Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202336274)

Decision
Case ID	202336274
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Jigsaw Homes Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a property owned by the landlord with her 2 young children.

What the complaint is about

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

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

The landlord delayed unreasonably in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property, despite having identified works required to resolve the issue. Whilst the resident has since confirmed to us that the works to the property have since been completed, these took significantly longer than the landlord’s target timescale.

Handling of the associated complaint

The landlord did not handle the resident’s associated complaint in keeping with the requirements of our complaint handling code (the 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.

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 19 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 made up as follows: £150 as offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s associated complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.	No later than 19 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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

19 January 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £1,000 made up as follows:

£150 as offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
£600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
£250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

No later than 19 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 July 2023	The resident made her stage 1 complaint on this date. She told the landlord that: She had experienced issues with damp and mould in her property for several years. She said that the mould was on all of the external walls. It had mould treated her walls several times. She said that it had told her that this would stop the mould growth returning. She said that this was not the case and the mould treatment had not worked. The mould treatment is a white paint, meaning that she had to redecorate every time that it completed a mould treatment. It had capped her chimney but that this had not improved the situation. She had taken independent advice and had been told that the insulation in her property needed replacing to prevent the mould from returning. She wanted the landlord to resolve the problem and “ensure that the necessary further steps are taken”.
16 January 2024	The resident made her referral to the Ombudsman on this date. This was prior to both of the landlord’s complaint responses. The resident told us that: She and her family had been living in sub-standard conditions and she was worried about the effect on her children’s health. She wanted the landlord to apologise and pay her appropriate compensation for the inconvenience and distress that she had experienced. At that time, the landlord had not completed the works to replace her loft insulation.
24 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on this date. It told the resident that: It was sorry that her stage 1 complaint had been treated as a service request rather than actioned through its internal complaints process. It had responded to the resident via email on 25 July 2023 and told her that it had arranged a surveyor to attend her property to inspect. It had carried out this inspection on 31 July 2023. It said that it had called the resident and explained what works were required. It said that these works were as follows: Damp repairs in the lounge Repairs to stop the water ingress that was entering via “the cavity” Repairing a cold spot to the upstairs walls by fitting an insulated plasterboard and plastering over them Installing air vents to reduce the humidity in the property Reviewing the loft insulation and improving this if needed It had reviewed its repair records and found that all of the necessary repairs had been completed except for the loft insulation. It said that its contractors had failed to complete this job. It had told contractors on 17 April 2023 to complete these insulation works. It said that the resident had been unavailable for the first appointment its contractors had offered for work commitments. It said that its contractors had asked the resident to call them when she knew her availability. It had not personally post-inspected works but it had seen photographs of the finished works. The resident would need to make a claim for damaged items under her home contents insurance. It acknowledged the “level of inconvenience” that the resident had experienced and the distress that this may have had on the resident’s “health and wellbeing”. It would, by way of an apology, offer the resident £100 as a “good will gesture payment” for the impact that the situation may have had on her. It had raised the “issues caused by the lack of communication” with the manager involved in the resident’s case. It said that this would “prevent a re-occurrence of miscommunication in the future”.
29 April 2024	The resident requested an escalation to her complaint on this date. She told the landlord that: Whilst the outstanding works from 31 July 2023 had been completed, the £100 compensation that it had offered her did not reflect the level of inconvenience and distress that she and her family had experienced. The situation had been ongoing for over 4 years, and her young children had to live in poor conditions during that time. She said that this worsened her distress. The works that it had identified in July 2023 should have been completed years before. She said that it had completed 3 mould washes over 4 years, rather than resolving the root issue. She said that these were make-shift, short-term repairs. The mould returned several times over the course of the 4 years prior. Her distress and inconvenience were “unnecessarily prolonged”. She should not have had to email her MP to make sure that the necessary repairs were carried out. Contractors had attended “numerous” times and that this had been disruptive and inconvenient to arrange alongside her full time job and caring for her 2 young children. She had had to redecorate rooms herself after each mould wash was completed. She said that this was inconvenient and costly.
4 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on this date. It told the resident that: It had reviewed its repair records and recognised that the resident had been reporting the issue as far back as September 2018. The most recent report prior to the resident making her stage 1 complaint was on 28 February 2022. The resident had re-reported the issue next on 25 July 2023. It apologised for any inconvenience that the resident had experienced due to its contractors forgetting to complete the loft insulation works. It was satisfied that, when on notice of reported damp and mould concerns, it had “responded appropriately”. The £100 in compensation that it had offered at stage 1 was to recognise the inconvenience that the resident had experienced because of its delays in completing repairs. It said that it felt that this was a reasonable offer considering the failings that it had identified in its stage 1 complaint response. It had considered the resident’s overall experience and the time and trouble that she had experienced and would be increasing its compensation offer to a total of £150.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident confirmed to us on 12 June 2024 that she would like to proceed with her referral to the Service as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses.

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.

What we have not considered

The resident has told us that she and her family have suffered personal injury because of the damp and mould in her property. 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’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident has told us that she has experienced damage to her possessions as a result of the damp and mould in her property. Under our Scheme rules, we may not investigate aspects of a complaint that concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide cause, liability, or negligence for damage to possessions. This is best dealt with through an insurance claim. We will assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking into account all of the circumstances of the case.
The resident has told us that she has experienced damp and mould in her property for several years. However, under our Scheme rules, we may opt to scope our investigation to 12 months before the date that the stage 1 complaint was made. This is appropriate in this case because before July 2023, the most recent report of the issue was in February 2022. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have assumed that the mould wash works that it had carried out in February 2022 were successful in sorting the problem. We have therefore scoped our investigation as commencing from July 2022 onwards – 12 months prior to the stage 1 complaint being made.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy says that urgent repairs are defined as those needed when a situation is causing a resident “discomfort, inconvenience and is likely to lead to further deterioration if the problem persists”. It says that it will attend to urgent repairs within 5 working days of the problem being reported. Its repairs policy says that routine repairs are those where faults or defects are not causing an immediate discomfort or inconvenience to the resident and have no risk of long-term deterioration to the building. It says that routine repairs will be completed within 15 working days of the problem being reported.
Once a landlord is told about damage or deterioration in a property that it is responsible for, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable investigation to determine the cause and to complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of the case.
A delay in repairs is not always considered a failure, particularly if the issue is complicated. However, the landlord would be expected to proactively manage the repair and complete it as soon as it can. It would also be expected to update the resident and manage their expectations.
It appears from the definition provided within the landlord’s repairs policy that the resident’s situation would be considered as an urgent repair. The landlord therefore did not adhere to its policy as it took a total of 9 months to complete the works that it had identified in its inspection in July 2023. These works were not completed until April 2024. It then took an additional 5 months to complete the redecoration works after these repairs. Even if the landlord had classified the resident’s situation as a routine repair, it still did not comply with its policy. This was an unreasonable period for the resident to be left in disrepair, particularly because her 2 young children also live in the property. This is a significant failing by the landlord.
It is appreciated that the landlord quickly inspected the property a matter of days after the resident reported the damp and mould in her property. It then also promptly assigned works to its contractors.
However, the landlord is responsible for the contractors that it hires. The delays in its contractors beginning works were partially due to the half-hearted attempts that were made to contact the resident to book in works. The contractors rang the resident once in the month of September 2023 and did not leave a message. It rang her once more in October 2023 with a date for works, however the resident reasonably refused this date and suggested an alternative time that would work for her. Contractors told her that the next available date was not until December 2023. This was 4 months after the resident’s first report of the problem. This is a failing by the landlord as this was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to have to wait for works to even begin.
The photographs that the resident provided to the landlord during this time show the extent of the mould affecting the walls of her property. Despite this, the landlord has not provided this Service with evidence that it considered the potential impact of this on the resident’s young children. This is a significant failing by the landlord.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord did acknowledge that the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience because of its delay in completing repairs. It offered the resident £100 in compensation which it said was “by way of an apology”.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that it was satisfied that it had responded “appropriately” in its handling of repairs. It offered her an additional £50 in compensation in consideration of her “overall experience” and the time and trouble that she had experienced in “progressing damp/ mould issues”.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a sincere apology for the distress and inconvenience that she had experienced at either stage of its complaint response. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to put things right for the resident.
When considering whether the level of compensation offered by the landlord was reasonable, we not only consider the extent of the failures identified but also the impact that those failures had on the resident. In this case, it is evident that the impact on the resident and her family was considerable. This is evidenced by:
1. The resident telling us in her referral to this Service that she was living in “sub standard conditions” and that the situation was having a detrimental impact on her and her family.
2. The resident telling us that she felt that the landlord was not listening to her concerns or addressing the underlying problem causing the damp and mould.
3. The resident telling the landlord in her stage 2 complaint that she had experienced prolonged distress and inconvenience because of the situation.
Given the extent of the failures and the impact on the resident, we are not satisfied that the compensation offered by the landlord was fair and reasonable at the time the stage 2 was issued. This is because £150 is not in line with the amounts set out in our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. We have made a finding of maladministration to reflect the understandable distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s handling of repairs would have caused the resident.
To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £600 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused up to the point that it issued its stage 2 complaint response. This brings the total payable for this element of her complaint to £750.
The resident has since confirmed to us that the works were completed in April 2024. She has told us that these works were successful in resolving the damp and mould in her property. We have therefore not made orders for the landlord to complete repairs.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of this acknowledgement. It says it will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of this acknowledgement.
The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however, made, about the landlord’s standard of service.
Our complaint handling code (the Code) says that a resident does not need to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such by a landlord.
The landlord failed to recognise that the resident was making a stage 1 complaint on 20 July 2023. This is despite the resident sending her complaint directly to its complaints team and copying her MP into the correspondence. This meant that there was a 10-month delay in the landlord providing its stage 1 complaint response. This was very poor complaint handling by the landlord and significantly exceeds the amount of time that the landlord said it would take to provide its stage 1 complaint response.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint until 10 April 2024. It then contacted the resident on 17 April 2024 to request an extension of time for it to provide its complaint response. The landlord sent this email to an incorrect email address, meaning that the resident never received this extension request. This shows poor attention to detail by the landlord and a record keeping failing.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 June 2024, within the timeframe set out within its complaint policy.
Given the extent of the landlord’s complaint handling failures and the understandable distress and inconvenience that this would have caused the resident, a finding of maladministration has been made. To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £250 in compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Where possible, the landlord should attempt to obtain updates from its contractors to ensure that works are booked in as soon as possible and that all works orders are raised. This will minimise the risk of works ‘slipping through the net’, as was the case for the resident and the works to her loft insulation.
The landlord also incorrectly identified the resident’s stage 1 complaint as a service request. This would suggest a training need to ensure that the landlord’s staff have an appropriate understanding of how to deal with complaints.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the complaint process was poor. This meant that the landlord missed opportunities to manage the resident’s expectations and that the relationship between the landlord and resident broke down over time. This highlights a training need to ensure that the landlord better manages communication with its residents in the future.