Saxon Weald — case 202500393

Decision Case ID 202500393 Decision type Investigation Landlord Saxon Weald Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 20 January 2026 Background The resident reported a leak from her boiler in January 2024. The landlord completed a temporary repair in February 2024 and fixed the leak in March 2024. The resident had been reporting issues of damp and mould. The landlord concluded that delays in resolving the leak contributed to damp and mould issues. During the complaint process, the resident told the landlord she had asthma and was vulnerable to chest infections.

She was dissatisfied with the compensation offered because it did not cover damage to her personal belongings, her and her son’s health had been affected, and she still had mould-affected items. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about: Leaks, damp and mould. Damage to personal belongings. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Our decision (determination) We found that: There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp and mould.

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damage to personal belongings. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons In summary we found that: The landlord recognised that its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould had fallen short, and it offered redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint. The landlord took steps to help the resident manage the impact of the damage, including offering support with her insurance claim, paying towards the carpet, and offering to remove large items.

The landlord’s stage 1 response was inadequate as it focused on compensation rather than addressing the issues, and the stage 2 response, while more detailed, still did not fully assess the landlord’s handling or identify any learning. 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 17 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. The landlord may deduct from the total figure the payment of £25 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response for its complaint handling if it has already paid this. No later than 17 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident to set out how it will monitor the property following the damp and mould works.

It should include details of how the resident can report any recurrence. It is recommended that the landlord discuss with the resident her ongoing concerns about damage to her personal belongings and provide details of how she can make a claim to its public liability insurer if appropriate. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 07 February 2025 The resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s response to her concerns about leaks, damp and mould.

In summary she said: She had paid rent for a room that she could not use for 18 months. The landlord’s communication had been poor. Her belongings, including carpets, had been damaged. Her insurance company would not consider a claim because it attributed the damage to the landlord’s poor maintenance. She was vulnerable and had suffered bronchitis since the damp and mould began. 17 March 2025 The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said: It offered £600 compensation.

It acknowledged that the resident wanted £2500 but said its discussion with her explained why it offered £600. It confirmed it was arranging for insulation work to be completed. It would monitor progress, keep the resident updated, and meet with her to sign off works once complete. 19 March 2025 The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said the compensation offered at stage 1 did not cover the loss and inconvenience caused. 22 May 2025 The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response.

In summary it said: It inspected the property on 21 May 2025 and found no signs of damp. The damage to the resident’s belongings appeared to result from moisture left by 2 radiator leaks. Its records showed the resident reported a leak in January 2024. There were 2 leaks hidden behind a wall, which were not immediately visible. The landlord said it used a process of elimination to locate and repair the leaks and faced challenges that delayed completion of the work. It acknowledged the resident disposed of her carpets and confirmed it paid £286 in May 2024 to contribute to replacements.

It maintained the stage 1 compensation was fair and reasonable. It said damage to personal items was caused by an escape of water, which should be covered by the resident’s contents insurance, and offered to provide a confirmation letter for any claim. It offered to help dispose of larger damaged items if the resident set them aside for collection. It said it would replace the bathroom fan with a different model and that the relevant team would contact the resident to arrange this.

It apologised for delays in its complaint response and offered £25 for the inconvenience caused. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident said the compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused, especially in relation to the damage caused to her belongings. She also said that she was concerned that the works completed were not done correctly and that the mould would return. 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 response to the resident’s concerns about leaks, damp and mould. Finding Reasonable redress What we have not investigated. The resident told us that the ongoing issues have affected her and her son’s physical and mental 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 any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. What we have investigated. The evidence supports the landlord’s account of when the leak was first reported. It also shows that its initial response was within policy time frames.

The landlord could not complete a temporary repair until it arranged for 2 operatives to move furniture so it could investigate. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It then needed to remove boxing-in to investigate further but still completed a temporary repair within 11 working days of the initial report. This was also within its own timescales. The landlord attended again in February 2024 to complete further piping works. It could not investigate a possible further leak because it was unable to gain access.

It attended again on 1 March 2024 but was still unable to gain access. The leaks were resolved on 14 March 2024. This was outside its timescales, but the evidence shows the landlord had difficulties identifying the leak and accessing the areas needed. These factors reasonably caused delays. The making good works were not completed until 25 June 2024. This was outside its timescales and there are no records explaining the delay. The landlord’s repair records are vague and do not show when damp and mould first became an issue.

The landlord also failed to set out its position relative to the damp and mould within its complaint response. The correspondence shows that a surveyor attended in May 2023 to inspect damp and mould. The surveyor recorded that they could not access all areas of the property during the visit. The landlord confirmed its findings and follow up actions to the resident on 23 May 2023. This was appropriate. The follow up actions required were a mould clean, sealing and redecorating affected surfaces, and installing new extractor fans.

The landlord completed a mould washdown in June 2023, which was reasonable. The bathroom extractor fan was not installed until October 2023, and the kitchen fan in December 2023. There are no records explaining the delay in completing these works. The length of time taken was outside the landlord’s timescales. There are no further records about damp and mould until November 2024. The landlord emailed the resident in response to her reports of mould on her belongings. The landlord appropriately completed an inspection on 3 December 2024.

The inspection report said there was no mould on the walls or ceiling, but it was present on the resident’s belongings. It also said that the extractor fans required servicing or upgrading. The landlord fitted new fans in the bathroom and kitchen on 27 January 2025. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that insulation works were still required. The repair records do not show any details of these works or why they were required. Thisindicates poor record keeping. The landlord did complete a further inspection in May 2025 where it said there were no signs of mould and the damp readings were within a healthy range.

We have made a recommendation for the landlord to write to the resident to set out how it will now monitor the property to ensure that the damp and mould does not return. The landlord acknowledged that it had failed. It apologised and to put matters right it carried out works at the property to resolve the leak, damp and mould and offered £600 compensation. This offer is proportionate and in line with our remedies guidance for failures that caused inconvenience but there was no permanent impact.

The records show that this has been paid to the resident. The landlord has therefore offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily. Complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damage to her personal belongings. Finding No maladministration The records do not show what the landlord told the resident about the damage to her carpet and belongings. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for insuring her own furniture and contents, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to remind her of this after the leak.

There is no evidence that it did so. However, the resident did make a claim on her own insurance, so there is no indication that this omission caused her detriment. In June 2024 the landlord paid the resident £286 towards replacing the carpet. It is unclear how the landlord calculated this amount or what discussions took place with the resident about the carpet which is a record keeping issue. The landlord told us that the resident had disposed of the carpet, so it had been unable to fully assess the damage.

At stage 2 of the complaint the landlord also offered to assist the resident by removing large items for her which was reasonable. The resident’s insurance company had declined to pay for damage to her belongings as it said this was due to “‘wear and tear”. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that as it had now established that the damage to the resident’s belongings was not due to ‘wear and tear’, but due to an escape of water it should be covered under her content’s insurance.

The landlord reasonably offered to provide a letter of confirmation concerning this if the resident’s insurance company needed this for a claim. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to give the resident information about how to make a claim on its liability insurance, particularly as she had reported difficulties with her own claim. Its failure to do so may not have changed the outcome but was a shortcoming, and a recommendation has been made. The liability insurer is independent of the landlord, and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decisions or its claims process, other than giving the resident the insurer’s details.

We cannot comment on the likely outcome of any liability claim the resident may choose to make. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. There were delays in the landlord issuing its stage 1 complaint response. The evidence shows that the resident requested the time extensions, and the landlord maintained regular contact with her during this period.

At stage 2 there was a delay of 11 working days between the resident requesting escalation and the landlord sending its acknowledgement. This was outside the landlord’s stated timescales, and it has not provided any explanation for the delay. The landlord issued its final response 14 working days later. The records show that the latter delays were linked to visits and inspections that were agreed with the resident before the stage 2 response was issued. The landlord remained in regular contact with the resident during this period.

It also acknowledged that there had been delays in it issuing its stage 2 response and offered the resident £25 compensation, which was proportionate. The landlord’s stage 1 response does not show that it investigated the issues adequately. The response focused on offering compensation but did not explain what had gone wrong. The landlord’s stage 2 response did go some way towards addressing the gaps in its stage 1 response. It explained what had happened regarding the leaks and set out its current position in relation to the damp and mould.

However, it did not assess how it had responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould or whether its actions were appropriate. It also did not identify any steps it would take to prevent similar issues from occurring again. This omission caused the resident additional time and effort in pursuing her complaint and was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve matters. In light of these additional failings, we consider the compensation already offered to be insufficient to put things right.

We consider it appropriate to order the landlord to pay the resident £100 (inclusive of the £25 already offered). This reflects our remedies guidance, which states that compensation may be appropriate where the landlord made an offer of compensation, but it is not quite proportionate to the failings identified. Learning The landlord should review its approach to identifying learning from complaints. In this case, it did not assess what had gone wrong or what improvements were needed.

Without this reflection, the landlord risks repeating the same shortcomings in future cases. It should ensure that its complaint responses include a review of any identified failures and sets out the steps it will take to prevent similar issues occurring again. Knowledge information management (record keeping) This investigation demonstrates the importance of accurate and complete record keeping. The landlord’s records were poor, meaning it was not possible to fully establish what actions were taken or when.

This limited the landlord’s ability to evidence its decisions and demonstrate that it had acted appropriately. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure actions and decisions are recorded to create a clear audit trail. Communication This investigation also highlights the importance of clear and timely communication with residents. The landlord did not consistently keep the resident informed, which caused confusion and frustration and undermined the resident’s confidence in the service provided.

The landlord should review its communication practices to ensure residents receive clear accurate and timely updates and that responses are managed within its policies and service standards.