlord found that there was mould around the resident’s bath. It noted that the fans in the property were not working.
27. The fans in the property were fitted less than 1 year earlier. As such, the need for repair will have been frustrating for the resident. However, the landlord replaced the fans and repaired the bath seal within its policy timescale for routine repairs.
28. New legislation, known as Awaab’s law, came into force on 27 October 2025. The legislation gives additional responsibilities to landlords if they become aware of a new ‘significant’ or ‘emergency’ hazard, or a change in circumstances in a case that it is already aware of. This is called a ‘material change’.
29. The landlord correctly identified that there had been a material change in the case, when the resident told it that the issue had recurred. She said she believed it was impacting her baby’s health. The landlord acted reasonably and met its legal responsibilities by:
    1. Triaging the case and assessing the level of risk within 24 hours.
    2. Determining if the case could be an ‘emergency hazard’ or a ‘significant hazard’.
    3. As the landlord considered that the case was an emergency hazard, it was obliged to make the issue safe within 24 hours. It offered the resident an appointment in this timescale. The resident asked for an alternative appointment date, which was outside of the landlord’s control.
    4. After inspecting, the landlord did not think the property presented a risk. It informed the resident in writing that its recent repairs were sufficient to manage the issues.
    5. Saying it would follow up in 3 and 12 months to check there was no reoccurrence.
30. During the repairs process, the resident repeatedly raised concerns about the level of humidity in her home. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain if it considered that humidity itself was a concern. Or if the primary reason elevated humidity is concerning is because it can promote mould growth. Providing such an explanation may have helped to allay some of the resident’s concerns.
31. The resident asked the landlord to move her as she feels the property is not suitable. She told us she is primarily worried about the property posing a health risk to her child. However, the landlord misunderstood her complaint. It wrote that she wanted to be rehoused due to the impact of ASB. It should have gone further to clarify her complaint to avoid misunderstanding if it was not clear. As it did not, it failed to engage with the resident’s concerns appropriately. The landlord should contact her now to discuss her rehousing options.
32. To put things right for the resident, we have awarded her compensation. The award is line with our compensation guidance, which says awards in this range are appropriate where actions by a landlord have had an adverse effect on a resident. When deciding on what would be an appropriate amount of compensation in this case, we have considered the timeframe of the landlord’s delays and the distress and inconvenience this caused.
33. The resident told us that there has been new mould growth in her home. We have therefore made a recommendation accordingly.

Complaint	Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour
Finding	Maladministration

34. It is outside of our remit to establish whether someone has committed ASB. Instead, we have assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. We will consider whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of the circumstances and if it responded in line with its internal policies, the law and industry best practice.
35. The landlord’s records show that the resident and a neighbour reported concerns about disturbance from the property of another resident of the block (referred to in this report as ‘the alleged perpetrator’). The resident conveyed ongoing incidents of late-night parties, fights, loud music, and drug dealing in around April 2025. She explained that this was affecting her family’s sleep.
36. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person. It considers noise nuisance (above reasonable household noise), to be ASB. As such, the behaviours reported by the resident met the landlord’s definition (ASB) under its ASB policy.
37. Overall, the landlord’s actions in response to the initial reports was reasonable, and in-line with the commitments made in its policy. It:
    1. Contacted the resident quickly to take a statement from her about the issues. The resident did not initially respond to its requests. She later explained that her phone screen was broken. The landlord made several attempts to contact her, which demonstrated a willingness to address the issues.
    2. Completed a risk assessment and made an action plan with the resident.
    3. Arranged to interview the alleged perpetrator without delay.
    4. Provided the resident with information about the noise app (a phone application residents can use to send recordings of noise directly to their landlord).
    5. After interviewing the alleged perpetrator, the landlord took prompt, appropriate tenancy enforcement action in line with its ASB policy.
38. While it used a range of tools to manage the case, there were some shortcomings in its handling of the issue. For example:
    1. In its ASB policy, the landlord says it will share reports of drug crime with the police. Although the resident reported drug crime in April 2025, it did not share the information until August 2025. This 4‑month delay may have affected its case handling.
    2. The resident said she had CCTV footage showing the ASB. The landlord advised her to speak to its permissions team about her use of CCTV. While this was reasonable advice, it should also have reviewed the footage the resident had available. This may have informed its casework. There was no evidence it reviewed the footage. This was a missed opportunity.
    3. The landlord said it would keep the resident updated. However, there is no evidence the landlord updated the resident to confirm it had interviewed the alleged perpetrator. When the resident returned from the decant property in May 2025, there was no evidence the landlord contacted her until June 2025. After this it did not record further attempts at contact until it closed the case.
    4. We saw no evidence of the resident reporting ASB to the landlord between May and October 2025. However, in her stage 2 complaint in October 2025 the resident gave an account of ongoing noise. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to speak to her about her concerns, and make a new action plan with her to address them. There was no evidence that it did this, which was a failing.
    5. In the landlord’s ASB policy it says it will tell residents when it closes an ASB case. There was no evidence it told the resident when it closed the case. This was a failing which may have caused her uncertainty.
39. The landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s case. This was a positive step, demonstrating a willingness to take accountability for its actions and improve its services. It acknowledged that it could have done more to support the resident. In particular:
    1. While the resident did not disclose support needs to the ASB Officer, it accepted that it should have asked her about any support needs directly.
    2. The resident’s personal circumstances could have indicated increased risk of vulnerability. As such, it should have done a vulnerability assessment. If it had done so, it may have considered offering or signposting her to additional support.
40. The landlord is currently reviewing its ASB service. It told is it intends to create a dedicated ASB team to ensure case officers. It aims to continue to develop its trauma-informed practice. It has introduced formal vulnerability assessments for both victims and perpetrators of ASB. These are positive steps to strengthen the landlord’s ASB service.

The amount we have awarded in compensation is in line with our compensation guidance (available on our website) which says that awards in this range are appropriate where there have been failings by the landlord, but these have not permanently impacted the resident. 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

41. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out our expectations of complaints handling. The timescales for complaint responses set out in the landlord’s customer feedback policy align with those in the code. The landlord met its customer feedback policy timescale at the first stage of its complaints process.
42. The Code allows landlords to extend the timescale of stage 2 response by up to 20 working days. The landlord contacted the resident before its stage 2 response was due to be sent to let her know it needed to extend its investigation deadline. This will have managed the resident’s expectations and minimised inconvenience caused to her.
43. Due to staff absence, there was a further 3 working day delay in the landlord sending its stage 2 complaint response. It recognised that this will have caused the resident further inconvenience, and awarded her compensation, which is discussed later in the report.
44. The Code says that if a resident raises a new unrelated concern after the landlord has sent a stage 1 complaint response, it must be logged as a new complaint. As such, the landlord should have considered the resident’s concerns about ASB, which were first raised as a complaint in her complaint escalation request, in a separate complaints process.
45. By incorporating the issue in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not give the resident the opportunity of a 2 stage complaints process. It also missed the opportunity to engage with the resident’s concerns in a meaningful way and to try to put things right.
46. The landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation for its complaints handling failures. This award aligns with our approach to compensation, and is, in our opinion, proportionate to the complaint handling failures we have identified.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. Overall, the landlord had clear, comprehensive and accurate records of the actions it took in this case. This was a strength in its practice, promoting accountability and transparency.