Believe Housing Limited (202343170)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343170

Believe Housing Limited

24 April 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

Complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to resolve a damp and mould problem in the resident’s bathroom.
2. Repairs to guttering and a wooden ramp.
3. The associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. He lives in a 1-bedroom bungalow. The landlord was aware that the resident was living with cancer during some of the events concerned in this report.
Following contact with us, the resident made a complaint to the landlord on 6 February 2023. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to a recurring damp and mould problem affecting his bathroom. He advised that he had felt unable to use the bathroom for bathing for the past 2 months because there was black mould.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response from 8 March 2023, it acknowledged failings in its handling of the damp and mould. It said:
1. There was a delay between April and July 2021 in it completing a mould wash in the bathroom.
2. Works to improve ventilation in the bathroom in 2021 had not resolved the mould problem.
3. An inspection in December 2022 found further works were needed.
4. There was a lack of communication with the resident about works which had led to him chasing matters up in January and March 2023.

The landlord provided a schedule of works and the dates of when they would start and likely be completed. It also awarded £500 compensation and said lessons had been learned.

After the repairs were completed in mid-March 2023, the resident reported that there was still a damp problem. The landlord sent a follow up to its initial response on 20 April 2023 which it said was about the resident’s “ongoing [complaint] issues”. This confirmed that further works had been raised in the bathroom and in other areas of the property. It advised that it had not identified leaks within the home and recommended the resident contacted the water company about a mains leak. The landlord said it had asked the insurance team to contact him about a claim for damage to his belongings. It reoffered the £500 compensation.
In December 2023, the resident contacted our Service because he was unhappy that there were outstanding repairs in other areas of his home. This included guttering that had been leaking onto a wooden ramp to his front door. He said he was seeking compensation for the costs he incurred in running a dehumidifier. The landlord confirmed it would escalate the original complaint about the bathroom and would address new issues about the guttering and ramp in a separate complaint.
The landlord responded to the complaint about the guttering and ramp issues on 11 January 2024. It said:
1. The resident’s reports in April 2023 were dealt with as a service request because he raised them during a post inspection for the bathroom repairs.
2. Once raised as a repair, the guttering was repaired slightly outside its required timescale.
3. The ramp was the resident’s responsibility to repair because he had installed it without permission years earlier.

The landlord awarded £30 compensation for not meeting its repair timescale and £10 for missing an appointment.

In the stage 2 response to the bathroom complaint, from 23 January 2024, the landlord said its first response was largely satisfactory. However, it said that the level of compensation was insufficient because it did not account for the fact the resident had felt unable to fully use his bathroom. It awarded a further £400 (£900 in total), which included compensation at £300 for 60 days that the resident was unable to use the bathing facilities.
The resident escalated his complaint about the guttering and ramp issues on 11 February 2024. He said:
1. The leak from the gutter had been ongoing for 10 years and had caused his lawn to be waterlogged. He said this was why he built a ramp.
2. The guttering had not been fixed and was still overflowing.
3. He had not asked for the landlord to replace the ramp, it had offered to do so during an inspection on 19 April 2023. The resident said he felt the landlord had “lied” that he was previously told the ramp was his responsibility to replace.
4. Mould was still affecting the property and had damaged his belongings.

The resident said the matter had caused him lots of stress and inconvenience and had potentially impacted his health.

In the landlord’s final response, dated 28 March 2024, it advised it would be carrying out a diagnostic survey of the guttering in the next 2 weeks. It reiterated that it was unable to agree to replace the ramp but acknowledged the leak from the gutter had caused damage to it. It awarded an additional £100 (£140 in total) compensation for the delays to the guttering repair and £50 towards the cost of replacing the ramp.
After the complaints process ended, the landlord inspected and unblocked the guttering in April 2024. It later installed a drainage system around the property in October 2024. The resident advised us in March 2025 that he no longer needed a ramp and that all repairs relating to damp and mould in his bathroom and other parts of his property had been completed.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he said the landlord misrepresented facts in its response to his complaint about the ramp. He is also dissatisfied with the amount of compensation it awarded because he said it is not proportionate. The resident is seeking more compensation and a meeting with someone senior at the landlord to discuss his experience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In his complaint letter, the resident said his guttering had been leaking for 10 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints within a reasonable time from becoming aware of events that have caused the dissatisfaction. This is because the quality and availability of evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. As such, we will focus only on events from up to 1 year before the resident made his initial complaint.
We recognise that further works were identified after the complaints process ended in April 2024. We have though limited the scope of this investigation, in-line with our process. This is because, in the interest of fairness, a landlord needs an opportunity to investigate and respond to any concerns about it first. The resident would need to then make a new complaint about any specific repairs or other issues that he remains unhappy about. Our investigation will therefore focus on the repair issues the resident complained about and to consider if the landlord completed actions, such as repairs, to put things right in an appropriate time.
The resident said he thinks his living conditions may have caused him to have pneumonia. The courts or a personal injury insurer are the most effective place to consider whether there is a link between damage to someone’s health and the actions or inactions of the landlord. In personal injury claims, both parties usually appoint independent medical experts to provide insights. Consideration will be given in this investigation to the distress and inconvenience that any failings on the landlord’s part have caused.

Damp and mould in bathroom

The landlord has a contractual obligation under the tenancy agreement to carry out repairs to the resident’s property within a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, highlighted the need for “landlords [to] keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.” This is so it can demonstrate that it has met its obligations. In practice, this means that a landlord should be able to evidence what repairs were reported and when, what action it took and when, and whether any further works were required. In this case, the record’s the landlord provided did not include all this detail, such as when the resident reported a repair issue.
While the gaps in the evidence made it more challenging for us to establish a timeline of events, it was not a significant barrier to us reaching a decision in most aspects of this case. It does though mean the landlord has not been able to evidence that it always met its repair obligations. We will highlight any gaps and, where appropriate, any other relevant evidence we have considered, including the resident’s account.
According to the stage 1 response, the resident reported damp and mould in his bathroom in February 2021. When he complained 2 years later, he said the situation had deteriorated to such an extent that he had felt unable to use his bathroom to wash in for 2 months.
In the stage 1 response from March 2023, the landlord acknowledged there had been some avoidable delays in its application of mould treatments in 2021. The records support that after it assessed the property for damp and condensation on 15 February 2021, it completed 2 applications of mould treatment in early April 2021. This was already around 10 working-days more than the landlord’s routine repair timescale of 20 working-days. It then failed to complete the third stage of the treatment, which further contributed to delays. Not completing the treatment may have contributed to the mould returning and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failure.
By July 2021 the landlord had implemented a specific process of dealing with reports of damp and mould. It would first complete a diagnostic survey within 20 working-days. In cases where a cause of the problem was identified, the landlord would carry out repairs “to alleviate the issues relating to damp, mould and condensation”. It would then check with the resident within a month that the problem was resolved. If not, under the damp process, the landlord would complete a more in-depth survey.
The landlord followed its process in completing an in-depth survey on 21 July 2021 because the mould had reoccurred within 6 months. We are though unable to say if it met its timescales for completing the survey because we do not know when the resident reported the problem. The records do show that the landlord identified a probable cause from the extractor fan needing to be upgraded. It also instructed mould treatment to be applied. These works were completed in early August 2021, which was well within its published timescales. We are broadly satisfied that the evidence shows the landlord carried out investigations and repairs in-line with its policies up to this point.
A further diagnostic survey was completed on 20 October 2022. Again, it has not been possible to determine if the landlord met its timescales. We can though see that the landlord followed its process in restarting its investigations, which was reasonable given the fact a year had passed since the last occurrence. This survey identified a possible cause of the damp and mould from the bathroom fan not working. The fan was replaced on 28 October 2022, which again was within the landlord’s appointed repair timescale.
While the landlord took some timely and appropriate action, it is not evident that it did everything its damp and mould process said it should do. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that it followed up with the resident to check if mould was still a problem. The contractor who fitted the fan also reported that the resident had a “really bad mould problem” and submitted photographs. Although replacing the fan may have helped improve the situation, we would expect the landlord to have acted on the report from its contractor. It should have considered carrying out further mould treatment, as it had done before.
The survey also recorded that the resident had cancer. Under the repairs policy, and to meet its legal duties, the landlord should have considered if reasonable adjustments were required. The landlord therefore has not evidenced that it met its obligations and followed its damp process to a reasonable degree. This is a failing which may have contributed to the deterioration in the mould problem and the resident feeling unable to use his bathroom fully.
An in-depth survey was completed on 7 December 2022. Again, we do not know if the landlord met its timescales. The survey identified several possible causes of the damp. It recommended addressing this through relaying of the loft insulation, repointing brickwork where needed, checking for cavity wall insulation, and application of mould treatment.
The Ombudsman recognised in our October 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould that diagnosing the cause of the problem can take time and multiple visits. It was not therefore an indication of a failing that the landlord identified new and different possible causes than previous inspections. However, we would expect in such cases that the landlord would progress any repairs promptly. We recommended in our spotlight report that landlords carry out smaller works, such as mould washes, to improve a resident’s environment whilst larger repairs are being arranged.
Based on the records, we have seen that a contractor attended to apply mould treatment on 25 January 2023. This was already 12 days over the routine timescale. At a second visit on 27 January 2023, the contractor recorded that a second coat of paint was needed. An attempt was then made on 31 January 2023 to carry out mould treatment, but this was unsuccessful because the resident was not at home.
The resident complained shortly afterwards about the treatment and other works being outstanding. We cannot confidently say from the available evidence when the treatment was completed. It seems more likely than not that it was superseded by other work that was later identified. Nevertheless, the time it took to start treating the mould was inappropriate. It is reasonable to assume that the landlord was entirely responsible for this delay, based on the lack of contact records and its acknowledgement it did not communicate well.
The records show that the landlord appointed a sub-contractor to assess the cavity wall insulation and repair the brickwork in the bathroom. It also instructed it to assess the damp proof course. This was completed, according to the repair logs, on 8 February 2023. As this required a specialist, it was reasonable for the landlord to deal with this work under its planned timescale of 40 working-days. Even so, it exceeded this by 2 working-days, which was a shortfall.
Due to the lack of records, we are unable to see when the landlord re-laid the loft insulation, but available evidence indicates it was completed before April 2023. The landlord’s poor record keeping means it cannot demonstrate it met its repair timescales for addressing this matter.
According to the damp process, the landlord would offer to temporarily rehouse a resident based on the level of disruption posed by any necessary repairs. It said it would aim to provide a minimum of 2 weeks’ notice to allow time for the resident to prepare. The available records show that, prior to the works confirmed in the stage 1 response starting, the landlord offered to temporarily rehouse the resident on 16 February 2023. This was appropriate given the extent of the work, which meant he would be without use of some or all of the bathroom facilities. It was also more than 4 weeks before the works were due to start which was in-line with the standards of the damp process.
When a service failure is identified, the landlord’s complaints policy stated that it is “encouraged to be honest and recognise where we may have made a mistake and focus on putting things right”. This approach is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Appropriate remedies include apologies, arranging repairs, and paying compensation. Like the Code, the landlord’s complaints policy recognised that a complaint is an opportunity to learn.
The landlord took some appropriate actions to put right the issues raised via the resident’s complaint. It gave some explanations of what went wrong, apologised, provided a schedule for the repairs, took learning, and offered compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy said it may award compensation for distress and inconvenience based on the levels the Ombudsman recommends in our guidance on remedies. The amount it awarded at £500 was reasonable, at that time. It was proportionate for the level of disruption that the resident experienced, particularly over the 4 months since he reported the recurrence of the mould.
The repairs confirmed in the landlord’s response were due to be completed between 13 and 17 March 2023 and included:
1. Removing the plaster in the bathroom.
2. Applying a damp proof course.
3. Replacing the bathroom suite.

It explained that the timescale could be extended because it was dependent on what was found when the plaster was removed. The repair logs show that the work was completed within the given timeframe. This was appropriate to meet its repair obligations and it is a requirement of the Code to complete all actions proposed to put right a complaint.

The resident contacted the landlord on 29 March 2023 because he was unhappy that the damp was unresolved. It is unclear from the evidence what specific issue he was reporting at that time. We do know that the landlord instructed a plumber to inspect for leaks inside the resident’s home on 17 April 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s report. However, the time it took, at around 10 working-days, was unreasonable given the issues the resident had been experiencing up to that point.
The landlord also completed a post inspection on 19 April 2023 and followed this up with a letter the following day. This was presented as an add-on to the stage 1 response, which is something we will comment more on later in this report. It confirmed that further works would be completed to the bathroom, including redecoration and replacing the floor. The resident was advised these works would be completed by 25 April 2023. According to the repair logs, the landlord finished the work 2 working-days over schedule. This was a shortfall that may have been avoided because the records indicate the delay was partly due to a contractor not having the relevant materials.
In the follow up response, the landlord advised there was no evidence of an internal leak. It said it had shared its findings with the water company, although we cannot confirm that it did from the records seen. Based on what was known at the time, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It had satisfied itself that there was no evidence of an internal leak. The landlord is not usually responsible for leaks thought to be from a mains pipe, so it was appropriate in the circumstances to involve the water company. We recognise, in hindsight, that the landlord later identified leaks from the bath and toilet in late July 2023. However, this is not a clear indication that it had failed previously to investigate the resident’s concerns of a possible new or ongoing leak in the bathroom. We do though recognise this caused further inconvenience to the resident.
When the resident contacted us again in December 2023, he said he was seeking for repairs that were outstanding to be completed and to be compensated for costs he incurred for running a dehumidifier. In the stage 2 response from January 2024, the landlord explained that the repairs he referred to were new and would be responded to under a separate complaint. According to the records, none of the original repairs identified either prior to or as part of the stage 1 response, including the follow up, were still open by this point. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to separate any new issues that have arisen. This is in-line with the Code.
The landlord advised that the stage 1 response addressed the issues the resident had complained about reasonably. However, it decided to increase the compensation to account for the fact the resident had felt unable to fully use his bathroom. The compensation policy allowed for compensation for cases where there was a “total loss” of the use of the bathroom. This was calculated at 25% of the rent paid for the period the bathroom was out of use, excluding the first 48 hours.
While the resident had not experienced total loss, it was appropriate for the landlord to exercise its discretion and to consider compensating him for not using the bathing facilities. This is especially so given his known vulnerabilities. The amount the landlord awarded was around 45% of the resident’s weekly rent (which at the time was £78.13), which was above the amount its compensation policy said it may award. It also gave a further £100 compensation, bringing the total amount to £900.
While the landlord largely took some appropriate actions to resolve the resident’s complaint, we have found that there were further failings in our investigation. The resident also asked in his escalation to stage 2, to be reimbursed for increased costs he incurred from running a dehumidifier. The landlord has not addressed this aspect in its stage 2 response. It has therefore not taken sufficient steps to put right the impact of its failings, so we have made a finding of service failure.

Guttering and ramp

According to the stage 1 response, dated 11 January 2024, the resident first reported a fault with his guttering damaging his ramp on 19 April 2023. This was at an inspection to discuss his concerns about the standard of the repairs in the bathroom. The landlord said it dealt with the resident’s report as a service request because it had not been raised as a repair issue prior to the visit. It was appropriate for the landlord to handle the resident’s reports of a new repair as a service request and not as a complaint. This is because both the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require it to distinguish between when a resident is asking for a service and when they are expressing dissatisfaction. Even so, the landlord was still required to progress the resident’s request for repairs to his guttering and ramp in-line with its repair policy and timescales.
The landlord advised that it attempted to schedule an inspection with the resident in June and July 2023 but had not been successful in contacting him. The records support this. It acknowledged that an appointment, due to go ahead on 26 July 2023, was missed because of a scheduling error. This contributed to a delay in the guttering and ramp being assessed on 18 August 2023, of over 80 working-days. This exceeded its timescales for pre-inspecting a repair, where needed, within 20 working-days of a report. It is reasonable to assume that the landlord would have arranged an inspection sooner had it been able to make contact with the resident. Therefore, we cannot hold the landlord entirely responsible for the delays.
Although the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to progress the repairs when reported, it did appropriately recognise that it exceeded its planned repair timescales of 40 working-days for the guttering repair. This was completed on 28 September 2023, over 100 working-days after it was reported. However, as it did not recognise its initial failure, the landlord failed to offer an appropriate remedy. Its award of £30 for the delay was not proportionate.
The resident reported in his escalation that the guttering was still leaking in the same place. In the stage 2 response from March 2024, the landlord confirmed it had arranged for a diagnostic survey of the guttering. It was appropriate to step-up its investigation because the initial repair had not addressed the problem. The landlord confirmed the appointment had been scheduled for 12 April 2024. It also increased its offer of compensation to £100 for the delays relating to the guttering. While it was appropriate to offer more compensation, the landlord again failed to recognise its earlier failure to deal with the resident’s reports in-line with its repairs policy. The amount it awarded, therefore, was not consistent with the awards the landlord’s compensation policy states it may pay and which we would expect.
Regarding the ramp, the landlord said the resident was advised at the inspection that it was not responsible for replacing it. It said this was because he had installed it without permission. The landlord’s response was consistent with the tenancy agreement and its policy on adaptations, which state the resident is required to seek approval beforehand. Appropriately, the landlord explained the process the resident was required to follow to apply for an adaptation on medical grounds.
In his escalation request in February 2024, the resident advised that he disagreed with the landlord’s account that he was told the ramp would not be replaced. The landlord did not address his challenge specifically in the final response. The Code requires that all aspects of a complaint are addressed, so it was a failing that the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns.
There are no records of what was discussed at the face-to-face inspections. The only records we have are the follow-up letter in April 2023 and repair logs showing that works were raised. As such, we are unable to know what was discussed. What we can say is that it is clear the landlord was initially considering replacing the ramp. We do not know exactly when the landlord decided it would not replace the ramp or if this was communicated to the resident. The landlord should have recorded its findings and decisions on all issues the resident reported. It is a failing that it did not do this. The Ombudsman though finds that the landlord’s compensation of £50 was an appropriate amount to reflect the disappointment caused.
The resident advised that he no longer requires a ramp because the problem with his lawn being waterlogged has been addressed by the drainage system. However, he advised that he believes it may have resolved the damp problem in his home if the landlord had acted quicker. While we understand his views, we are unable to make this connection. As explained earlier, the causes of damp and mould can be complex and, in some cases, can have multiple causes. Though we do agree that the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports about the guttering and ramp in a reasonable time. As the landlord has not acknowledged the extent of its failure, this aspect remains unresolved. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and have ordered it to pay further compensation.

Associated complaints

The landlord’s compensation policy at the time aligned with the timescales prescribed in the Code. At stage 1, landlords are required to respond within 10 working–days of the date of acknowledging and logging the complaint. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s compensation policy at the time required residents to explain why they were unhappy with the initial response within 10 working-days. Either way, the landlord would write to the resident informing it of its decision and their right to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman.
At stage 1 of the resident’s first complaint in February 2023, the landlord took 22 working-days to respond. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that it informed the resident that there would be a delay in its response. This was a departure from the required standards.
The resident then reported on 29 March 2023 that he was unhappy with the standard of the repairs. It is evident that the landlord considered this to be a continuation of his original complaint. Therefore, the landlord should have escalated the complaint to stage 2. Instead, it sent a second stage 1 response on 19 April 2023. While this was sent within an appropriate timeframe, because it took 14 working-days, it was a deviation from both the landlord’s process and the Code. It also failed to repeat information contained in the initial stage 1 response about how to escalate the complaint or to refer to the Ombudsman.
After we referred the resident’s escalation request and new complaint issues to the landlord in December 2023, it contacted him to agree an extension to the timescales. This was appropriate and in-line with the process where more time was needed to investigate. The request was reasonable because the time the response was due fell over the Christmas period. It then met the extended timescales for both complaint responses, which was appropriate.
There was a delay in escalating the resident’s second complaint on 11 February 2024. The landlord then exceeded the stage 2 timescale by around 10 working-days. This is a failing that the landlord has not acknowledged.
In view of the above, we have made a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to take actions to put things right.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to resolve a damp and mould problem in the resident’s bathroom.
2. Repairs to guttering and a wooden ramp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is to provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed the following actions:
1. Apologised to the resident for the additional failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1600 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1000 for the failings relating to damp and mould in the bathroom.
  2. £300 for the failings relating to the guttering and ramps repairs.
  3. £300 for the complaint handling failings.

If the landlord has already paid the compensation of £1090 offered during the complaints processes, this may be deducted, leaving £510 to pay.

Provide a response to the resident’s request to be reimbursed for the cost of running a dehumidifier.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider the resident’s request to share his experiences with someone senior. Alternatively, it could consider inviting him to any resident focus groups or meetings.