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.

Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202331597)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331597

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

15 September 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to reimburse her for:
    1. Heating costs.
    2. Damaged belongings.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 14 March 2022. The property is a 3 bedroom semi detached house. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a neurological disorder and mental health conditions. The resident was represented by an advocate from a support service when making her complaint to the landlord.
  2. On 22 December 2022, the resident reported damp throughout the property and mould in the hallway. The landlord raised a works order for a damp and mould inspection.
  3. The landlord attended the property on 5 January 2023 but was unable to gain access. On 11 January 2023, it raised a works order to an external contactor to complete the inspection.
  4. The contractor inspected the property on 26 January 2023. It told the landlord it had found “heavy condensation on all windows, revels and doors. No extractor fan in bathroom or kitchen. Some mould growth on window revels & PVC fittings by front door wall”. The landlord raised works orders to the contractor for works to address these issues the same day.
  5. On 14 February 2023, the landlord raised a works order for a second contractor to inspect damp and mould in the hallway of the property. The contractor attended on 4 March 2023. They recommended injecting a chemical damp proof course into the wall. The landlord raised a works order to the contractor on 6 March 2023 to carry this out.
  6. On 2 March 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould in the property. As part of this complaint, she asked for the landlord to reimburse her for belongings stored in the loft and flooring, which had been damaged by damp and mould, and for her gas bill. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 March 2023. It asked the resident to provide supporting evidence so that it could consider her claim for reimbursement.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 March 2023. It declined her request for reimbursement. It said that “although we have not resolved the damp and mould as quickly as we would like, we are in the hands of specialist contractors”. It said the gas bill she had provided did not show excessive usage.
  8. The resident’s advocate contacted the landlord on her behalf on 6 June 2023. They expressed dissatisfaction that:
    1. The landlord had closed the resident’s complaint case when it was aware she was engaging with the advocate to support her in pursuing the complaint.
    2. The landlord had not explained the basis for its position that the resident’s heating bill was not excessive.
    3. The energy performance certificate (EPC) for the property had assumed the roof was insulated, when it was not. This had meant the property and heating costs were misrepresented.
    4. Contents insurance would be unlikely to cover damage caused to the resident’s belongings where it considered it “directly attributable to the poor state of the fabric of the property”.

The landlord logged this as a new complaint.

  1. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 6 July 2023. It said that:
    1. Its heating and repairs managers had reviewed gas bills provided by the resident. Both had determined they were “in line with how much most 3-bed households are paying currently and do not show excess usage”.
    2. It would therefore not consider reimbursing the resident for any heating costs.
    3. The resident had not provided it with any evidence of damage to her belongings.
    4. It had inspected the property and raised works orders to its contractors promptly following the resident’s report of damp and mould. All works were scheduled to be completed within its policy timescales.
    5. Therefore, it had not identified any service failure which would require it to reimburse the resident for damaged belongings.
  2. The resident’s advocate asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 17 October 2023. They said that the resident:
    1. Had been unaware that the property “effectively had very little insulation”. This was not at the level indicated on the property’s EPC and meant that the heating costs were higher than expected.
    2. Was also using electric heaters to supplement the central heating as she could “only really get one room to a comfortable temperature”.
    3. Was “not in a financial position” where she could consider taking out contents insurance.
    4. Had provided receipts for damaged belongings. The landlord had only asked for photographs of the items months later, after she had already disposed of them.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 November 2023. It said that:
    1. It apologised for the delay in its response and offered the resident £50 compensation for this.
    2. The EPC for the property estimated annual energy use of 10,067kwh to heat the property. The bills provided by the resident showed estimated annual use of 4,420kwh. Therefore, they did not show excess usage.
    3. The resident’s boiler had been serviced in February 2023 and was working correctly and efficiently.
    4. It had requested for a ‘senior service engineer’ to contact the resident and arrange a visit to ensure she was using the heating “correctly and efficiently”. If this visit identified any fault on its part, it would reconsider her request for reimbursement.
    5. All works had been completed, or were scheduled to be, within its policy timescales. Therefore, no service failure had occurred to require it to reimburse her for damaged belongings.
    6. It verbally encouraged residents not to store belongings in the lofts of its properties during sign up. However, this was not recorded in any of its written information.
    7. It had identified this as learning from the complaint and offered the resident £100 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
  4. The resident referred her complaint to us on 7 December 2023. She expressed continued dissatisfaction at the landlord’s decision not to reimburse her for costs she felt she had incurred due to its failure to maintain the property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. While the landlord has a damp and mould policy, this did not come into effect until 27 March 2023. By this date, the resident had already made her initial complaint about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould – in which she first requested reimbursement. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for us assess the landlord’s earlier actions against this policy.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will complete routine repairs within 28 days and “planned work” within 6 months. It says that where access cannot be gained for a repair and there are health and safety issues it will “continue to attempt to make a convenient appointment”.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy says that “Where a customer has suffered actual financial loss which is clearly due to Saffron’s unreasonable action or inaction the loss will be recompensed in full.”

Heating costs

  1. The resident’s request for reimbursement of heating costs was based upon the condition of the property. She felt that the lack of insulation and repair issues with the roof had caused her to incur excessive costs.
  2. In its email of 31 March 2023, the landlord said it would not consider reimbursement as the gas bill she had provided did not show “excessive usage”. In the complaint of 6 June 2023, the resident’s advocate questioned how the landlord had made this assessment.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that its repairs and heating managers had reviewed the bill separately. It said they both felt it was in keeping with a typical 3 bedroom property. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of managers with knowledge and experience in this area.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord provided data to support its position. It said that the estimated annual usage on the resident’s gas bill 4,420kWh. It advised this was significantly below the 10,067 kWh estimated on the property’s EPC. We have reviewed both documents and confirmed these figures.
  5. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM) is the government regulator for energy. OFGEM’s website contains a page titled “Average gas and electricity usage”. This lists typical energy usage for various types of property. For a “2-3 bedroom house” containing “2-3 people”, OFGEM lists typical annual gas usage of 11,500 kWh. This is significantly above the estimate on the resident’s bill and further supports the landlord’s position.
  6. It is worth noting that OFGEM’s ‘energy price cap’, which caps the price of gas for domestic users, increased dramatically at the same time the resident moved into the property. For gas this increased from 4.07p per kWh in October 2021 to 14.76p by October 2022. The resident’s gas bill shows she was on a standard variable tariff. This means the increases would have been reflected immediately in her bills. The landlord referenced this in its stage 1 complaint response.
  7. When escalating the resident’s complaint, the advocate also said she had been using electric heaters to supplement the gas central heating. They said this meant her electricity usage was also “very high”. In both of its complaint responses, the landlord said that the property’s boiler had been serviced in February 2023 and “was working correctly and efficiently”. We have seen no evidence to suggest any issues with the heating system in the property.
  8. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that “there shouldn’t be a requirement to supplement your heating through expensive electric heaters”. It said it would arrange for a senior engineer to visit the resident and review the heating in the property. It reasonably said that it would review its position on reimbursement if this identified any faults for which it was responsible.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for heating costs was reasonable. Her gas bill did not evidence excessive usage when compared to estimates for similar properties and the estimate on the property’s own EPC. There is no evidence of maladministration.

Damaged belongings

  1. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the resident first reported damp and mould in the property on 22 December 2022. We have seen no evidence of any reports prior to this date. Therefore, we consider this the point at which the landlord was first notified of the issue.
  2. The landlord attempted to inspect the property on 5 January 2023. This was in keeping with its routine repairs timescale. The landlord was unable to gain access to the property on this date. It relogged the works order for the inspection on 9 January 2023, in keeping with its policy of continuing to attempt access where there were health and safety implications.
  3. On 11 January 2023, the landlord raised a works order for the inspection to a contractor instead. Its records indicate that this was due to it having a lack of availability to carry out the inspection itself. This showed an appropriate commitment to completing the inspection in a timely manner, reflecting the urgency that our Spotlight Report on damp and mould urges.
  4. The landlord’s contractor inspected the property and reported its findings to the landlord on 26 January 2023. This was within a reasonable timeframe of the landlord raising the works order to it. The landlord appropriately raised works orders that same day for the contractor to address identified defects. It also arranged an inspection of the windows and doors in the property. It added them to its “planned upgrade list” as a result.
  5. On 14 February 2023, the landlord raised a works order to a second contractor to inspect the damp and mould in the hallway of the property. It is unclear why the first contractor did not inspect this as part of its earlier visit. The second contractor inspected the property, and provided the landlord with its findings, on 4 March 2023. The landlord raised a works order to it, based upon its recommendations, on 6 March 2023.
  6. The landlord also raised an order for a roofer to inspect the roof on 22 February 2023. This subsequently led to it renewing the entire roof. There is no evidence that the landlord’s first contractor raised any concerns about the roof or recommended such an inspection. It is therefore unclear what prompted this, and we have no evidence to indicate the landlord should reasonably have considered inspecting the roof prior to this.
  7. The resident made her first complaint to the landlord on 2 March 2023. In its stage 1 response to this, the landlord said it had spoken with her on 13 March 2023. On this date she first requested reimbursement for her damaged belongings. It is therefore evident that the resident’s belongings were damaged at some point prior to this date.
  8. In its stage 1 complaint response of 6 July 2023, the landlord said that all works had “been referred to contractors as soon as the report was sent to our Repairs Manager or booked in within 1-2 months of the inspection”. It said it had “not identified a service failure in terms of the time in which the inspection took place following you reporting mould, or the repairs raised following the inspection.”
  9. The evidence, as detailed above, supports this. There is no evidence of any “inaction” or “unreasonable action” by the landlord in the period between the resident first reporting damp and mould and her making her claim for reimbursement for her damaged belongings. It was therefore reasonably in keeping with its policy for it to decline to reimburse her.
  10. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that “we would always advise tenants if items are of financial, or sentimental value, then they should not be stored in the loft.” In its stage 2 response it acknowledged that “whilst we may verbally encourage tenants to not store personal items in the loft spaces of their property, this isn’t formally documented or included in our information packs at the start of the tenancy”.
  11. It said it had taken learning from the complaint and would update the information it provided to new tenants to reflect this. This is in keeping with our dispute resolution principle for landlords to learn from complaint outcomes. It reasonably offered the resident £100 compensation for the fact this information had not been included in writing when it let the property to her. This is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of service failure.
  12. The landlord’s tenancy sign up document does, however, confirm that it discussed “home contents insurance arrangements” with the resident when letting her the property. It referred to this being the most appropriate way for her to claim for her belongings in both of its complaint responses.
  13. Whilst we acknowledge the resident’s advocate’s statement that the resident was “not in a financial position” to take out contents insurance. This does not mean the landlord was obliged to reimburse her for items she could have pursued a claim for under contents insurance.
  14. In summary, there is no evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould prior to her requesting reimbursement for her damaged belongings. Due to this, its decision not to reimburse her was in keeping with its compensation policy. The landlord did identify that its information provided when letting the property did not advise the resident not to store items in the loft, despite this being its position. Its offer of £100 compensation for this represents reasonable redress under the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident for heating costs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in relation to its decision not to reimburse the resident for damaged belongings.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident the £150 compensation offered in its stage 2 complaint response.