Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202441868)

Decision
Case ID	202441868
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Jigsaw Homes Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident complained about the outcome to inspections and repairs for damp and mould following a previous complaint. He said that it had not got to the root of issues and he wanted a more extensive survey.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. The complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s response was reasonably proportionate to the available evidence.

Complaint handling

It is unclear if and when the stage 2 was acknowledged, but the landlord otherwise acknowledged and responded to the complaint in line with its policies and our Complaint Handling Code.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord is recommended to review its records and ensure it has completed all damp and mould related works it has identified at the resident’s property, and take any appropriate action if not.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 October 2024	The landlord provided a final response to a previous complaint from the resident. It said there was no damp, but it raised works that included to treat mould, replace wet room flooring, improve ventilation, and check the wall cavity in the kitchen and bathroom.
26 November 2024	The resident made a further complaint by phone and the landlord noted he said: He had been dealing with damp and mould for 15 years. He was unhappy with inspections that had been done and felt surveyors had barely looked at the issue. He was unhappy with the repairs that had been raised and felt the works would just mask the issue, not address underlying problems. He had refused to let the contractor carry works as the floor was not structurally sound. He was unhappy that no one had contacted him after he had requested call-backs. He wanted a more extensive survey done to get to the root of issues, not just mask them, and repairs done as soon as possible.
6 December 2024	The landlord responded at stage 1: It noted the resident’s complaint that it had not got to the root of issues and wanted a more extensive survey. It noted that to investigate the complaint, it had visited on 3 December 2024 and surveyed the bedroom, lounge, kitchen and wet room, as the resident requested. It noted there was loose screed on the wet room floor, which would be resolved by works, but otherwise there were no structural defects or signs of mould in the wet room. It noted there was condensation to a bedroom window, but there were no signs of mould in the bedroom. It noted that there was mould on kitchen back boards, which it had raised a repair to replace, but otherwise there was no mould and the wall behind was dry. It noted that an area of lounge wallpaper had peeled but the wall was dry. It said there was no evidence of penetrating or rising damp and any mould growth was condensation led. It noted that it had previously installed bathroom and kitchen fans and passive air vents in the lounge, wet room and hall cupboard. It confirmed that further works were scheduled for 18 December 2024 to replace the wet room floor covering and replace a bedroom radiator. It also confirmed that a contractor would contact the resident to install a UPVC ceiling and shower screen and check wall insulation levels.
8 December 2024	The resident escalated his complaint: He raised dissatisfaction with the 3 December 2024 surveyor’s visit, and that the surveyor had been dismissive and blamed him for the issues, after he had tried to explain the issues he experienced and his actions to try to prevent them. He said he had to dispose of items damaged by mould every year and continued to question whether the landlord had investigated the issues properly and found the root causes.
14 January 2025	The landlord responded at stage 2: It noted that the resident still felt the root cause had not been found, did not feel listened to, and felt blamed. It noted that it had reviewed records for its stage 1 response, its separate complaint response, and its records for the resident’s property and as well as properties nearby. It noted actions it had taken and internal and external inspections that had been done. It said the inspections had found areas such as the walls and cavities to be dry, and no water ingress had also been found to have been caused by disrepair to elements of the building. It said that surveyors involved were qualified, it was satisfied with their inspections, and it was reasonable to accept their findings. It noted that the property had a “C” EPC rating and good cavity wall insulation, detailed the energy requirements, and detailed available support if the resident was struggling financially to meet these. It said that it was sorry the resident disagreed with its findings, and did not feel listened to, but it had found it had acted appropriately. It advised the resident to contact us about the previous complaint if he was dissatisfied with that complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. He explains actions he takes in his home, but a humidity meter the landlord gave him is always high and he keeps having to clean the walls of condensation. He feels the landlord has still not found the root cause, is unhappy it accepted its surveyor’s views without further investigation, and felt the surveyor had looked for reasons to blame him when they visited. He is seeking for the surveyor to apologise and the landlord to find a permanent resolution to the issues he experiences.

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	Reports of damp and mould
Finding	No maladministration

The resident complains about a lack of confidence that causes of damp and mould have been resolved. He said he sought further inspections and works to bring a permanent resolution to the issues. In its complaint responses, the landlord said that it was sorry the resident disagreed with its findings, and did not feel listened to, but it was satisfied with the inspections. The evidence shows that it subsequently completed works it had identified in early 2025.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded to a previous stage 2 complaint about damp and mould on 3 October 2024. This confirmed some works and when the contractors attended for these, they recommended a surveyor inspection due to concerns about damp.
The evidence shows that following this, a surveyor inspected on 23 October and 12 November 2024 and tested with a protimeter. They found no issues with damp and mould or the property insulation. They also noted that a wet room floor affected by water had dried out and could be re-floored. The resident was advised of proposed works but he was unhappy with these and contacted the landlord to request a further inspection.
The resident then complained on 26 November 2024, and according to the landlord’s records a surveyor inspected on 27 November 2024. They tested the wet room with a protimeter and found this to be dry. Following this, a repairs manager carried out a further inspection on 3 December 2024. They noted that there were working extractor fans and vents, and found no issues with damp, mould, rising damp or penetrating damp. They noted that there was window condensation and they provided advice about this and ventilation of the property.
We understand the resident’s concerns that he took appropriate steps to manage damp and mould, that he did not feel heard, and that the landlord had not remedied the root causes of issues in his home. However, the landlord’s response was reasonably proportionate to the available evidence.
The evidence shows that contractors raised concerns after attending to do works identified during the previous complaint. This shows that the resident was reasonable to have some initial concerns about works progressing. However, the landlord subsequently carried out 4 inspections, which all found no damp and mould issues. The evidence suggests initial concerns about the floor were due to it not having fully dried.
We understand the resident has his own experience of damp and mould issues, and believes he takes appropriate steps to manage them, and so was upset by interactions with a surveyor. However, this was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy that surveyors may provide advice where they consider it appropriate.
The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff in its decision-making, unless information suggests otherwise, which is not clearly evident here. The landlord shows that it took the resident’s concerns that he was not being listened to seriously, responded reasonably, and later met its commitments for works in a reasonably timely way.
The resident has the option to report any further damp and mould issues to the landlord to give it the opportunity to investigate these and take any appropriate action. He also has the option to commission an independent inspection if he continues to believe that there are underlying causes of damp and mould that the landlord has not identified.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s stage 1 acknowledgement and response were in line with this, but it is not evident if and when the stage 2 was acknowledged. However, the stage 2 response was provided in line with timescales in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code, if allowing for 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

The record keeping and communication were positive. The record keeping was good and while the resident disagreed, the landlord was clear and explanatory about its position.