Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202411877)

Decision
Case ID	202411877 and 202443739
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Saffron Housing Trust Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 April 2026

Background

1. The resident is autistic and experiences noise sensitivity. He had previously complained about noise from the next-door neighbour. He made this complaint because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his concerns about potential noise and his requests for a sensitive let for the property next-door. He then made a second complaint about disruption connected to his neighbour’s roofing works.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Noise.
   2. Disruption connected to roofing works.
   3. Discrimination.
   4. The 2024 associated complaint.
   5. The 2025 associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Noise.
   2. Disruption connected to roofing works.
   3. Discrimination.
   4. The 2025 associated complaint
4. We have found service failure in the 2024 associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord considered its reasonable adjustments and ASB policies. It considered its duties under the Equalities Act. The landlord acted in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement.
6. The landlord did not acknowledge its11-daystage 1 response delay in 2024.
7. The landlord followed its complaints policy in 2025.

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 2024 complaint handling failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the 2024 complaint handling failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 30 May 2026

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure 202411877

Date	What happened
May 2024	The resident told the landlord he was worried about who would be moving into the vacant property next door and how his noise sensitivity may be triggered. The landlord explained the next-door property would be a ‘general needs let’ which may include families with children.
17 May 2024	The resident made a stage 1 complaint. He said he felt discriminated against. He said he used noise cancelling headphones, but they did not cancel out the family noise of the previous neighbours. He requested quiet tenants move in next door.
21 June 2024	The landlord sent a stage 1 response. It explained the tenant selection process for the next-door property. It offered reasonable adjustments and signposted him to local authority services.
27 June 2024	The resident made a stage 2 complaint. He said the landlord was discriminating against him because of his neurodiversity and he was suffering sensory overload because of the decision to allow a mother and baby to move next door.
23 August 2024	The landlord sent a stage 2 response. It upheld its stage 1 response but said it recognised there was room for improvement on how it responded and supported adults with autism. It agreed to advocate to the local authority disabled facilities grant and refer him to a mediation service. It advised it could fund up to £400 for sound proofing. We understand the resident and landlord agreed this would be used to purchase noise cancelling headphones.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because he was concerned about future noise. He wanted the landlord to agree to a sensitive let for the property next door, which would exclude families and children.

 

The complaint procedure 202443739

Date	What happened
21 January 2025	The resident made a stage 1 complaint. He was unhappy with receiving 1 weeks’ notice for roofing works and felt this did not consider his ADHD/autism. He asked for the works to be postponed.
28 January 2025	The resident asked the contractors not to proceed with installing the scaffolding.
February 2025	The resident was offered temporary accommodation while roof works were ongoing.
20 February 2025	The landlord sent a stage 1 response. It said the roof works were essential property maintenance. It explained it could not guarantee over a 7-day notice of works. It said it believed the reasonable adjustments offered were practical and reasonable.
20 February 2025	All works were completed.
6 March 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He disagreed with the landlord’s position and felt it was not putting reasonable adjustments in place for his ADHD/autism.
8 April 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2. It said it had added the resident’s version of events to his record. It said it accepted “meltdowns and intense reactions” were linked to the resident’s condition but stated it would not tolerate abusive behaviour of any kind.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.

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 resident’s reports of noise
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

8. The landlord investigated noise in previous complaints and assessed this was general household noise with reasonable soundproofing between the properties. This decision has not been investigated here.

What we have investigated

9. The resident told the landlord he was worried about how he would be impacted by noise if a family moved in next door. Evidence shows that before and throughout the complaint, the landlord demonstrated an empathetic approach in line with its policies and a willingness to learn and develop its services.
10. The landlord explored if the next-door property could be offered as a “sensitive let”. However, this was not possible due to the local authority’s allocations policy. It clearly explained this to the resident and shared the policy with him. It explained the high demand for housing and that the next-door property was likely to be allocated to a family due to its size.
11. The landlord followed its policy by seeking to agree reasonable adjustments with the resident. It offered person centred options including:
    1. With the resident’s consent, speaking to the new neighbours about his noise concerns.
    2. A referral to the landlord’s internal health and wellbeing service.
    3. Talking to the resident about additional sound proofing options he could undertake.
    4. Offering to further discuss alternative housing options.
    5. Signposting and support to access external support services and an occupational health assessment.
12. The resident unsuccessfully applied to the local authority disabled facilities grant for additional soundproofing. The landlord advocated on his behalf. This was a reasonable approach which considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and how the landlord could work with all parties to try to understand and provide solutions.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord empathetically and clearly explained different housing options available for adults with disabilities (including autistic adults). It agreed to fund £400 for sound proofing in the resident’s home. It reiterated reasonable adjustments and support previously offered in line with its policies. The landlord took a holistic approach by acknowledging the importance of strong supportive communities in the lives of autistic individuals and offering to refer the resident to its mediation service.
14. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise.

Complaint	Roofing works disruption
Finding	No maladministration

15. In January 2025 the contractor gave the resident 7 days’ notice of scaffolding erection and roofing works to the neighbouring property. This was in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement.
16. In February 2025 the resident requested he be given a months’ notice of any building works. The landlord explained why this may not always be possible and reminded him of his tenancy agreement. However, it noted this request on his account which was a positive step to make personal, reasonable and practical adjustments in line with its policy.
17. The landlord considered the resident’s request to delay the roofing works and explained the works were vital for property maintenance. This was in line with the resident’s obligations to allow access for repairs under his tenancy agreement.
18. The landlord went above and beyond its policies by offering the resident temporary accommodation for the duration of the works. The resident had the choice to make use of the temporary accommodation.
19. We’ve reviewed the allegations the landlord received about the resident’s unacceptable behaviour. The landlord considered if this was in breach of the resident’s tenancy and sent the resident a tenancy warning letter. This considered the resident’s reports that his ‘meltdowns’ were linked to his ADHD/autism and offered reasonable adjustments (e.g. ending phone calls and following up later).
20. The landlord explained that abusive language and threats would be considered under its nuisance/ASB policy and may result in further action. The landlord considered the resident’s needs and balanced these with the needs of his neighbour and its property maintenance work. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the concerns about roof work disturbance.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of discrimination
Finding	No maladministration

21. We cannot find a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010. However, we can consider if a landlord considered its duties under the Equality Act and followed its own related policies and procedures. The resident felt he was being treated unfairly because of his disability. He was dissatisfied with the reasonable adjustments offered.

Noise complaints in 2024

22. The landlord referred to its reasonable adjustment and allocations policies when responding to the resident. It explained, using examples, why it assessed its noise complaint actions as fair and proportionate. It reasonably asked him for additional feedback and explained how it would use this to improve its services.

Complaint of discrimination linked to the roofing works in 2025

23. In its complaint responses, the landlord responded directly to the resident’s complaint of discrimination. It explained its duties under the Equality Act. It referred directly to its reasonable adjustments policy and considered what adjustments it could offer which were reasonable and practical.
24. We have reviewed the resident and landlord communications and all evidence presented to us. We have seen no evidence to support the resident’s claim of landlord discrimination. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was appropriate. It considered its duties under the Equalities Act and demonstrated a willingness to learn. We have therefore found no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the 2024 complaint
Finding	Service failure

25. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are that the landlord:
    1. Had a published complaints policy in line with the Code.
26. Within the 2024 complaint, the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged the stage 1 and 2 complaints within its policy timeframe.
    2. Responded to the stage 1 complaint 11 days outside of the Codes timeframe. While evidence shows the resident and landlord discussed the complaint during this period, we have found service failure because the landlord did not notify the resident of the extension in writing and did not apologise for the delay.
    3. Told the resident it would require a further 20-day extension for the stage 2 response. This was in line with the Code.
    4. Responded to the resident 1 day outside of the 20-day timeline at stage 2. This was a very minor delay and likely did not affect the overall outcome. Evidence shows the landlord and resident discussed the complaint and its outcome during this period.

Complaint	The handling of the 2025 complaint
Finding	No maladministration

27. Within the 2025, complaint the landlord:
    1. Acknowledged the stage 1 and 2 complaints within its policy timeframe.
    2. Requested an extension to the stage 1 complaint in line with the Code and responded within the agreed timeframe.
    3. Responded to the stage 2 complaint in line with its policy.

Learning

28. The landlord demonstrated a willingness to learn in this case. It provided examples of how the resident’s feedback was used within its service.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord kept good records in this case.

Communication

30. We understand the landlord has continued to offer the support listed above to the resident and we encourage both parties to work together to explore housing options which support the resident.