Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202500059)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202500059 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Saffron Housing Trust Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
17 October 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives in a 2-bedroom bungalow. She is disabled and has mental health issues. She lives in the property with her husband and son, who is autistic. The resident complained that her neighbour harassed her family. She explained the neighbour was verbally abusive and allowed their dog off the lead, causing fear and upset to her son.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
- There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
- There were delays in responding to the resident and to the evidence she submitted.
- The landlord failed to act consistently on ASB reports, particularly regarding the neighbour’s dog, despite acknowledging a likely breach of a tenancy.
- The landlord closed the ASB case prematurely.
Complaint handling
- There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process.
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:
|
No later than 14 November 2025 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £375 made up as follows:
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 14 November 2025 |
|
3 |
Action plan The landlord must create a formal action plan setting out the steps it will take to address the resident’s concerns about the neighbour. It must also set out its position on the garden boundary. It must share the action plan with both the resident and the Service. |
No later than 14 November 2025 |
Recommendation
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendation |
|
The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
16 October 2024 |
The resident made a formal complaint. She said the landlord did not properly manage the risk of the neighbour’s dog being off its lead. She felt the landlord had ignored evidence and failed to protect her household. The landlord responded the same day. It said they had taken proportionate action against the neighbour and would now close the ASB case. |
|
6 December 2024 |
The resident complained again. She said the landlord’s staff were rude and dismissive about her concerns. She was upset that the landlord had closed the case, as her neighbour was still harassing and intimidating her. She said the neighbour was breaking the landlord’s rules, and the landlord was not doing enough to stop it. She said she found the situation very distressing. |
|
20 January 2025 |
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1. It said it had used the tools available to try to resolve the problems. It believed it had followed its policy correctly when it closed the case and would monitor the situation. |
|
24 January 2025 |
The resident asked to escalate the complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication and said she had not received an update, even though more ASB had happened. She felt the landlord’s suggestions, like mediation, would not work and that the neighbour faced no consequences. She said the neighbour had admitted to the police that they had harassed her, and she did not understand why the landlord had closed the case while problems continued. She also said the landlord ignored the evidence she had given. She wanted to know what action the landlord had taken after the neighbour agreed to follow certain rules. The resident also wanted the landlord to address the garden boundary between her and her neighbour. |
|
12 March 2025 |
The landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It said the action taken against the neighbour followed its policy and government guidance. It also said it could not place extra rules on the neighbour’s dog. The landlord agreed to review the case to see if more safeguarding measures could be implemented. The landlord offered £75 compensation for its service failings. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
In her referral to us, the resident said the situation had affected her family’s mental health and stopped them from using the garden. She explained that her son was scared of the neighbour’s dog, which had chased him into the road. She said that even though the Police gave the neighbour a community resolution for harassment in January 2025, the landlord had not helped or protected her family. She was also upset that the landlord had not put in or enforced the garden boundary, as she said it had promised in August 2024. The resident continues to report ASB. |
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 |
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- This report does not look into the ASB itself. Instead, we assess how the landlord responded to the reports, based on its own policies and what we think is fair in the circumstances.
- In July 2024, the landlord interviewed the resident after she reported harassment, as well as the neighbour’s dog being off its lead, entering her garden and chasing her son. After the interview, the landlord followed its ASB policy by creating an action plan, doing a risk assessment, and visiting both the resident and the neighbour within a reasonable time.
- After visiting the neighbour, the landlord’s records suggest that it sent them a tenancy warning letter. Although this was a suitable early step, we have seen no evidence of this letter. It is therefore unclear what the landlord agreed with the neighbour or what it warned them about. This suggests issues with the landlord’s record-keeping. We have recommended that the landlord review this.
- The resident kept raising the issue of the dog being off its lead, saying it caused her son distress. She said the landlord had told the neighbour to keep the dog on a lead. And the landlord confirmed it had reminded the neighbour about this. However, there is no record of any reminders. This is another record-keeping issue.
- The resident felt the landlord had not acted on her reports, even though she had provided it with evidence that she said showed that the neighbour was not following the rules. In September 2024, the landlord asked if they could “start afresh” with the evidence regarding the dog being off its lead. This was inappropriate as the landlord should have considered the evidence already provided. There were also delays in responding to the resident’s submissions, which contributed to her frustration.
- In October 2024, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s evidence showed the neighbour had likely breached their warning letter. However, the landlord chose not to speak to the neighbour, as it thought this might make things worse. The resident kept reporting problems and told the landlord she had made a harassment complaint about the neighbour to the police.
- The landlord did not act on this. Instead, it told her to contact the police about the dog and said there was not enough evidence that it was aggressive. This frustrated the resident, who explained the problem was the dog being off its lead and the fear it caused her family, especially her son. The landlord’s response also contradicted its earlier statement that the neighbour had likely breached their tenancy warning.
- The landlord said it planned to close the ASB case. However, since the problems were still happening and the police were investigating harassment, it is unclear why the landlord made this decision. This left the resident feeling unsupported. It also did not appear to provide any meaningful response to her concerns about the garden boundary between her and her neighbour. This was an issue the resident raised regularly.
- Although there was some joint working with the police, the resident told the landlord in January 2025 that they had taken action against the neighbour for harassment through a community resolution. However, there is no evidence that the landlord acted on this or considered further steps, such as contacting the police to confirm what action they had taken. This goes against its policy, which says it will share information with other agencies like the police. In this case, it would have been reasonable to do so.
- Initially, the landlord took reasonable steps to try to resolve the situation. It also offered options like mediation and a possible move. However, even after receiving more reports and evidence, the landlord did not consider other solutions. For example, a case note from 19 December 2024 said a good neighbour agreement could be the next step, but there is no sign this was followed up on, and it is unclear why.
- Instead of trying to solve the problem, the landlord seemed more focused on closing the case. This showed it did not fully understand how the situation was affecting the household. Overall, its actions demonstrated that it did not give enough consideration to the household’s needs, vulnerabilities, or disabilities, contrary to its own policy.
- In its final response, the landlord offered £75 compensation for service failings. This amount was not enough to put things right, considering the effect on the resident. She explained that the situation had affected her family’s well-being and made her lose trust in the landlord.
- We have awarded the resident a further £250 compensation. This follows our remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £100 for failings that have adversely affected the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to create an action plan showing how it will respond to the resident’s ongoing reports of ASB, which must include a response to the resident’s boundary concerns.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The resident made a formal complaint on 16 October 2024. However, the landlord did not treat it as a complaint and did not provide a formal response.
- The resident made another formal complaint on 6 December 2024. The landlord responded on 6 January 2025, saying it needed more time. However, this request came after its usual 10 working day deadline. The landlord provided its full response on 20 January 2025, 29 working days later. This was an unreasonable delay and contrary to its policy.
- The landlord asked for more time to respond at stage 2. It issued its final response on 12 March 2025, 34 working days after the resident asked to escalate the complaint. This was outside of its 20-working day stage 2 timescales.
- Although the delays were not significant, they likely caused frustration for the resident. And the landlord did not recognise or apologise for them in either of its formal responses.
- We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to recognise the frustration caused by its complaint handling delays.
Learning
- The landlord did well by interviewing the resident, carrying out a risk assessment and visiting the neighbour.
- The landlord did well by using some of the tools available to it.
- The landlord should avoid focusing solely on closing cases and prioritise resolving the underlying issues.
- When evidence suggests a breach of a tenancy warning, landlords should act or clearly explain why no action is being taken.
- The landlord should recognise and apologise for delays to show accountability and empathy.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord should always document key actions, especially when it says it has taken specific action to address an issue.
Communication
- The landlord should ensure timely responses to resident reports. This is essential in maintaining trust.