Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202229170)

 

Decision
Case ID	202229170
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Jigsaw Homes Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

1. The resident expressed her unhappiness with the neighbourhood safety officer (NSO). She said, before the property was allocated they were aware it was unsuitable for her needs. They did not arrange for the prompt installation of the adaptations and the completion of the repairs. She was not protected before the landlord agreed to move her to another property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Being housed in the area.
   2. The completion of the adaptations to the property.
   3. It’s empty property process.
   4. Time taken to complete repairs.
   5. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) investigations including staff conduct.
   6. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found we do not have the jurisdiction to look at the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Being housed in the area.
   2. Completion of the required adaptations.
4. We have found there was:
   1. No maladministration in the landlord’s empty property process.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the time taken to complete repairs.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB investigations including staff conduct.
   4. No maladministration in the handling of the complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord was not involved in the allocation of the property. The occupational therapist (OT) was responsible for the installation of the adaptations to the property.
6. The landlord unreasonably delayed in carrying out the repairs to the lock to the front door and windows. Its records do not account for the delays experienced by the resident.
7. The landlord also did not address the resident’s specific concerns about the personal comments made by its staff in its records. This was not reasonable as it caused inconvenience and distress to the resident.
8. In its complaint review the landlord took appropriate steps to discuss and address the resident complaint. Overall it managed to respond to the complaint within a reasonable time scale.

 

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: A senior member of the management team provides the apology The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. The apology should address the personal comments made by the Neighbourhood Safety Manager (NSM). It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 February 2026
2.	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total compensation award of £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of its repair reports. This includes the £50 awarded in its complaint process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 February 2026

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 October 2023	The reports of ASB relate to the resident’s neighbour, who is referred to as Tenant A within this report. The neighbour’s tenancy agreement has not been seen; however, it is assumed the tenancy terms are the same as the resident.   The resident complained to the landlord and said in summary: Before she moved in the property, Neighbourhood Safety Officer (NSO) knew a notorious gang operated in the area. This caused her emotional distress. The property was in a poor condition when it was let to her. It had not been cleaned, repaired and the front door lock was not working properly. She disputed she did not want to press charges against Tenant A regarding her reports of ASB. The NSO assisted Tenant A to move to alternative accommodation, while he did not do the same for her. She felt let down, unprotected as a vulnerable resident, and said her health was affected.
31 October 2023 to 13 November 2023	Landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint and the resident’s preferred outcome.
15 November 2023	The landlord provided its Stage 1 complaint response and said in summary: ASB It confirmed it received reports of the resident being targeted by Tenant A and damage to the bedroom window. The resident was reluctant to support further action for fear of reprisals. Tenant A had moved out of the area. A management move was agreed and an offer of alternative accommodation was made on 28 September 2023. Empty home process The resident was nominated for the property from the housing register and was accompanied at the viewing by the OT. No issues were raised at the viewing, and it had not received any evidence the property was let in a substandard condition. Repairs Listed repairs raised and completed between January 2023 to April 2023 for the front door lock and glass repairs. It acknowledged the bedroom window repair reported on 17 July 2023 remained outstanding. Adaptations The OT reported the necessary equipment was in place and the path had been levelled. The Resident had told the OT on 21 September 2023 further support was not necessary. Staff conduct It did not have evidence of staff making derogatory or insulting behaviour towards her. It had reviewed correspondence and staff was engaged in discussion to find out the support needed to keep the tenancy. It was difficult to address her concerns as she had not agreed to meet at its offices, or to be visited at home.
15 November 2023 to 30 November 2023	The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint. In summary she said: The NSM called her “delusional and paranoid.” She was allocated a property detrimental to her mental health as Tenant A was known before she moved in. She wanted compensation for living in an unsanitary, unhealthy property. She had lived with broken windows for over 6 months even though the landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities.
13 December 2023	The landlord provided its Stage 2 complaint response. In summary, it said it was satisfied with its Stage 1 complaint response and:   Staff conduct The resident’s ASB reports were handled correctly. It accepted its Stage 1 complaint response did not refer to the NSO specifically. It confirmed the actions taken by the NSO and other evidence had been reviewed.   Property condition at time of viewing The property was assessed to be in a fair condition with decoration and new wet room flooring required. No follow-on works were necessary. There was no evidence of disrepair and any repairs were completed appropriately and within timescales. Reports of ASB There was no failings identified in the handling of the ASB. It could not be held responsible for unforeseen events that occurred after resident moved into the property. The resident’s vulnerabilities taken into account and a priority move had been offered. Window repairs It acknowledged a bedroom window repair remained outstanding. It had attended to fit the glass on 29 November 2023, but the repair could not be completed. It intended to complete the repair within the next fortnight. However, by then it was likely the management move should have been completed. Compensation It had not found evidence to support an offer of compensation. It accepted the resident had experienced some inconvenience progressing window repair. For this, it awarded £50 compensation which would be offset against the monies owed on the rent account.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied as the landlord had taken too long to carry out repairs. This left her with insecure windows and the NSM had made damaging comments about her. Also, the landlord was aware of the behaviour of Tenant A before she moved in. She requested compensation for the impact to her health, disrepair and property condition.

 

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	Being housed in the area
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

9. The resident complained the NSO was aware of the ASB ongoing in the area before the property was allocated to her. The evidence shows the resident was on the housing register and nominated for the tenancy. There is no evidence of involvement by the NSO.
10. Such properties are allocated via the local council’s choice-based lettings system. The OT was consulted about the allocation of the property. The allocation of the property does not fall within the landlord’s obligations. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is responsible for investigating complaints about the allocation of social housing. For those reasons, we cannot consider matters which fall properly within their jurisdiction.

Complaint	The completion of the adaptations to the property
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

11. The resident has mobility and support needs and the OT assessed the adaptations necessary for her to live in the property. The OT managed the installation of the adaptations liaising with the contractors and communicated with the NSO.
12. The OT works for the council and any disputes about dissatisfaction with the OT and the adaptations carried out falls within the responsibility of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. For those reasons, we cannot consider the resident’s dissatisfaction with the delay in the completion of the adaptations.

Complaint	It’s empty property process.
Finding	No maladministration

13. The landlord in its complaint response said the property became empty on 9 January 2022. In line with its void management procedure, during the time the property was empty, it carried out gas, electrical and energy performance checks. The wet room flooring was also renewed. In its complaint review it said it was satisfied with the property condition when it was assessed as satisfactory for letting though it acknowledged it did not have pictures to support the property condition. This is a short coming. Had it done so, it would have had evidence to support the property condition at the time.
14. When the resident viewed the property, the OT accompanied her. In the absence of photographic evidence at the time of the viewing, it was reasonable for the landlord to contact the OT on 24 March 2023. This was to obtain an independent assessment of the property condition. The OT advised she did not recall any issues with the property condition and agreed it was suitable for the resident to live in.
15. The landlord acted in line with its void management procedure to ensure the property was suitable to be allocated to a new tenant. Shortly after the resident moved into the property the NSO was informed in June 2022 the resident may need support to help manage the tenancy. The NSO acted in a resident focused way to arrange a multi-agency panel to discuss how the resident could be supported. This was reasonable.
16. There is no evidence the property did not meet the landlord’s standard set out its void management procedure. The necessary checks were carried out and neither the resident or the OT raised concerns about the property condition at the viewing. For those reasons, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Complaint	Time taken to complete repairs
Finding	Maladministration

 

17. Section 11 of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a term into the resident’s tenancy agreement that the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair. The legal obligation is triggered when the landlord is notified of an issue; the landlord has a reasonable period of time to carry out works for which it is liable. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states it is responsible for the maintenance of the structure of doors and windows. It will offer appointments and inform residents of agreed appointment times.
18. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the property being secure. It received multiple reports between April 2022 to December 2022 the resident was having problems locking the front door. The landlord’s records do not show how it responded regarding the reports it received on 29 April 2022 and 12 May 2022, about the security of the front door. This is not reasonable as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It also remained responsible for ensuring the front door had an effective lock and was secure.
19. On receiving a further report about the front door lock, the landlord responded on 30 October 2022 in line with its emergency repair timescales. The front door lock was replaced. This was reasonable and in line with its responsive repairs procedure.
20. The resident made a further report on 28 November 2022 for the landlord to change the type of lock to the front door lock to a “turn lock type”. The resident explained this was because she was experiencing problems locking the door. The lock was changed on 22 December 2022. The delays in arranging the lock change cannot be solely attributed to the landlord. This is because the resident was unwell and cancelled appointments for 15 December 2022 and 19 December 2022.
21. The resident made further reports regarding the security of the door on 17 February 2023. The resident cancelled the appointment before the landlord could attend on 7 February 2023 advising the problem had been resolved.
22. The resident reported a broken living room window on 29 November 2022. The same day it attended as an emergency to board the window. This was reasonable and in line with its responsive repairs procedure. However, there is no evidence further action was taken to repair the window until the resident made a further report on 12 December 2022 about the window repair. An appointment was arranged for 15 December 2022.
23. The landlord cancelled the appointment advising she was unwell. There is no evidence the landlord rearranged the appointment. This was unreasonable as it was aware the property was located on the ground floor and that the resident was vulnerable and had support needs.
24. The landlord received a further report on 6 January 2023 regarding a broken window to the resident’s property. The landlord’s records do not say which room was affected, therefore it is unclear whether this relates to the living room window reported in November 2022. Its records show the glass was measured on 10 January 2023. Its records do not say the action it took after that if any including whether the glass was ever replaced. This is not reasonable as its repair records should set out the actions taken once repair reports are received and the outcome.
25. Around 3 months later on 20 April 2023, the landlord received a further report from the OT about broken windows to the resident’s property. The landlord was informed that windows were broken regularly. However, there is no follow up to that report by the repairs team. It is noted the NSO was communicating with his multi-agency partners regarding providing support to the resident. The landlord’s records show the window was reglazed on 26 May 2023. This is the first time since the resident report in November 2022 that we see evidence of the landlord carrying out reglazing. In the absence of evidence this means it is possible the resident was left without the window repair for up to 6 months. This was not reasonable as it likely caused inconvenience and distress to the resident.
26. There was a further report on 17 July 2023 of 2 broken windows, likely to the front bedroom and kitchen. The landlord took action to board the windows, but no further action was taken. This was not reasonable as the landlord failed to act in line with its repairing obligations set out in its responsive repair procedure to keep the property in repair.
27. There was a delay of around 4 months until 7 November 2023 before the landlord acted to reglaze the windows reported in July 2023. The landlord’s records do not give an explanation for the delay. This is not reasonable as the landlord should have responded earlier to the repair reports in line with its repairing obligations and recorded the outcome.
28. The landlord in its Stage 2 complaint response accepted the window repair remained outstanding. It also said by the time the window repair was completed, the resident was likely to have moved into her new tenancy. The landlord had agreed a management move and the resident’s new tenancy date was 12 December 2023. For the delays in carrying out the window repairs, the landlord made a compensation award of £50. This was not sufficient for the delays experienced by the resident. Our Remedies Guidance says compensation awards between £100 to £600 are payable when a situation adversely affects a resident. While some of the delays cannot be solely attributed to the landlord as the resident cancelled appointments, the landlord did not take sufficient steps to ensure the multiple window repairs were monitored and progressed to completion. For those reasons an additional payment of £250 has been awarded for the unreasonable delays experienced by the resident and a finding of maladministration made.

Complaint	Anti-social behaviour (ASB) investigations including staff conduct
Finding	Service failure

 

29. The landlord is required to act in line with its ASB polices and we expect landlords to treat residents with fairness and respect. The resident expressed her unhappiness with the conduct of the NSO and NSM in managing her reports of ASB.
30. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take preventative action or try early intervention to resolve reports of ASB received. This will include undertaking risk assessments and commit to working with its partners before taking formal legal action to stop issues escalating.
31. The NSO acted in line with the ASB policy. The evidence shows reports of ASB was recorded, case reviews carried out and multi-agency work undertaken with the resident’s support workers and the police. The resident explained she was afraid of reprisals and did not want to act as a witness. This was accepted by the NSO and limited the action that could be taken to resolve the ASB.
32. It is not uncommon for those experiencing ASB to have an expectation that their landlords have the authority to take possession of a neighbour’s property where there is evidence to support the reports of ASB. The landlord after a review of the evidence it had gathered decided it did not have a sufficient level of independent corroborating evidence to support formal action against Tenant A. During the ASB investigation, Tenant A moved to another property. Around this time, the resident agreed to cooperate with the ASB investigation. This investigation cannot comment on the reasons for Tenant A’s move. Therefore it is outside the scope of this investigation.
33. The resident believed the NSO assisted Tenant A to move and did not provide the same level of support to her. There is no evidence the landlord did not respond to her reports of ASB in line with the obligations in its ASB policy and consider her assessed needs.
34. The resident said the NSO had caused her emotional distress and said she was unhappy with the contents of an email he sent once the management move was agreed. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. We are unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint as these matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the distress and inconvenience the resident said she experienced.
35. The resident said in her escalated complaint, she was unhappy the NSM had referred to her as “paranoid and delusional” in the ASB case notes. The landlord in its Stage 2 complaint did not specifically address her concerns but provided an overview of the NSO handling of the ASB reports. This was not reasonable as the resident was distressed by the personal comments made in the ASB reports. The landlord should have acknowledged and given reasons for the terms being used. In addition, it should have apologised for the distress experienced by the resident.
36. For those reasons an order has been made for a senior manager to apologise in writing to the resident and a finding of service failure made.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

 

37. The resident complained to the landlord on 22 October 2023. The landlord’s complaint procedure and our complaint handling code says complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days. It can be seen the landlord tried to contact and speak to the resident to clarify the complaint as it was unsure of the matters complained about. This led to the landlord taking 15 working days until 13 November 2023 to acknowledge the complaint. In this particular case, the landlord offered different mechanisms to support the resident to make and clarify the complaint. For those reasons, the landlord should not be criticised for the additional time taken to acknowledge the complaint.
38. The landlord took 2 working days to provide its Stage 1 complaint response on 15 November 2023. This was reasonable as it was in line with its complaint handling target to respond to Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The speed of response also reduced the overall waiting time for the resident to receive its initial position on the complaint.
39. The resident escalated the complaint on 15 November 2023. She provided additional information on 17 November 2023 and 20 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged the Stage 2 complaint on 28 November 2023 and provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 13 December 2023. This was reasonable as it took 11 working days which was within its target of responding to Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. For those reasons a finding of no maladministration has been made.

 

Learning

Communication

40. The landlord:
    1. Had excellent ASB records evidencing actions taken, outcomes and collaboration with multi-agency partners.
    2. Should review its management of unsuccessful appointments and whether appointments should be cancelled when an appointment fails.
    3. On receiving this complex complaint, it tried different ways to establish the resident’s concerns. This involved the offer of different ways to make the complaint including using a recorded call to find out the resident’s concerns and preferred outcome. This showed a willingness to work with the resident to ensure her voice was heard.