Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202321821)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321821

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

13 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak and shower repairs.
   2. Formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since May 2023 (with a starter tenancy for the year before). The property is a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat in sheltered housing. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident because of her disability.
3. The resident complained on 25 August 2023, saying:
   1. She logged a repair for a blocked shower in April 2023, which the landlord unblocked. Shortly after the operative left, she noticed the shower was leaking and there was water damage to her bedroom and hallway flooring.
   2. Despite several visits the leak was not fixed and her carpets remained wet. She was concerned about developing damp and mould. She was recently diagnosed with asthma and worried about the impact on her health.
   3. Her support workers had been contacting the landlord on her behalf since May 2023. They requested urgent action and compensation but had received no formal response.
   4. She wanted the landlord to:
      1. confirm it would resolve the issue on 30 August 2023.
      2. Compensate her for the damaged flooring and the stress and inconvenience experienced.
      3. Explain why it had not treated her previous expressions of dissatisfaction as a formal complaint.
      4. Explain why it had not prioritised the repair given her physical and mental health.
      5. Apologise for the service she received.
4. In its stage 1 response of 19 September 2023, the landlord set out a timeline of events. In summary, it said:
   1. It had received reports of a leak between 22 March 2023 and 28 April 2023. Its operative found no leaks, but noted the resident said the shower pump had stopped working a week before the first report, the bathroom had flooded, and water possibly went into the hallway. The pump was fixed, and the resident was monitoring the floor drying out.
   2. It had not received any reports from the resident about the pump and had not repaired it.
   3. In May 2023, it identified that the waste of the shower tray was detached. The strainer had been unscrewed and removed from the trap (which connects the shower tray to the waste), causing it to drop. This caused wastewater to leak underneath the floor when the shower was used. It concluded the issue was caused by someone perhaps trying to clean the trap, not realising they had inadvertently disconnected it.
   4. A temporary repair was done on 23 May 2023. No further leaks were reported after this date.
   5. On 30 May and 8 June 2023, the resident reported the shower was blocked. It cleared the pump waste and noted the pump was not working to maximum efficiency, causing the slow drainage of wastewater. A new pump was ordered on 14 July 2023 and fitted on 18 July 2023.
   6. The resident reported slow drainage on 28 July 2023, which was investigated on 1 August 2023. It was agreed the shower tray should be replaced. This was completed on 30 August 2023 and the bathroom floor was replaced on 13 September 2023.
   7. It had received 2 emails from the resident’s support workers on 19 May and 15 June 2023, requesting compensation for the damaged flooring. It had informed the resident on a call it would not compensate her for the damage as it was not responsible for the leak. She had said the shower waste was like that when she moved in, but it could not agree as the leak would have occurred, and been noticed, earlier in that case.
   8. Although it had received service requests and enquiries from the resident and her support workers, it had not received any expressions of dissatisfaction until her formal complaint request. It had logged and responded to this.
   9. It accepted it had taken longer than it should to deal with the overall issues with the shower. It acknowledged the frustration caused and the restriction to bathing. It offered a formal apology and £150 for stress and inconvenience.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 October 2023, saying:
   1. The landlord’s assertion she told its operative the pump had stopped working the week before its visit of 29 March 2023 was incorrect. Instead, the operative had informed her the pump had not been working.
   2. Her support workers contacted the landlord on 5 and 19 May 2023. Why had it not treated this as a complaint when it identified the issues could not be resolved quickly? The situation had exacerbated her physical and mental health.
   3. Could the landlord clarify who it thought had tried to clean the trap. Was it accusing her of doing this? She had limited mobility and lacked the technical knowledge required.
   4. No one had given her an answer to her request for compensation. Had the landlord listened to the call where it asserts the manager declined her request?
   5. She appreciated the offer of compensation, but it did not fully consider the damage caused, the length of time the issue was ongoing, the overall impact on her wellbeing, and its failure to treat her/support workers’ contact as a complaint.
6. In its stage 2 response of 26 October 2023, the landlord said:
   1. It was sorry the resident felt its account of the first visit was incorrect. It could only rely on the available evidence (it provided the full operative note from the day).
   2. It had no evidence of contact from her support worker on 5 May 2023 and it had treated the 19 May 2023 email as a service request.
   3. It tried to resolve issues informally in the first instance, but given the initial report was in March 2023, it could have escalated the complaint to the formal process sooner. It would document the learning and ensure staff had sufficient guidance on when to escalate complaints.
   4. It was sorry if she felt accused of tampering with the shower. Its explanation about the trap was only to set out its understanding of the cause of the issue, and that this had not been caused by the landlord.
   5. The system records confirmed the call was made (it was not recorded) but did not note that compensation was discussed. It accepted the previous response relied on the manager’s recollection of events, which was not as reliable as a call recording.
   6. It apologised for any inconvenience and stress caused. It offered an additional £50 for the delays in complaint handling.
   7. It did not offer compensation for floor damage as it did not find negligence in its handling of her reports. It referred the resident to her own contents insurance.
7. The resident referred her complaint to us in November 2023, saying she was unhappy with the landlord’s refusal to compensate for damage to her flooring. She was also unhappy with its complaint responses, which she felt blamed her for the cause of the leak. She wanted to be compensated for the cost of replacing her carpet.

Assessment and findings

Reports of a leak and shower repairs

8. The resident has told us that the matters complained of have negatively affected her health. We do not doubt her comments, but it is beyond our remit to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
9. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings. It is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s reports. The resident may wish to consider seeking independent advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.
10. The landlord has accepted its poor service levels in its complaint responses. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failings amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
11. The landlord did not give us a copy of its repairs policy applicable at the time. The policy available on its website categorises repairs and gives associated response times as; emergency (24 hours), urgent (5 working days), essential (25 working days), and routine (90 calendar days). The resident’s report met its definition of an urgent repair: a situation causing a tenant discomfort, inconvenience and nuisance likely to lead to further deterioration if the problem persists.
12. The landlord responded to the initial report of a leak within its stipulated timeframe. However, there were avoidable delays in the actions it then took. On 15 May 2023, it was identified the shower tray needed to be removed to reattach the trap to stop the water leaking. It was noted that the resident had no other bathing facilities. However, it was not until 23 May 2023 that a temporary fix was put in place. It was noted then that a new shower tray might be needed. There is no evidence of prompt action to make the repair permanent or of an assessment if a new tray was required. No work order was logged until the resident made a further report on 30 May 2023.
13. A visit was made on 5 June 2023 when attempts to unblock the shower waste pipe and change the chocker valve were unsuccessful. The operative noted there was a temporary repair on the shower tray to stop the water coming through the hallway by adapting the shower waste. The shower tray needed to be replaced ‘ASAP’ because the pump was not working due to this. It was again noted that the resident had no other bathing facilities.
14. Two further visits were made on 9 June 2023, to clear the pump waste, tighten the shower hose, and refix the pump cover. It was noted there was an ongoing issue with the waste, a temporary repair was in place, and a new tray was probably required. There is no evidence of any jobs being raised to address this, instead internal notes show the jobs were marked as complete. It was only due to the resident and her support workers chasing the landlord that the issue was revisited.
15. The landlord called the resident on 14 July 2023 and decided that a new shower tray was not needed, but a new pump was (despite its attending operatives recommending otherwise). The operative who fitted the pump on 18 July 2023 noted that, as advised in previous jobs, the shower tray needed to be removed to fit the correct waste; the temporary fix was only to stop the water from going into the hallway. It was not until a further visit on 1 August 2023 that the shower tray replacement was finally ordered.
16. The delivery time on the tray was logged as 7/10 days. There is no evidence of the resident being advised of this timeframe. She and her support workers continued to contact the landlord until she then logged a formal complaint. It is not unusual or unexpected that the landlord took the time to investigate the issue and explore potential solutions. However, it is not reasonable that the shower tray was not ordered and fitted until August 2023 when it had been flagged as a potential issue 3 months earlier, in May 2023.
17. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities. She was candid about the difficulties and upset she was experiencing. Its records repeatedly noted that she did not have access to any other bathing facilities. The landlord made 10 visits to the property for these issues. Even if some of these visits were to investigate and find the best solution, the landlord could have been more proactive in its actions with better oversight. As highlighted above, there were avoidable delays.
18. The landlord has apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused, accepted it took too long to resolve the issue, acknowledged the frustration caused by the restricted bathing facilities, and offered £150 compensation (in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair; put things right). However, its award is not in line with our remedies guidance as it does not sufficiently reflect the trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident a further £350 for the time, trouble, stress and inconvenience caused by its failures, in line with our remedies guidance.
19. We encourage landlords to self-assess against our Spotlight reports following publication. In March 2019, we published our Spotlight on complaints about repairs. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations made in that report. We therefore encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.

Complaint handling

20. The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time, defined a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’. It set out timeframes; 5 working days for acknowledgement and a further 10 working days for a full response at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s formal complaint were provided generally in line with this.
21. The resident is unhappy with the wording of the landlord’s responses as she feels it blamed her for the issues experienced. Her upset is understandable in the circumstances. However, the landlord carried out an investigation and it was not unreasonable for it to present its findings in its responses. She was requesting compensation for the damage caused and the landlord was declining this. It is our expectation that it would set out an explanation for its decision, as it did.
22. The resident believes the landlord should have treated her earlier expressions of dissatisfaction as a complaint. The landlord acknowledged that, while it was keen to resolve the matter informally, it should have recognised the delays being experienced and escalated the complaint through its formal process sooner. It has apologised and awarded £50 compensation. It has further provided feedback and guidance to staff to ensure its mistakes are not repeated.
23. These actions demonstrate that the landlord openly acknowledged areas for improvement and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. The compensation the landlord offered was proportionate to its failing and in line with our remedies guidance for findings of maladministration in complaint handling. We therefore find that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling which satisfactorily remedies the identified failings.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and shower repairs.
25. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

26. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £350 compensation, in addition to the £150 previously offered. This recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the reports of a leak and shower repairs.

Recommendation

27. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £50 offered for its complaint handling failures, if it has not already done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid.