Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202502260)

Decision
Case ID	202502260
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Saffron Housing Trust Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house with her 2 children. The resident and her children have vulnerabilities that are known to the landlord.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

We have found that:
1. The landlord unreasonably delayed resolving the issues with leaks, damp and mould. At the time of our investigation, the evidence suggested that the issue remained outstanding.
2. The landlord’s complaint responses did not answer all elements of the resident’s complaint.

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: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £770 made up as follows: £720 for its handling of her reports of leaks, damp and mould. This includes the £250 offered at stage 1, £170 at stage 2 (for damaged possessions), plus an additional £300 for the failings identified in this report. £50 for its handling of her complaint. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already made. It must pay this directly to the resident and provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.	No later than 07 January 2026
3	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the outstanding issues it identified during the inspection on 10 November 2025 are repaired promptly, and in any event by the due date. Once the works are complete, it should arrange a post–works inspection with the resident. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or The steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 07 January 2026
4	Order to take specific action The landlord must contact the resident to ask if she would like it to open a formal complaint about her concerns regarding the conduct of its contractors.	No later than 07 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of her reports of a leak from the bathroom. She said this had caused issues with damp and mould, damaged the carpets in her daughter’s bedroom, and contributed to her son’s breathing conditions.
2 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It acknowledged that the resident had reported damp and mould problems for “the last 2 years”. It apologised to her for its delays in resolving the issue and explained that these were due to a “poor” bath installation and “ineffective” internal communications. It had arranged for its contractors to replace the underlay, carpet and skirting board in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom. It offered the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It asked the resident to send photographs of her damaged possessions so it could consider reimbursing her.
4 to 9 April 2025	Due to the lack of documentary evidence available, it is unclear when and why the resident escalated her complaint. However, based on the available evidence, it is understood that she escalated her complaint between these dates.
8 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint and said: It confirmed that no damp was present behind the bath or in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom. However, it had installed acrylic shower boards and applied anti-fungal treatments in the bathroom as a preventative measure. Following an inspection of the bedroom carpet, it had determined that a full replacement was not necessary and would arrange a professional clean instead. It had allocated the resident a single point of contact to ensure a smooth coordination of the outstanding repairs (resealing of the bath). It apologised for leaving “spots of paint” on some of the resident’s belongings during the recent remedial works. It proposed to reattend to make good the areas. It awarded the resident an additional £170 compensation (total £420). This was a reimbursement payment, in recognition of her mould-damaged personal possessions.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said this was because the leak was not fully resolved. As an outcome, she wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and award her further compensation.

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	Leaks, damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

In March 2025, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its contractor’s conduct during a repair visit to her property. We have been unable to investigate this matter further. This is due to the lack of documentary evidence available. However, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns within the complaint handling section of this report.
The evidence shows that between May 2023 and December 2024, the resident reported separate issues with damp and mould around the window reveals of the bedrooms, and ventilation in the loft space. She also told us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her temporary move (in April 2025). However, we have seen no evidence that the resident raised these specific issues as a formal complaint. As we have no power to investigate issues which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first, we have not considered this within our assessment. If the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord has dealt with such issues, she may choose to make a further complaint, then refer it to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of the repairs had negatively impacted on her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of an injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

We have not had sight of the landlord’s damp and mould policy that was applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint. However, its “tackling damp and mould together” guidebook says that it will treat reports of damp and mould as a priority.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms that all repairs reported will be assigned one of the following categories and completed within the corresponding timescale:
1. 24 hours for an emergency repair.
2. 7 days for an urgent repair.
3. 28 days for a routine repair.
4. 6 months for planned works.
On 13 September 2023, the resident reported that water was coming through the kitchen ceiling. She believed this was being caused by a faulty shower screen. The landlord initially attended the property within its target timescales on 25 September 2023. However, it did not fully complete the required works (to renew the bath frame and panel) until approximately 6 months later, on 4 March 2024. As the landlord has not provided an explanation as to why there was such an excessive delay, we find that it acted unreasonably during its handling of this repair.
Between March 2024 and January 2025, the resident did not report any further leaks. We therefore cannot find that the landlord acted inappropriately during this period.
On 4 February 2025, the resident reported a damp patch on the kitchen ceiling and water damage to her daughter’s bedroom wall, carpet and skirting board. She suspected that the leak was coming from the shower again. The landlord reviewed the photographs provided by the resident and determined that the bath had been “installed poorly” in March 2024. It consequently raised several repairs on 5 February 2025 to rectify the issue and damage, which was appropriate.
The landlord delivered a dehumidifier to the resident on 7 February 2025. This was a positive action and evidence that it was taking her concerns about damp in the property seriously.
Between 16 February 2025 and 17 March 2025 it is not entirely clear what repairs the landlord undertook. This is because its repair records are lacking. However, the evidence suggests that the resident was unhappy with the standard of the work as she said on 17 March 2025 she felt “ignored and fobbed off”.
On 20 March 2025, the landlord informed the resident that it would aim to complete the outstanding repairs in mid-April and would be looking to arrange temporary accommodation for her family during this period. This was outside of its target timescales. However, we acknowledge that arranging suitable alternative accommodation could understandably delay the progress of a repair.
It was therefore appropriate that, within the landlord’s stage 1 response (on 2 April 2025), it acknowledged the delays and apologised to the resident for falling short of the service standards it aimed to provide. However, we find it confusing that the landlord did not reference the outstanding bathroom works, and the fact it was in the process of arranging temporary accommodation for the resident. This is evidence that its internal communication was poor.
The landlord’s goodwill and compensation policy sets out that it in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused, it will make a maximum compensation payment of £250. We therefore find that the landlord acted in accordance with its policy when it offered the resident this amount at stage 1.
Also at stage 1, the landlord offered to replace the carpet and underlay in the resident’s daughter’s bedroom. However, based on the inspection report from 14 April 2024 and subsequent internal communications, we are satisfied that its decision (within its stage 2 response) to have the carpet “professionally deep cleaned” and not replaced was informed by the recommendations of a suitably qualified contractor. We appreciate the change in proposed works would have been frustrating for the resident. Nevertheless, it was appropriate that the landlord explained its reasoning for changing its decision.
The landlord’s goodwill and compensation policy states that where a service failure has happened, and a resident has experienced damage to their possessions, it will compensate them directly. It was therefore appropriate that at stage 2 (on 8 May 2025), the landlord offered the resident £170 for the damage caused to her furniture and clothing. However, given that the repair to silicone around the bath was still outstanding at this point, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider a further award of compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 21 July 2025, the resident asked the landlord to inspect the work that had been undertaken in the bathroom, as she felt it “was not up to a suitable standard”. The landlord noted that it would arrange for a supervisor to attend the property. However, we have seen no evidence that it that undertook an inspection at this time. This was inappropriate.
In November 2025, the resident told us that the issue with leaks, damp and mould remained outstanding. As such, we asked the landlord to provide us with an update on what action it had taken to progress the repairs since July 2025. The only evidence it provided was that it had undertaken an inspection on 10 November 2025, which indicates a lack of proactivity and/or poor record keeping.
The inspection report from 10 November 2025 stated that the following works were required:
1. Skirting board to be replaced at both ends of the bath.
2. 2 sections of plaster to be renewed at both ends of bath.
3. Shower screen to be renewed or re-fitted to prevent water ingress.
We acknowledge that since September 2023, the landlord undertook several repairs to resolve the leaks, damp and mould. However, the recent inspection shows that it may not have identified the root cause. This is because the issue remains unresolved over 2 years after the resident first reported the repairs.
Taking all the above into account, we find the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused (not including the £170 for damaged possessions) disproportionately low. This is because it does not reflect the impact of all its failures identified and does not reflect the appropriate compensation awards outlined in our remedies guidance.
For the reasons outlined above, and taking account of the positive action taken by the landlord at times, we have made an overall finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay her some additional compensation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It aims to respond within 10 working days from the acknowledgement. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and aims to provide its final response within 20 working days. Where these timescales are not possible, the landlord’s complaints policy states it will not exceed an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024.
The landlord appropriately adhered to its complaint handling timescales at stage 1 of its complaints process.
The evidence suggests that the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 between 4 April 2025 and 9 April 2025. However, we have seen no documentary evidence of this, which is indicative of poor record keeping. It is also at odds with the landlord’s 2025 self-assessment against the Code, which states that it keeps a full record of complaints, including all correspondence with complainants. Despite this, we find that the landlord complied with its complaint handling timescales at stage 2 of its complaints process.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by its own staff, or those acting on its behalf. On 17 March 2025, during a telephone call to discuss the complaint, the resident informed the landlord that she was also unhappy with its contractor’s “inappropriate” conduct. We understand that the events that occurred were upsetting for the resident. It is not, however, within our remit to determine if the conduct of a member of staff did or did not happen as described in a complaint. Instead, it is our role to determine how the landlord responded to the allegations. In this instance we find that the landlord acted inappropriately because:
1. It did not address the matter within its stage 1 response (on 2 April 2025).
2. The resident mentioned her concerns again on 4 April 2025 and it appropriately raised the matter directly with the contractor the following day. However, it failed to provide the resident with an update on its investigation within its stage 2 response (on 8 May 2025).
3. The Code states that it must address all points raised in the complaint and may only exclude complaints where there is a valid reason to do so. Further, the landlord’s complaints policy says that if it decides not to accept a complaint, it’ll explain the reasons why in writing. We have seen no evidence that it did so in this instance.
Responding to complaints about staff conduct allows landlords to provide their version of events, apologise if deemed appropriate, and clarify any misunderstandings. Overall, we find the landlord’s lack of ownership and response to the matter unreasonable.
Taking into account the observations above, we have made a finding of service failure and ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s repair records were disorganised, and on occasions lacked the relevant information. This made it difficult for us to make an assessment on several aspects of the case.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident was generally positive, particularly during the complaints process. However, it is evident that its communication internally contributed to several of the repair delays. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system, and the landlord should therefore consider how it can improve its communication.