Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202431509)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431509

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

13 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated October 2018. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom bungalow. The resident is autistic, has ADHD and suffers from anxiety and depression. They also have physical disabilities. The landlord has these vulnerabilities on record. It also has reasonable adjustments in place for a female to be present during home visits.
The resident emailed the landlord to report ASB from their neighbours on 10 August 2024. They reported that their neighbour had accosted them and spoken to them aggressively over a car parking issue. The landlord emailed the resident about this on 16 August 2024.
On 20 August 2024 the resident reported another incident of ASB. They reported that another member of that neighbour’s household had harassed them. The resident said that they had reported this to the police. They said had the landlord acted urgently when they reported the first incident of ASB, a second incident was unlikely to have occurred.
Between 20 August 2024 and 26 September 2024, the landlord and resident exchanged several emails. The resident said they wanted to make a complaint on 21 and 22 August 2024 and continued to show their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the ASB throughout. During this time the landlord:
1. opened an ASB case on 20 August 2024.
2. spoke with the neighbour about the first incident on 20 August 2024.
3. liaised with the police on 29 and 30 August 2024.
4. spoke with the neighbour again on 30 August 2024.
5. arranged for a female officer to visit the resident on 4 September 2024.
6. wrote to the neighbour about considerate parking on 13 September 2024 and spoke to them about this on 18 September 2024.
7. closed the ASB case on 26 September 2024 and emailed the resident to inform them of this.
The resident reported a further incident of ASB about the neighbouring property on 28 September 2024. The landlord opened a new ASB case on 30 September 2024 and emailed the resident about this. It completed a risk assessment, and an action plan the same day. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 September 2024 and continued to show their dissatisfaction about the way it had handled their reports of ASB. They were dissatisfied because the landlord had asked them to repeat the details from the third report of ASB. The landlord raised a complaint on 30 September 2024.
The landlord liaised with the police on 30 September and 1 October 2024. On 1 October 2024 it emailed the resident and informed them of this. It said it had arranged for a female officer to visit the resident on 8 October 2024.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 3 October 2024. It outlined the resident’s issues, what they wanted to resolve the complaint and the action it had taken. The landlord said:
1. it was satisfied that it had appropriately investigated the ASB case regarding their neighbours and it was correctly closed.
2. it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 October 2024 as they remained unhappy with how it had handled their ASB case. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint the same day. The landlord spoke to the neighbour on 11 October 2024. It sent a letter to them about considerate parking the same day.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 November 2024. It outlined the resident’s concerns, what they wanted to resolve the complaint and the action it had taken. The landlord said:
1. it did not speak to a witness of the first incident as it took the resident’s complaint at face value and started to address issues as a priority.
2. it concluded that it had taken appropriate action in investigating the resident’s complaint in accordance with its ASB policies and procedures. Therefore, it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident referred their complaint to the Ombudsman on 18 November 2024 as they remained unhappy with the way the landlord had handled their reports of ASB. They said the issues had caused them anxiety. To resolve their complaint, they said that they wanted a letter or apology from the landlord. Additionally, the resident said they wanted the landlord to review its ASB procedures and ensure their neighbours did not intimidate or harass other residents in future. They also said they wanted the landlord to discipline a named employee and force them to write a letter of apology.
The landlord closed the second ASB case on 2 December 2024 as the resident had reported no further incidents of ASB.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

As part of their complaint, the resident said that the issues exacerbated their existing health conditions. In this case we are unable to determine the cause of their condition or the liability for this. These matters are better suited to consideration as a personal injury claim and if the resident wishes to pursue this concern, they may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident said that they wanted the landlord to hold certain staff members to account for their handling of their ASB case. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
When investigating a complaint about a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman would make a determination and any associated orders and recommendations against the landlord rather than the individual.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB)

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. What the Ombudsman can assess is how a landlord has dealt with the reports it has received and whether it had followed proper procedures and followed good practice, taking account of the circumstances of the case.
The tenancy agreement states that the resident or any person living in or visiting the property must not harass or intimidate any other residents. The resident’s handbook says examples of ASB include abusive or insulting words or behaviour and intimidation and harassment. It also states that:
1. the landlord would investigate all reports of ASB.
2. it would contact the resident within 5 working days of receipt of a report of ASB to confirm the nature of the problem.
3. it would provide a named contact to the resident and advise them of likely timescales and the range of options available to tackle ASB. It would keep the resident informed throughout the investigation.
4. it may contact the alleged perpetrator, neighbours, the police and others as appropriate during the investigation.
5. it would try a number of options before taking legal action. These might include:
  1. warning letters and interviews.
  2. mediation or dispute resolution.
  3. multi agency visits.
  4. good neighbour contracts.
  5. acceptable behaviour agreements.
The landlord’s ASB policy supports this and says:
1. it could take a variety of legal and non-legal action in respect of ASB cases. It would decide what enforcement action was most appropriate on a case-by-case basis after considering the evidence available and if it was necessary and proportionate.
2. it would consider in all cases the support needs, disabilities and vulnerabilities of all parties involved in a case. It would also consider the Equality Act 2010 in its decision making and service delivery.
3. it would refer residents to appropriate support agencies where necessary.
4. preventative measures could include early intervention by contact, giving advice and signposting as necessary.
The resident emailed the landlord and reported ASB from their neighbour on 10 August 2024. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 August 2024. It apologised, said it would investigate the matter and provided a named contact. The resident’s handbook states that the landlord would investigate all reports of ASB. It also says it would contact the resident within 5 working days of the report and provide a named contact. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately in emailing the resident on 16 August 2024.
However, the landlord did not advise the resident of likely timescales or the range of options it had available to respond to their reports of ASB. The resident’s handbook states that the landlord would do this. Therefore, this was unreasonable.
The landlord opened an ASB case and spoke with the neighbour about the reported ASB on 20 August 2024. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it would decide what action was most appropriate on a case-by-case basis after considering the evidence available and if it was necessary and proportionate. It also says that a preventative measure could include early intervention by contact. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to speak with the neighbour about the reported ASB.
However, the landlord did not complete a risk assessment or an action plan at the start of the ASB case. In completing risk assessments and focussing upon the harm caused, landlords can ensure that they can put measures in place at the first opportunity and reduce the impact of ASB. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the impact on the resident, given the resident’s vulnerabilities.
On 20 August 2024 the resident reported a further incident of ASB from another member of the neighbour’s household. They said this had caused them to have a panic attack, they had vulnerabilities, and they had reported the incident to the police. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 August 2024.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 August 2024. It said it was investigating their concerns about their neighbour’s behaviour. It said it could not share specific details about any actions taken but it assured them it was handling the matter appropriately. While the landlord could only provide limited information, the resident’s handbook says that the landlord would keep residents updated. Therefore, while it may have been unable to disclose specific information, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to summarise any action it had taken in line with its ASB policy.
In its email of 21 August 2024, the landlord also signposted the resident to support services. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this. This is because its ASB policy states that it would refer residents to support services where necessary.
The resident and landlord exchanged several emails between 21 August and 29 August 2024. The resident repeated their concerns about how the landlord had handled their reports of ASB. They said its lack of action had forced them to go to the police and it had not contacted them for a statement or contacted the witnesses from the initial incident.
The landlord responded to the resident and reiterated that it was investigating their concerns. It said it saw the fact that they had reported no further incidents of ASB since it opened the case as a positive. Additionally, the landlord provided information on how to access support services via the internet. Its ASB policy states that it would consider the support needs, disabilities and vulnerabilities of the resident. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately in providing this information.
The police emailed the landlord on 29 August 2024. They said that they had visited the resident and told them the issue with their neighbour was not a police matter. The landlord emailed the police on 30 August 2024 and asked them to contact it to discuss further. The resident’s handbook states that the landlord may contact the police during an ASB investigation. Therefore, this was appropriate. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the police again to obtain further details about the incident. It would have been reasonable for it to do so in the circumstances.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 August 2024. It said it had arranged for a female neighbourhood officer to visit them on 4 September 2024. It asked the resident to confirm this was convenient. The landlord acted in accordance with the reasonable adjustments in place for a female officer to be present at home visits. Therefore, it acted appropriately. The landlord told the resident that it had been in contact with the police and was awaiting further updates. This was appropriate as the resident’s handbook says the landlord would keep residents informed.
The landlord also said it did not have the details of any witnesses in its email of 30 August 2024. It asked the resident to provide these or said alternatively that the witnesses could contact it. This was reasonable. It also said it would make a referral to the NHS’ wellbeing service with the resident’s permission. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it would refer residents to support services. The landlord was taking a proactive approach to the resident’s wellbeing which was appropriate.
The landlord also provided diary sheets in its email of 30 August 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to send these. The landlord spoke with the neighbour the same day about the ASB. The resident’s handbook and the landlord’s ASB policy state that it could contact individuals to discuss ASB and action would be proportionate. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately.
The female neighbourhood officer completed the home visit to the resident on 4 September 2024. Following discussions with the resident, she recommended that the landlord visited the neighbours and sent a letter to them about parking responsibly. The landlord sent this letter on 13 September 2024. It emailed the resident on 17 September 2024 as it had not heard from them since early September 2024. It said it had implemented the recommendations from the home visit and planned to close the case in the next 7 days. It was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident with the actions it had taken in line with its residents handbook.
The landlord contacted the neighbour on 18 September 2024 and concluded that it did not need to take any further action. The landlord’s ASB policy states it would decide what action was most appropriate on a case-by-case basis after considering the evidence available. The landlord’s ASB policy also states that its response to reports of ASB would be proportionate. Therefore, this was reasonable.
The landlord emailed the resident on 19 September 2024. It attached a 7-day closure letter for the ASB case and outlined some of the action it had taken. It said:
1. it did not believe contacting witnesses would have made a difference to the investigation.
2. it believed its interventions had been successful and since the police visit no further incidents had occurred.
3. it had spoken with the police who had closed their case with no further action.
4. if the resident and their neighbour both followed the advice provided, there should be no further issues.
5. the only other option available was mediation with the neighbour which it was happy to explore if the resident was interested.
6. after speaking with the resident and their neighbour, it was confident closing this ASB case was the right thing to do.
It was appropriate for the landlord to keep the resident informed in line with its ASB policy. The landlord’s ASB policy also states that it would consider what action to take on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain to the resident the reasons for its actions and decisions. The landlord’s ASB policy also states that it would prevent ASB by offering advice. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer mediation in line with the resident’s handbook.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 September 2024. They remained dissatisfied with how the landlord had handled their reports of ASB and that it had not spoken to witnesses. The landlord did not respond to this email. This was unreasonable.
The landlord closed the ASB case on 26 September 2024 as no further appropriate action was possible. It emailed the resident to inform them of this. This was reasonable in line with the resident’s handbook which says the landlord would keep the resident updated.
The resident reported a third instance of ASB on 28 September 2024. The landlord opened a new ASB case on 30 September 2024. It emailed the resident about this the same day. This was appropriate and in line with the resident’s handbook. It completed a risk assessment and action plan the same day. However, it is unclear why the landlord did not do this when the resident first reported ASB in August 2024.
The landlord liaised with the police on 30 September 2024 and 1 October 2024. This was appropriate in line with the resident’s handbook. It emailed the resident and informed them of this on 1 October 2024. This was appropriate and in line with the resident’s handbook. The landlord arranged for a female officer to complete a home visit to the resident on 8 October 2024. This was appropriate and in line with the reasonable adjustments it had on record for the resident.
In its stage 1 response of 3 October 2024 the landlord did not find any failings in the way it handled the resident’s first ASB case. The landlord spoke to the neighbour and wrote to them about considerate parking on 11 October 2024. The landlord’s decision to take steps to address the reports of ASB was in line with its resident handbook.
The landlord reiterated that there were no failings in its handling of the first ASB case in its stage 2 response of 1 November 2024. It said that it did not need to speak with witnesses as it took the resident’s reports of ASB at face value. The landlord’s ASB policy says it would consider what action to take on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain this.

Summary and conclusions

In summary, the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has acted proportionately in following its ASB policy and writing to the resident’s neighbour and speaking with them about the reports of ASB. It has also kept in regular contact with the resident to update them and signposted to support services considering their reasonable adjustments when doing so. The landlord also liaised with the police to investigate the reports of ASB and offered advice to both parties to try and prevent future occurrences. The landlord found no failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in its complaint’s responses.
However, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB because:
1. the landlord did not advise the resident of likely timescales or the range of options it had available to respond to ASB, in line with the resident’s handbook, when it called the resident on 16 September 2024 to say it would investigate their concerns.
2. the landlord did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities and complete a risk assessment or action plan when it opened the first ASB case on 20 September 2024.
3. the landlord did not explain the action it had taken in line with its ASB policy in its email to the resident on 21 August 2024. Therefore, it did not keep the resident informed in line with the resident’s handbook.
4. the landlord did not complete any follow on contact with the police in August 2024.
5. the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s email of 19 September 2024 to address their concerns.
The resident said the landlord’s communication caused distress and upset to them. Therefore, in line with our dispute resolution principles, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation to recognise how its failures impacted them. Having carefully considered our remedies guidance a fair level of compensation would be £250. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s complaint handling

At the time the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its policy said:
1. a complaint was an expression of dissatisfaction however made.
2. if it had a valid reason there were some instances, where it would not deal with the issue raised.
3. it would not deal with behaviour of residents as a complaint as it had a separate ASB policy.
4. it aimed to provide a response at stage 1 within 10 working days unless it had informed the resident that it needed an extension.
5. it aimed to provide a stage 2 response within 10 working days of escalation unless it had informed the resident that it needed an extension.
The Code also states that landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. Additionally, landlords must provide a detailed explanation to the resident if it decides not to accept a complaint. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is compliant with the Code.
The resident was expressing dissatisfaction in their emails to the landlord from 20 August 2024. They asked to raise a complaint in their emails of 21 and 23 August 2024. The landlord refused to raise a complaint for the resident until it had closed the first ASB case.
This is not a valid reason for a landlord not to accept a complaint as set out in the Code. Although the landlord would not deal with the behaviour of residents as a complaint as it had separate ASB policy, it could still have raised a complaint about its handling of the reports of ASB. Therefore, this was inappropriate. However, the landlord has since updated its policy to raise a complaint even if the handling of the issue remained ongoing.
The landlord provided a link for the resident to raise a complaint on 26 September 2024 when it closed the first ASB case. The resident sent further emails on 26 and 28 September 2024 asking to raise a complaint. They referred to the landlord’s complaints policy around a complaint being an expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord was aware that the resident wanted to raise a complaint so it would have been reasonable for it to raise the complaint on the resident’s behalf without them having to contact it again.
The landlord raised a complaint on 30 September 2024. It emailed the resident and informed them of this the same day. It provided its stage 1 response on 3 October 2024. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it had 10 working days to provide its stage 1 response therefore this was appropriate. However, the response itself was unreasonable as it did not acknowledge the delay in allowing the resident to raise a complaint.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 9 October 2024 as they remained unhappy. Therefore, the landlord had until 6 November 2024 to provide its stage 1 response in line with the Code. The landlord provided this on 1 November 2024. This was appropriate. However, again it failed to acknowledge the delay in allowing the resident to raise their complaint. This was unreasonable.
Additionally, the landlord failed to take a holistic approach and consider how it handled the resident’s third report of ASB. The resident emailed the landlord on 30 September 2024, before it had sent its stage 1 response, and expressed dissatisfaction with having to repeat details from this report of ASB. This was an oversight. Had the landlord considered the third incident of ASB in its complaint responses it could have provided a better explanation of the action it had taken to the resident.
In summary, the landlord responded at both stage 1 and 2 of the complaint’s procedure within appropriate timescales. However, it initially delayed in raising a complaint from 20 August to 30 September 2024 as the first ASB case was open. This was not a valid reason not to raise a complaint in line with the Code. Therefore, the Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling as it delayed the resident in seeking redress through this Service.
Having carefully considered our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to the resident. This recognises the distress and upset caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days the landlord should:
1. write a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident £350, which it must not offset against any arrears, consisting of:
  1. £250 to recognise the likely distress and upset caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB from a neighbouring property.
  2. £100 to recognise the likely distress and upset caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.