Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202422730)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422730

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

26 August 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 management of:
   1. the resident’s concerns about her high water usage.
   2. the resident’s requests that the landlord repair decorative damage from a leak.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy started on 28 February 2011. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The landlord has told this Service that the resident has additional health and mobility needs.
3. The property had a rainwater harvesting system installed under the driveway, which supplied water to the property’s toilets. The landlord decommissioned the system on 7 November 2023 after the resident reported she could not flush the toilet. The mains water supply was used to supply the toilets instead.
4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 10 June 2024 by email to her landlord. She said:
   1. there was likely to be a leak at her property because the utility company had told her the household’s water consumption was higher than average.
   2. the water company had informed her that it was the landlord’s responsibility to investigate.
   3. she asked for an immediate investigation.
5. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint by email on 17 June 2024.
6. The resident also emailed the landlord on 17 June 2024 and asked when it would make good the decorative damage to her ceilings and walls, which she said was caused by a previous leak from her bathroom.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 July 2024. It said:
   1. it was satisfied that it had repaired all previous leaks at the property and at the last repairs visit, there was no evidence of other leaks.
   2. it would arrange a new visit to inspect the property for other leaks or issues that could give rise to the high water usage.
   3. It had advised her, in response to a previous complaint, that internal decoration was the resident’s responsibility and she should make an insurance claim on her insurance policy.
8. The resident submitted her stage 2 complaint on 3 July 2024. She said:
   1. the landlord had committed to assess the decorative damage to her ceiling in its stage 1 response to a previous complaint.
   2. nobody had attended the property to assess the damage from the previous leaks.
   3. she should not have to redecorate because it was the landlord’s fault her ceiling was stained.
   4. she requested the landlord investigate the water consumption issue.
9. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 10 July by email to the resident. It issued its stage 2 response on 9 August 2024. It said:
   1. “From my review of your complaint I accept that previous commitments made to you have not been progressed appropriately.”
   2. it apologised and offered the resident compensation of £350.
   3. it would arrange to inspect and assess the property about the water usage issue
   4. it would arrange to inspect and assess making good the staining to the ceiling that had been caused by previous leaks.

Events after the complaints process ended

10. The landlord inspected the property for unidentified leaks on 13 August 2024. Its findings state:
    1. “Checked water meter from external stop tap with no appliances used for 20mins and there was no change of meter readings. Harvester has been previously converted to mains pressure due to system regularly air locking. This may possibly be the cause of extra charge as it’s now feeding 3 toilet and washing machine from the mains supply”.
    2. No further works were identified as necessary at the visit.
11. The landlord completed the decorative repairs on 27 August 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

12. The resident has referred another complaint to this Service which has completed the landlord’s internal complaints process separately. The scope of this investigation is limited to the matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 9 August 2024.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s concerns about her high water usage

13. The landlord inspected the property on 13 August 2024 to identify if there was a leak. This was 46 working days after the resident’s stage 1 complaint. The landlord should have investigated sooner, given the resident’s additional needs, concerns about her water bill and the possibility of an unidentified leak, which could have been causing damage.
14. The landlord undertook investigations to establish the likelihood of an unidentified leak. Its tests did not find a leak.
15. The landlord suggested that a reason for the higher consumption was due to the decommissioning of the water harvester system, which had previously helped supply the property. This Service considers this to be a plausible factor in the reported increase in consumption rate.
16. The Consumer Council for Water says the average water consumption per person per day is 139 litres. The resident says that her consumption has been measured at 620 litres per day. The resident has told this Service there are 4 people living at the property. The average consumption per day for a household of this size would be 556 litres per day. The use is therefore broadly in line with national averages.
17. The landlord took appropriate steps to satisfy itself that no leaks were happening at the property. Overall, despite the delay in arranging the inspection, there have been no service failures identified which caused the resident any detriment.
18. There was therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s concerns about her high water usage.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s requests that it repairs decorative damage from a leak.

19. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states:
    1. “Tenants should seek redress from their insurance provider following accidental damage to items such as furniture, belongings and decorations from events such as fire, theft, vandalism and floods including burst pipes.”
20. Its Responsive Repairs Procedure states:
    1. “Where damage to décor has occurred as a result of disrepair then one of the following options may be offered and will be confirmed in writing.
       1. The association will redecorate and make good the damage to the specified décor to the nearest match as is possible.
       2. A decoration allowance voucher will be offered in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Redecoration Procedure so that the tenant can rectify the décor themselves.
       3. Where the tenant or a household member is unable to redecorate (for example in supported accommodation), we will ensure any re-decoration returns the tenants home where practicable, to the same standard as before the repair was carried out.”
21. The landlord committed to assess the damage to the ceiling as part of its response to a previous complaint raised by the resident in March 2024. However, it did not do so.
22. In its stage 1 response that is relevant to this investigation, the landlord said that decorative repairs were not its responsibility. It advised the resident to make a claim on her insurance.
23. The landlord’s initial response at stage 1 overlooked the commitment it had previously made to the resident. This was a service failure which damaged the resident’s trust in the landlord and caused frustration.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 response to this complaint recognised it had not done what it said it would do. It agreed to make good the damaged décor. This was an appropriate response to put things right for the resident. Its repairs procedure provides discretion to redecorate and make good damage to décor. This was a reasonable application of its policy.
25. The landlord formally apologised to the resident and offered her compensation of £350. It redecorated the hallway ceiling and the whole kitchen on 27 August 2024.
26. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. This Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was compliant with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
27. This Service recognises the effort expended by the resident in seeking to resolve her concerns. The landlord’s offer of compensation was within a range we would expect to see where there was a failure which adversely affected a resident. As such, its offer was appropriate and amounts to reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

28.  In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her high water usage.
29. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests that it repair decorative damage from a leak.
30.           Recommendations
31. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. endeavour to improve its timeliness when responding to and investigating reports of possible disrepair.
    2. within 4 weeks of the date of this report, pay compensation of £350, if it has not already done so. The payment should be direct to the resident and not to the resident’s rent account.