Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202520290)

Decision
Case ID	202520290
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Jigsaw Homes Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her family, including a child with a medical condition affected by dust, in a 3-bedroom house. She reported concerns about damp and mould, slugs, and a rat infestation to the landlord. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of these issues because she reported they were still outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Damp and mould reports.
   2. Rat infestation reports.
   3. Reports of slugs in the property.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rat infestation reports.
   3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of slugs in the property.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s damp and mould reports

4. The landlord found several causes of damp and mould during multiple property inspections. It repaired the roof and chimney and arranged to complete more repairs when it rehoused the resident. It did not offer compensation for the distress, time, and trouble its appointment scheduling failings and poor communication caused the resident.

The resident’s rat infestation reports

5. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of rats by referring her to its pest contractor. It found the causes of rats and treated the property internally. It did not report wider rat issues to the local authority or offer compensation for the distress, time, and trouble this caused the resident.

The resident’s reports of slugs

6. The landlord was not responsible for treating slugs in the property. Its pests policy says residents should deal with household pests that do not need specialist treatment.

The resident’s complaint

7. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaints policy. It did not acknowledge or offer the resident compensation to put right the impact of its minor complaint handling failings.

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 found in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 19 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £300 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to her by the landlord’s handling of her damp and mould reports £100 for the distress, time, and trouble caused to her by the landlord’s handling of her rat infestation reports £50 for the time and trouble caused to her by the landlord’s complaint handling The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 19 March 2026
3	Damp and mould inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure it completes the inspection by the due date. Someone suitably qualified must complete the inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve: The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects all damp and mould issues and produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: the most likely cause of the damp and mould whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the timescales to start and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 19 March 2026
4	Rat inspection order The landlord must reinspect the property, remove rat droppings from beneath the bath, and treat for rats, if necessary. It must also report the rat infestation issues in the area to the local authority to coordinate a joined up approach to the rat problem.	No later than 19 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reviews its pests policy to include a target timescale for responding to reports of pests.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 May 2025	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. She said there was damp and mould in the hallway and 2 upstairs bedrooms, and rainfall between the neighbouring properties caused damp. She said there was a leak into the downstairs toilet, slugs appearing from skirting boards, and issues with the chimney, door casings, and rats in the walls.
28 May 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint
9 June 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response which reviewed events from May 2024. It said: it repaired the chimney and the roof in February and April 2025 but its actions had not caused the returning damp it rearranged damp and mould works from April to July 2025 in keeping with the resident’s request it acknowledged her daughter’s dust allergy and said it offered 2 temporary properties but none were available for a permanent move it would continue trying to find another temporary property and would help with moving her belongings rat issues were ongoing and made worse by nearby takeaways and shared bins although it was not responsible for land it did not own, it had treated rats since November 2024 and would fill access holes in June 2025 its pest treatment did not include slugs which damp may have caused it booked a mould wash for 9 June 2025 and a leak repair for 26 June 2025 it confirmed it would start damp works on 21 July 2025, and its Healthy Homes Team would provide support it apologised for missed or rearranged appointments and acknowledged the distress and inconvenience this caused but it did not say if it upheld the complaint
9 and 10 June 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she had been dealing with damp for more than 10 years and that works the landlord completed 3 years earlier did not resolve the problem damp attracted pests and several rooms had mould it wrongly recorded an inspection on 4 June 2025 as “no access” which was not true it changed its offer of a permanent move to a temporary move but she would move into a hotel or a bed and breakfast if it was easier its stage 1 response was “patronising” and it “lied” about planning to start works in April 2025 she had chosen to start works on 21 July 2025 to fit around the school holidays and claimed its statement about rehousing was “untrue” she would move her essential belongings and allow workers to remove anything else
9 June 2025	The landlord logged the resident’s stage 2 complaint as a stage 1 complaint.
16 June 2025	The landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint at stage 2.
27 June 2025	The landlord sent the resident its final complaint response. It said: its stage 1 investigation was reasonable and there was no evidence its handling of damp and mould fell below expected standards the returning damp was due to the complexity of the issue, rather than service failure, and it had offered 2 temporary properties because the planned works would be disruptive its earlier explanation of the pest treatments again and confirmed it did not treat slugs as pests which was in line with its policy environmental factors affected the situation but it had taken reasonable steps including sealing entry points and would continue to do so it handled bathroom repairs properly and the room was safe to use it acknowledged the resident felt its stage 1 response was “patronising” and apologised completing a high volume of repairs within its policies and procedures did not show service failure but accepted it had not resolved the complex damp and pest issues it would rearrange pest treatments and complete the damp and mould repairs in July 2025 it partially upheld the complaint
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. To put things right she said the landlord should provide a safe home that was free from damp, mould, and rats.

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 resident’s damp and mould reports
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

8. The resident said this situation had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. 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 have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

9. The landlord completed works to address disrepair in the property 3 years previously. We have not seen records of those repairs. It reinspected the property for damp in April 2024 and recommended repairs. The landlord reviewed events from 12 months before the resident’s May 2025 complaint, in line with its complaint policy. This investigation looks at its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports from May 2024.
10. The resident reported damp to the landlord on 5 June 2024 and chased the outcome of its April 2024 inspection. It is unclear why the landlord had not already shared its earlier findings with her or completed the repairs it found.
11. Under its damp and mould policy the landlord should complete a risk assessment to decide whether to inspect the property within 10 days as a priority inspection, or 14 days as routine inspection. There is no evidence it did so but it reinspected the property 7 working days later on 14 June 2024. It recommended investigating the neighbouring property and a drain survey but it did not act on its recommendation.
12. The landlord recommended a drain survey again on 5 July 2024 as it thought the damp might come from the ground, or the neighbouring property. It raised a works order on the same day but it did not survey the drain until August 2024. This was outside its 5-working-day policy target for an urgent repair that caused inconvenience or was likely to cause further issues. We have not seen a copy of the drain survey.
13. The resident next reported damp and mould to the landlord in December 2024. It did not complete a risk assessment in line with its damp and mould policy. It also did not inspect the property until January 2025, which was outside its repair policy timescales.
14. The landlord identified tanking works to a party wall on 27 January 2025. Its repairs policy says it would complete damp prevention work including tanking as a routine repair within 90 calendar days. It did not start the works until 21 July 2025, which was 175 calendar days after its diagnosis. However, it agreed to rehouse the resident before completing damp works and it offered her 3 properties before it could rehouse her. This repair delay was outside the landlord’s control according to its records, as it recorded it had rescheduled the repair from 7 April 2025 because the resident asked it to.
15. During this period, the landlord repaired the chimney in February 2025 and the roof in April 2025 to stop leaks and damp. It also carried out mould washes in March, May, and July 2025 after being unable to gain access during appointments in April and June 2025. This was positive to limit the impact of damp and mould on the resident. It sent her text messages about damp and mould within 4 weeks of its mould washes in line with its damp and mould policy. However, it missed the opportunity to provide dehumidifying equipment in line with its policy.
16. The landlord passed the damp problem to its Healthy Homes Team on an unknown date and this referral was required by its damp and mould policy. Arranging a specialist team to assess the unresolved damp was the right action. The policy says the team should use a risk‑based approach. Although the team inspected the home, there is no record of the visit or evidence that it carried out the required risk assessment.
17. The landlord considered the resident’s family’s health concerns and the disruption the damp works would cause and offered to rehouse her. It said it did not have any suitable permanent accommodation to offer on 20 May 2025, but it would arrange a temporary move to complete the works which would take around 2 weeks. It arranged the repairs to start on 21 July 2025, as the resident asked for the works to begin in the school holidays. The resident disputes the landlord rearranged works from April 2025, however there is no evidence to support this.
18. The resident reported returning mould in 2 bedrooms and water running between the neighbouring walls causing damp in her complaints. The landlord’s replies said the works were extensive and would cause disruption so it had offered 2 temporary properties which she declined. However, it would look for another property and arrange removals before completing the works. It said it inspected the property, found the sources of damp, and would start repairs in July 2025. It acknowledged her distress and inconvenience and confirmed its Healthy Homes Team would support her. In its final response it said it found no evidence its damp and mould services fell below expected standards. The return of damp was due to the complex nature of the issue, rather than any service failure.
19. The landlord carried out multiple inspections and repaired several possible causes of damp and mould. However, it did not complete a risk assessment to understand the impact on the resident or provide dehumidifying equipment.
20. The landlord attended an appointment in May 2025 that it later told the resident she had not provided access for. It also attended an appointment in June 2025 that the resident had rearranged. These failings caused the resident time, trouble, and distress.
21. It is not clear whether the landlord found the root cause of the damp before sending its final complaint response. However, it planned to carry out works while the property was empty to fully investigate the problem. It reviewed its handling of the repairs and explained its timescales, but it did not acknowledge its poor appointment scheduling or its poor communication. It also did not recognise the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble this caused the resident or offer her compensation to put matters right. Overall, we found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports.
22. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £300 compensation. This award is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation to recognise the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience the landlord’s failings caused her which it did not put right.
23. The landlord rehoused the resident and post inspected the works on 15 August 2025. However, the resident has reported ongoing damp issues in the property. We have ordered the landlord to reinspect and repair any damp and mould in the property.

Complaint	The resident’s rat infestation reports
Finding	Service failure

24. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said it considered events from 12 months before the resident’s May 2025 complaint, in line with its complaint policy. This investigation looks at its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation since May 2024.
25. The landlord’s pests policy says it treats for rats and mice but it does not include response timescales. The landlord raised works to inspect the property for rats on 20 May 2024. Its records of this inspection are unclear.
26. The resident reported rats again on 4 July 2024. The landlord inspected the next day and recommended repairs including a drain survey. Later on 23 July 2024, the resident told the landlord she reported rats to the local authority, which said land behind her property was the landlord’s to manage. The landlord inspected 7 working days later on 1 August 2024 and recommended she contact another landlord as fly-tipping on their land maybe causing rats. Its pests policy says it should work in partnership when infestations affect a wider area. However, it did not contact the other landlord or treat the rats after its inspection.
27. The resident next reported rats on 14 October 2024. The pest contractor visited 3 working days later on 17 October 2024 and treated the property for 3 weeks. It recommended the landlord install a hatch for it to treat the soil pipe but it is unclear whether it did so. The contractor recorded no rat activity on 31 October 2024 and ended its treatment plan.
28. The resident reported rats again on 27 November 2024. The landlord raised a works order the same day in line with its repairs policy and its pest contractor arranged weekly treatments from 9 December 2024. The landlord recommended that the resident ask her utility provider to survey the communal drains. It is unclear whether she did so. It would have been more supportive for the landlord to arrange this itself.
29. The pest contractor treated the property regularly until it found no evidence of rats in January and February 2025 and ended its treatment plan. However, the resident reported rats again on 1 April 2025. The landlord referred to its pest contractor within 3 working days on 4 April 2025 and it restarted treatment within 7 working days on 15 April 2025. However, it missed an appointment the following week which caused the resident time and trouble rearranging it.
30. The pest contractor restarted treatments on 28 May 2025 and told the landlord rats were inevitable due to take-aways and shared bin yards in the area. The landlord missed the opportunity to coordinate a response with the local authority in line with it pests policy.
31. The landlord reviewed how it handled the rat infestation in its complaint responses. It acknowledged that rats had been an ongoing problem and said it already told the resident it was not responsible for land it did not own. Its summarised its pest contractor’s treatments from November 2024 to June 2025 and apologised for a missed appointment on 22April 2025.It said environmental factors affected the situation but it had passed the resident’s reports to its pest contractor in line with its policy. It also said it had sealed entry points, taken reasonable action, and would continue to do so.
32. The landlord was unable to fully resolve the rat problem, but it tried to do so by arranging pest treatments within reasonable timescales. Both the landlord and its contractor communicated clearly with the resident to help manage her expectations. Its complaint responses apologised and reassured her that treatments would continue. However, because it knew the rat issues affected the wider area it should have agreed to work with the local authority. The landlord missed the opportunity to offer the resident compensation for this failing. Overall, we found service failure in its handling of the resident’s rat infestation reports.
33. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress, time, and trouble its handling of the rats caused her. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation of up to this amount for when service failure by the landlord has caused this.
34. The landlord recorded ongoing rat issues in October 2025 and the resident has told us it resecured a bath panel without cleaning rat droppings from beneath the bath. We have ordered the landlord to treat the property, if necessary, clean beneath the bath, and contact the local authority about the rat problem in line with its pests policy. We have also recommended it to review its pests policy.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of slugs
Finding	No maladministration

35. The landlord’s pests policy says residents should deal with common household pests that do not need specialist treatment. The landlord’s pest contractor found slugs in the downstairs toilet on 9 December 2024 while treating rats. However, the resident did not report slugs to the landlord again until 8 May 2025, when she found they had appeared upstairs. The landlord told her through her MP on 23 May 2025 that it did not treat slugs and she should manage the issue herself. This response was in line with its policy.
36. The resident raised the issue of slugs again in her stage 1 complaint on 28 May 2025. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord repeated that it was not responsible for treating slugs. It also referred to our published guidance, which says damp can contribute to slug activity. It said tackling the damp conditions rather than providing separate pest treatment was the correct approach. This was in line with its policy. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of slugs.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

37. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
38. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on the same day and responded to the resident’s 28 May 2025 stage 1 complaint in 8 working days on 9 June 2025, in keeping with its complaints policy target. However, it did not say if it upheld the complaint.
39. The landlord incorrectly logged a new stage 1 complaint on 9 June 2025, instead of escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2. This caused the resident time and trouble raising her complaint again.
40. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within 5 working days on 11 June 2025 and responded to the complaint in 14 working days on 27 June 2025. This was in line with its complaints policy target. It said it partially upheld the stage 2 complaint. It used its final response to confirm it had partially upheld the stage 1 complaint – to correct its earlier mistake.
41. The landlord’s minor complaint handling failings did not have a significant impact on the outcome for the resident but we found service failure in its complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay the resident £50 in line with our remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation to put right the impact of its minor failings on her.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

42. The landlord did not provide us with full evidence of actions taken between 2023 and 2025, such as records of pest inspections and its drain survey. Its repairs log recorded damp works on pest control works orders and inaccurately recorded no access for an appointment it completed on 23 May 2025. The landlord should ensure it keeps clear and complete records and that it can provide them when asked.

Communication

43. The landlord should learn from this complaint and consider how it communicates with residents about repair appointments and rehousing. It should ensure it provides prompt, correct, and meaningful updates.