From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Saxon Weald (202341548)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341548

Saxon Weald

28 August 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Multiple repairs in the property.
    2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. He has lived in the 1-bedroomed ground floor flat with his wife since 18 July 2023. The landlord’s records confirm the resident has physical health conditions.
  2. The resident raised several repairs to the landlord on 26 July 2023 including the French doors and shower chair, which records show were completed on 22 August 2023. On 6 November 2023 he reported damp issues in the bathroom. The landlord confirmed it would complete a mould wash and fan upgrade and then assess if further work was needed. The resident said he had asked a “professional to look at the damp” and was staying with friends until it resolved the “hazardous defects.” The landlord inspected the property on 27 November 2023 and confirmed dates for the bathroom repairs, however on 7 December 2023 an Occupational Therapist (OT) visited the property to assess the bathroom. The landlord agreed to refurbish the bathroom to meet the resident’s health needs. The bathroom was refurbished in December 2023 with the damp issues being addressed at the time.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about repairs on 13 November 2023. He raised issues including staining on brickwork, a faulty bathroom fan, and the bathroom flooring. The landlord responded to the complaint on 11 December 2023 when it confirmed it had repaired the issues raised and was refurbishing the bathroom.
  4. The resident reported ASB from the flat above on 11 January 2024 through to 27 February 2024. This included the neighbour allegedly throwing stones, stomping, playing loud music, using drugs, and making racial comments. The landlord opened an ASB case, implemented an action plan, and conducted investigations into the allegations.
  5. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 20 February 2024. He said he was unhappy with the way his ASB case had been managed.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 March 2024. In summary, it said:
    1. it had taken sufficient action in response to previous reports in August 2023.Its investigations in January 2024 could have been more in-depth, but it had used the information available at the time
    2. an action plan was in place to assist resolve the issues
    3. it responded to the allegation of racial comments immediately but said it should have followed this up sooner than it did
    4. it confirmed it was working with the police regarding the drug use and racial comments allegations. It had asked the police for a report following its visit in January 2024, and would send his neighbour a warning letter when the investigations were completed
    5. the neighbour had denied the allegations of noise nuisance, but it would continue with its investigation and advised the resident to download the noise app to capture evidence
    6. on 10 March 2024, the resident had asked to be moved because of the ASB, but as it had not exhausted the ASB process a move would not be considered
  7. The resident escalated his complaint about the repairs and ASB on 18 March 2024, and on 25 March 2024 added new repair issues to the complaint. Shortly after, the resident asked the landlord to pause the investigation to allow him time to recovery from surgery and to seek legal advice. The landlord agreed to the request. When the complaint was reactivated, it provided one complaint response which addressed all the concerns raised.
  8. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 5 September 2024. In summary, it said:
    1. it had correctly defined the ASB reports received, agreed action plans, and worked with multiple agencies to investigate the ASB reported
    2. it had sent the neighbour a warning letter regarding the racial comments and no further reports had been received. After working with the police, it was unable to substantiate the allegations of drug use therefore no further action would be taken
    3. several of the repairs had been reported and completed within its repair timescales. It acknowledged a service failure regarding the replacement of the thermostat which it had addressed with the contractor
    4. a number of the repairs were the resident’s responsibility and apologised if this had not been made clear
    5. the resident had 2 separate complaints for the repairs and ASB and confirmed its approach to combine both complaints into one
  9. The resident referred his complaint to us on 5 September 2024. He said the final complaint was inaccurate and he contested the landlord’s interpretation of events. He said the property was uninhabitable when he moved in, he had incurred financial and emotional anxiety, the repairs were ongoing and there was damp and mould everywhere.
  10. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident asked for the repairs to be completed and the damp and mould to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact the issues have had on the health of him and his wife. We can consider the impact the issues had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This a matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he should seek legal advice.
  2. The resident has provided evidence of contact between himself and the landlord after the final complaint response. This includes a survey report by an external Surveyor, an offer of a move to a hotel to allow the completion of repairs, replacement of carpets and an offer of £2000 compensation. The resident also advised his own Surveyor was surveying his property in August 2025. While the above is noted, we can only assess the issues that were addressed during the complaint process. This is because the landlord must be given the opportunity to provide a formal response to the issues raised. As such, we will only assess the repairs and events that were addressed in the landlord’s final complaint response. We will not consider any events after the 5 September 2024, the date of the final complaint response.

Multiple repairs in the property

  1. The resident’s Tenancy Agreement (TA) states:
    1. resident’s must carry out minor repairs including their own security measures, toilet seats, built in appliances, electrical plugs, and appliances (unless provided by the landlord), shower heads and hoses
    2. resident’s should decorate all internal parts as often as necessary
    3. the resident must keep any garden (including trees) which is part of the property in reasonable order, and not allow any trees or plants to grow as to cause damage to the property or neighbouring property, and not allow hedges in the garden to exceed 2 metres in height
  2. The landlord’s Repair Policy states:
    1. it will attend standard repairs within 28 days
    2. residents are responsible for doorbells, redecoration, floor coverings, their own security measures, and built in appliances such as cookers
  3. The resident raised several repairs from July 2023 to November 2023 which included the seal on the French doors, damp and mould in the bathroom, the bathroom flooring and the replacement of several radiators. The repairs were completed in August 2023 through to December 2023. Following the OT assessment on 7 December 2023, the OT, landlord and resident discussed the resident’s health needs and agreed to refurbish the bathroom. This was completed in December 2023 at which time the damp and mould concerns were addressed. The landlord confirmed the above in its stage 1 complaint response on 11 December 2023. The evidence confirms it responded appropriately and completed the repairs in line with its policy.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 18 March 2024, when he raised new repair issues. The complaint was put on hold (at the resident’s request), and on 17 May 2024 and 31 July 2024 he sent additional repairs to the landlord who agreed to look at all the repairs raised as part of the complaint escalation. It provided its final complaint response on 5 September 2024.
  5. The landlord confirmed when each repair had been reported and completed and if this was in timescale. It confirmed all the repairs except the thermostats on the radiators had been resolved in line with policy. It acknowledged the number of visits made and the lack of work by the contractor was not appropriate and this resulted in a delay in the problem being resolved. The landlord confirmed it had raised the issue with its contractor. This was reasonable. The landlord demonstrated a thorough investigation, and the evidence confirmed it responded in line with its obligations and completed the repairs within its policy.
  6. Included in the list of repairs from the resident were several requests that the landlord confirmed were his responsibility. These included the installation of a cooker extractor fan, the installation of additional sockets, and the trimming of overhanging trees. The landlord explained it was responsible for the maintenance of existing standard components only and apologised if this had not been explained to him. It confirmed garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility, and he should discuss his concerns with the neighbour (one of which was a private resident). It advised him to make contact if he needed assistance and it could arrange a discussion with the neighbour. The landlord’s response to these repairs was appropriate and in line with its repair obligations, resident responsibilities, and TA.
  7. In summary, the landlord’s evidence confirms it responded in line with its policy when in receipt of a report. It highlighted a failing by a contractor regarding the thermostat repair which it addressed with them directly, however while it recognised the need for the repair to be reported again, it confirmed the property continued to have heating and hot water. The landlord offered an apology for this failure. This was reasonable. It confirmed the requests that were the resident’s responsibility and offered reasonable advice regarding the garden maintenance issues. Considering the above, we find no maladministration.
  8. In contact with us in August 2025, the resident advised several of the repairs remain outstanding and the property is full of damp and mould. He also confirmed the landlord has arranged to complete a number of repairs over a 2-week period in October 2025. A recommendation has been made to ensure the landlord is aware of all the outstanding repairs in the property.

Antisocial behaviour (ASB)

  1. The landlord’s ASB Policy states it will investigate incidents of ASB regarding noise nuisance, drug related nuisance (medium risk) and hate motivated incidents (high risk). The ASB procedure states:
    1. the Housing Manager (HM) must contact the complainant for a detailed report and agree an action plan within 24 hours for high-risk cases, 3 days for medium risk cases, and contact the alleged other party within 5 days
    2. there are times when it will not act, including when there is a lack of evidence from victims or witnesses
    3. it will collect evidence in a variety of ways (e.g. interviews, Incident Referral Forms (IRF), professional witnesses), will work in partnership with agencies, and will consider non-legal remedies prior to legal action
  2. It is not our role to establish whether someone has committed ASB, but to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. We will determine whether the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable in view of all the circumstances, considering its own policies and procedures.
  3. The resident reported loud noises from the neighbour’s boiler on 11 January 2024. On 19 January 2024 the landlord told the resident an annual gas service had been completed, and no concerns had been found. The landlord’s response was reasonable. On the same day, it sent the resident an IRF to record the noise nuisance. This was appropriate and in line with policy. The resident returned the IRF on 20 January 2024 which referred to the boiler noise, loud music, vocal outbursts, and alleged drug use. He said 2 PCSOs had visited him on 20 January 2024 and had confirmed the smell of cannabis from the flat above.
  4. The landlord opened an ASB case on 22 January 2024. It confirmed this with the resident and asked him to log all incidents. It contacted the neighbour on 24 January 2024 to discuss the allegations made and contacted the PCSOs regarding their visit. It received confirmation (provided as evidence) they did not smell cannabis as alleged. The landlord’s actions were appropriate and in line with policy.
  5. On 1 February 2024 the resident reported a racial incident to the landlord. It contacted the resident the same day to confirm it had updated the case to reflect the new report. This was in line with policy. It sent the agreed action plan to the resident and explained the importance of collating evidence, as without it, it could not act. It said it would look at non-legal remedies with the aim of keeping both parties in their homes. This was in line with policy and set the resident’s expectations.
  6. The resident raised a complaint regarding the management of his case on 20 February 2024. The landlord tried to arrange a home visit, but the resident declined as he said the neighbour would be able to hear them. The resident said the landlord had not investigated the case thoroughly and had not done anything about the alleged drug use. He asked for a move because of the ASB. The landlord visited the neighbour, spoke to, and sent general letters to surrounding neighbours in the area asking for reports of noise nuisance. This was appropriate and in line with policy.
  7. In its stage 1 response on 12 March 2024, the landlord confirmed the reports made by the resident, the investigations, the partnership working, and the actions it had taken based on the information available at the time. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It demonstrated a thorough investigation and compliance to its policy.
  8. The resident escalated the complaint on 18 March 2024. Following the reactivation of the complaint in June 2024, the resident referred to breathing problems due to “lingering fumes” from the flat above and provided a log of incidents from May 2024 to June 2024. The landlord has provided evidence to confirm it sent further letters to surrounding neighbours, visited the resident and neighbour, and issued her with a warning letter for the alleged racial comments. It liaised with the partnering agencies including Environmental Health, and PCSOs who also completed site visits, general letter drops, and door knocking exercises. The PCSOs confirmed they did not witness any smells or receive any reports from any other neighbours and confirmed there was no evidence to take any further action.
  9. In its final complaint response on 5 September 2024, the landlord advised of its investigations, multi-agency working, and the action it had taken in respect of the reports made. It confirmed it was unable to substantiate the reports, and it was not taking any further action. The landlord confirmed it had followed its process and did not uphold the complaint.
  10. Considering the above, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of ASB. The landlord recorded and responded to the reports of ASB in line with its policy. It set the resident’s expectations regarding the action it could take and the evidence it needed. It communicated with the resident as agreed via the action plan, provided evidence to confirm the investigations it had conducted and the work it completed with relevant agencies to corroborate its findings.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states:
    1. where residents are complaining about ASB, it will be dealt with under the ASB Policy and Procedure
    2. it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5-working days
    3. it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days, both from the date of receipt
    4. if at any stage an extension is needed, the landlord will contact the resident
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
    1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
    3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident
  3. The landlord refers to a complaint made on 13 November 2023 regarding the repairs. We have not seen a copy of the complaint or the landlord’s acknowledgement. We cannot therefore assess if the landlord complied with its policy. This is a record keeping failure. The landlord informed the resident of 2 extensions to the response deadline before it provided its stage 1 response on 11 December 2023, 20 days after it was received. The landlord did communicate with the resident, however the response timescale was not appropriate as it was not in line with the policy or the Code.
  4. The resident made a complaint regarding his ASB case on 20 February 2024, and the landlord acknowledged receipt on 22 February 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. On 5 March 2024, the landlord told the resident it would extend the deadline to 11 March 2024 to allow him time to provide evidence. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 March 2024. While this was just over the deadline proposed, it is unlikely to have caused any serious detriment to the resident, or the outcome of the complaint.
  5. The resident escalated both the ASB and repair complaint on 18 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the repairs complaint on 25 March 2024, but there is no evidence it acknowledged the escalation of the ASB complaint until 8 April 2024. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy or the Code.
  6. On 5 April 2024 the resident told the landlord he was seeking legal advice and asked it to keep the complaint open. The landlord agreed to the request on 8 April 2024, however on 23 April 2024 it confirmed it would close the complaint and open it again when the resident was ready to proceed. The complaint was re-opened on 29 April 2024, however the resident then had to undergo surgery, so it was put on hold until 26 July 2024 when it was reactivated. Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to put the complaint on hold, however it would have been helpful for the landlord to confirm the expected response date. There is no evidence it did this.
  7. On 29 August 2024 the landlord apologised for the delay and told the resident it aimed to respond by the end of the following week. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 5 September 2024. While the holding period is noted, from the date the escalation was requested to the date of the final response, the complaint was active for 75 days. The time taken to respond was therefore not appropriate as it was not in line with policy. The landlord did however address the points raised by the resident and provide its response on each. This was reasonable and demonstrated it had conducted a thorough investigation.
  8. Considering the circumstances of this case, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. While there was no permanent impact on the resident, the overall time taken to respond was not in line with policy. The landlord did not always communicate the delays in a timely manner, and this led to the resident pursuing updates. The landlord acknowledged some of the delays, but not all. Further it did not offer redress for the failures or identify any learning to prevent a recurrence.
  9. An order has been made to pay the resident £100 compensation for the complaint handling failures highlighted in this report. An order has also been made to consider the learning that can be taken from the failures to prevent a recurrence and to ensure the landlord complies with its policy in future cases.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of multiple repairs in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence that it has:
    1. written a letter of apology to the resident which addresses the failures highlighted in this report
    2. paid the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling
      1. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide us with confirmation of the payment
    3. reviewed its handling of this complaint to identify any learning to prevent a recurrence and to ensure it complies with its policy in future cases

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should:
    1. contact the resident to ensure all the outstanding repairs in the property will be addressed in the schedule of work planned for October 2025, and if necessary an updated schedule should be provided
    2. agree a period of monitoring to ensure the repairs completed have been successful in resolving the problems raised