Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202321028)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321028

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

7 May 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.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about:
   1. Mould in the property
   2. The condition of the kitchen

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He lives in a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
3. For context regarding the complaint, the landlord completed a Total Property Maintenance (TPM) survey on the resident’s property in 2020. The survey confirmed work which included:

a. blocking air vents in the bedrooms, living room, and bathroom

b. upgrading the kitchen

4. In January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said that he was experiencing mould in his property, the air vents were allowing cold air to enter, and his kitchen was in disrepair and needed replacing. The landlord inspected the property on 2 February 2023 and raised orders for repairs to be completed.
5. On 27 March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He said the landlord had insulated the wall cavities to help address the mould. He believed the fascia boards were loose on the external wall which contributed to the mould he was experiencing. He did not know why every room had air bricks as cold air could get in. He reiterated that his kitchen was in poor condition.
6. On 14 April 2023 the landlord sent a stage 1 response. It said:
   1. the kitchen upgrade was on the planned work list, with the aim of surveying the kitchen in May 2023 and then providing a timeline for the upgrade
   2. a job was raised to block the air vents
   3. it apologised for the poor level of service and the inconvenience caused
7. The resident responded on 24 May 2023, as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s postponement of surveying the kitchen until September 2023. He noted that work remained outstanding on the air vents. He requested to escalate the complaint. The landlord responded on 30 May 2023 and confirmed that the kitchen survey was booked for 26 June 2023 and the air vents on 6 September 2023. It apologised for the confusion.
8. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 17 July 2023 and stated:
   1. its Total Property Maintenance (TPM) report in 2020 made a referral for a kitchen upgrade, as it failed the inspection on the basis that it was inadequate for modern appliances, the work top was worn and it was not practical to repair
   2. it did not update the resident about the kitchen upgrade
   3. advice was given to heat and ventilate together with proposed works to improve the heat retention in the property
   4. the inspector viewed the mould as ‘minor’ and said that cosmetic cleaning would suffice
   5. the removal of the air bricks was scheduled for 6 September 2023
   6. it acknowledged failures in handling the resident’s reports and delays in responding to the complaint. It offered £75 for each identified failure, totalling £450 in compensation
9. The resident emailed us on 28 September 2023 and said he was pleased the landlord had acknowledged its failures. He still wanted us to investigate parts of his complaint that he remained unhappy with, particularly that his kitchen had been in poor condition for 10 years and that he regularly cleaned mould to prevent it from worsening. In April 2025 the landlord and the resident confirmed that the air bricks had been blocked up in September 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. It is not disputed that the resident has reported issues concerning his kitchen and the mould for several years. We expect residents to submit formal complaints to the landlord within a reasonable timeframe after becoming aware of the issue. However, in this case, the landlord’s response to the complaint references surveys conducted in 2020 that pertain to the matters raised. For completeness, we have assessed the landlord’s handling of the issues dating back to 2020.
11. The landlord’s internal complaints procedure investigated and responded to several issues. However, the resident subsequently confirmed that he was unhappy with the landlord’s response about the kitchen and the mould in the property. Therefore, we have only considered the issues defined above outstanding and that the other complaint issues have been resolved.

Mould in the property

12. The landlord has confirmed that the 2020 TPM survey identified mould growth in the upper sections of the walls and recommended blocking the air vents, as they hindered the property’s ability to ‘breathe.’ Additionally, the landlord noted in its stage 2 response that the resident submitted another report regarding the mould issue in November 2021, which was inspected but not adequately followed up.
13. The 2020 inspection revealed that mould growth was most pronounced near the upper walls. It emphasised the importance of maintaining an indoor temperature of 18 degrees Celsius or higher to prevent mould growth. It was also noted that the vents needed to be removed because their routing through the cavity walls prevented proper airflow. The resident said that heating the property had been difficult, mainly due to cold draughts from the vents. It remains unclear why the vents were not removed at that time, resulting in further reports and a complaint from the resident.
14. The resident made a further report of mould in his property on 23 January 2023. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when it receives a report, the landlord will work with the resident to resolve the issue. The landlord’s damp and mould policy is silent on response times; however, its repairs policy confirms that all repairs will be assigned one of four timescales:
    1. 24 hours – emergency
    2. 7 days – urgent
    3. 28 days – routine
    4. 6 months – planned works
15. The landlord responded appropriately by sending an operative the same day. It is unclear whether the resident was notified of the appointment, which was recorded as having no access and the operative leaving a calling card. An inspection went ahead on 2 February 2023, 8 working days after the initial report which was reasonable.
16. The February 2023 inspection identified the same removal of the air vents as noted in the 2020 TPM survey. The air vents were removed on 6 September 2023, 150 working days after the inspection conducted in February 2023 and 3 years after their identification for removal in the 2020 TPM survey. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, this represents a considerable delay that exceeds the stipulated 28 working-day limit for routine repairs. The delay in removing the air vents extended the resident’s exposure to cold draughts.
17. The inspection also identified the necessity of addressing the cavity wall insulation to maintain a controlled temperature within the property and prevent the development of mould. The landlord confirmed the completion of the cavity wall insulation on 28 February 2023, in accordance with the stipulated 28-working-day timeframe for routine repairs.
18. As part of his complaint, the resident reported concerns that the fascia boards ran ‘loosely’ over the top of the external wall, which he thought contributed to the mould found at the top of his walls. An inspection was booked to assess the fascia on 7 June 2023. Following the inspection, an order was placed to realign the fascia, which was completed on 12 July 2023. From reporting the issue on 27 March 2023, until the completion of the repair in July 2023, the landlord took 73 working days to complete, which far exceeded the landlord’s 28-day response time for routine repairs, which was a failure.
19. We have found maladministration in how the landlord addressed the resident’s complaints about mould. Following the compensation offers made by the landlord in its stage 2 response, we have ordered the landlord to pay £150 compensation. This recognises the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairing the fascia and removing the airbricks, which the resident indicated were contributing to the issues he faced in his property.
20. The landlord has confirmed that since the completion of the work, the resident has not reported any further mould, so we have made no additional orders in this regard.

Condition of the kitchen

21. The landlord confirmed that the TPM survey in 2020 found the kitchen acceptable at the time. However, the kitchen was not suitable for modern appliances. The worktops were worn, and due to its age and the difficulty of repairs, it was recommended that the kitchen be upgraded. A lack of communication regarding the upgrade followed this inspection, leading the resident to submit more reports in 2021 and his subsequent complaint in 2023.
22. On 23 January 2023, the resident submitted an additional report about the disrepair of the kitchen. The landlord acknowledged that the kitchen was on its planned works programme and had scheduled a survey for May 2023. There was some misunderstanding regarding a scheduled appointment on 25 May 2023, which the resident reported as cancelled and, consequently, did not anticipate a surveyor arriving that day. This miscommunication resulted in a delay in the completion of the kitchen survey. The landlord has not provided evidence that its communication regarding the appointment was sufficiently clear.
23. The landlord’s repairs policy states that kitchens are expected to meet a decent standard which should be reviewed during routine surveys, such as Total Property Maintenance (TPM) inspections, which typically occur every 6 years.
24. In its stage 2 response, the landlord noted that a 2020 TPM survey identified the need to upgrade the kitchen. Yet, the landlord neither acted on this information nor informed the resident suitably. Furthermore, the landlord confirmed that the resident had reported the kitchen’s poor condition later in 2021, which also went unaddressed. These repeated failures led to distress and inconvenience for the resident.
25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised that it had information from the 2020 TPM survey, which it confirmed ‘clearly includes a referral for a kitchen upgrade’ due to its inadequacy for modern appliances. Additionally, the landlord admitted that the resident made a further report about the kitchen’s condition in November 2021, but this ‘did not result in any tangible resolution for an effective schedule of works to be set and confirmed’.
26. Therefore, we have evidence which confirms the landlord was aware the kitchen needed to be upgraded as early as 2020, following the 2020 TPM survey and that it failed to act on the resident’s further report in 2021. The kitchen upgrade was completed in August 2023, 3 years after the initial TPM survey. This delay, despite multiple indicators and a complaint, is a failure. The landlord’s repairs policy expects kitchens to meet a decent standard and be reviewed every 6 years. The evidence shows that despite this policy, action was not taken promptly or effectively. The issue was only resolved after significant delays and after the resident experienced prolonged inconvenience.
27. The landlord acknowledged that it had not provided the resident with the necessary information and missed another chance in 2021 to implement the upgrade. The landlord apologised and offered £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. Considering the lengthy period the resident endured an insufficient kitchen and the frustration stemming from the landlord’s ongoing inaction, the compensation was inadequate. Further, the landlord failed to explain how it would avoid similar mistakes in the future to show learning from the complaint.
28. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen upgrade. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by not upgrading his kitchen over a prolonged period. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £75. If this has already been paid, it should be deducted from the total amount (£225).

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Mould in the property
    2. The condition of the kitchen

Orders

30. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence it has:
    1. written to the resident to apologise for the failures we have identified
    2. paid the resident £450 made up of:
       1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused because of the landlord’s handling of the kitchen upgrade (£225 if the £75 as offered at stage 2 was already paid)
       2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing work affecting the condition of the resident’s property
       3. paid the money directly to the resident
    3. reviewed its process for communicating with residents about its planned work programme, including timescales for works to start and complete, and identify learning from this complaint