Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202316442)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202316442
Jigsaw Homes Group Limited
23 October 2024
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
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
- Damp and mould in the property.
- Repairs to the bathroom.
- Anti-social behaviour (ASB) and the associated request for a separate garden.
Background
- The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a low-rise building. She has lived at the property since July 2021. The landlord has told this service that it was made aware during this complaint that the resident has a number of health issues.
- On 16 November 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she had damp and mould in her property. On 23 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again to say the situation had not improved. The landlord attended the property on 2 September 2022 to inspect the damp and reported that a mould treatment was required.
- On 3 October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that a tile from her bathroom wall had fallen and almost hit her on the head. The landlord contacted the resident on 13 October 2022 to clarify the details of her complaint. The resident stated she wished to complain about:
- The damp and mould in her kitchen, which was affecting her health.
- The state of repair of the bathroom.
- Her neighbour had received a new bathroom and kitchen, and she had not.
- Her dissatisfaction with the noise and littering from her neighbour.
- Why the communal garden could not be separated so that her and her neighbour had their own outdoor space.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2022. The landlord said:
- It apologised for not addressing the damp and mould issue when it was first reported and hoped that the subsequent work had resolved the issue.
- It had not received any previous reports of loose tiles and the actions it had taken were quick and appropriate.
- It would arrange a further inspection of the bathroom and kitchen and reassess whether the resident needed new installations.
- The ASB matters had already been dealt with under its formal complaint process and it would not revisit the matter.
- It had received no previous request for a separated garden; therefore, it would not deal with the matter as a complaint.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 3 July 2023 and stated the damp and mould was an ongoing issue, and her health was deteriorating. The resident also complained about the way more recent incidents of ASB, involving the same neighbour, had been handled.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 August 2023. The landlord confirmed it had conducted a damp inspection at her property and that significant works were required. It said that due to the health of the resident, it would only carry out these works if she was out of the property. The landlord acknowledged that the resident did not want to stay in a hotel and stated it would continue working with her to find a resolution to the matter.
- The landlord said it had examined the recent incidents of ASB and believed it had managed them appropriately. It also stated it was aware of the resident’s request to split the garden had been refused, and having reviewed the decision, it was satisfied the decision had been made correctly.
- The resident remains dissatisfied with the response and brought the complaint to this Service.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
- In the documentation provided, the resident has raised matters that occurred both before and after those subject to this complaint, which have not been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 3 August 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
- The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. The resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.
Damp and mould in the property
- On 16 November 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that she had damp and mould in her kitchen. The landlord did not attend the property, and on 23 August 2022, the resident made a further call to the landlord and said that there had been no improvement in the situation.
- The landlord provided the resident with an insurance claim form on 1 September 2022 so she could claim for damage caused by the damp. On 2 September 2022, the landlord conducted a damp inspection at the property. The inspection report noted the damp readings were consistent with condensation and the landlord provided the resident with an advice leaflet. The landlord also conducted a mould wash at the property on 10 October 2022.
- The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that when a tenant reports they are suffering with damp and mould it will:
- Ask questions to understand why the damp is present.
- Action any repairs that are reported to be the cause of damp.
- Provide advice on actions the resident can take if it appears to be related to “lifestyle”.
- Recontact the tenant after 4 weeks to see if the damp has improved. If there have been no improvements a damp inspection will be conducted, and further works will be assessed.
- The landlord failed to follow its policy and take the required follow up action with the resident, causing the resident to further report the matter 9 months later. While its response to the second report was swift and in line with its policy, an inspection should have been conducted 8 months earlier. From the documentation provided, it is not clear whether the resident was offered any advice on how she could mitigate condensation build-up following her first report.
- On 3 October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord about unrelated matters. During a phone call with the landlord on 13 October 2022, the resident confirmed she also wished to complain the damp and mould in kitchen was still an issue that was affecting her health. The resident also complained that her neighbour had received a new kitchen, and she had not.
- The resident emailed the landlord on 17 October 2022 and attached letters from her GP, which suggested that her health problems were being aggravated by the issues within her property. She stated her cupboards and drawers had a mouldy smell which was transferring to her pans and crockery. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the email the same day.
- On 3 November 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord apologised for failing to recontact the resident following her initial report of damp. The landlord also stated:
- Following her second report of damp and mould, an inspection was conducted, and a mould wash was arranged.
- The mould wash had been completed and it hoped this aspect of her complaint was satisfactorily concluded.
- An annual inspection of the kitchen was conducted on 8 June 2022 and the condition was marked as “poor”. It would arrange a second inspection to determine why the kitchen was scored that way and reassess the options available.
- While the response acknowledged its initial failings, the landlord failed to recognise that the damp and mould issue was ongoing. The resident’s email dated 17 October 2022 confirmed this. This was a significant failing and a missed opportunity to investigate the matter further, at an earlier stage.
- On 3 May 2023, the resident reported she had damp and mould on the wall behind the washing machine, and she had many health issues. The landlord attended the property on 25 May 2023, 15 working days after the report, and noted that a full inspection could not be completed until the base units had been removed.
- The landlord’s responsive repair procedure defines an urgent repair as a situation that is causing a tenant discomfort, inconvenience and nuisance and it is likely to lead to further deterioration if the problem persists. It states that an urgent repair will be attended within 5 working days. Given the previous reports of damp in the same area of the property, the potential for the mould to spread if left untreated, and the resident’s known medical problems, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to treat the report as an urgent repair and attend sooner.
- The landlord reattended the property on 14 June 2023 and removed the kitchen units. It noted the presence of damp and mould and recorded that treatment was required before the units could be replaced. The resident was away from the property from 15 to 26 June 2023. On 27 June 2023, the resident reported there was further damp and mould in her bedroom and bathroom. The landlord made an appointment for 4 July 2023, to conduct a further inspection of the property.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 3 July 2023 and told the landlord she was unhappy with its response to the damp and mould, which was getting worse. She also stated the issue was affecting her health. The resident explained that she had wished to escalate the complaint earlier but due to other family matters this had not been possible. The landlord accepted the escalation.
- The landlord conducted a further inspection at the property on 4 July 2023. It recorded that the damp proof course (DPC) had been breached causing excessive damp to the kitchen and hallway area. The landlord prepared a schedule of works that needed to be quoted for, including:
- Remedial repair to kitchen and hallway walls.
- Injection of chemical DPC.
- Replace kitchen fittings.
- Fit passive air vents.
- Conduct 3-stage mould treatment to all affected areas throughout the property.
- Fully redecorate kitchen and bathroom.
- The inspection was conducted within 5 working days and was treated as urgent as per the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure. However, given the information available to the landlord at the material time, it is reasonable to conclude that the inspection should have been conducted in October 2022, when the resident reported the issue had not been resolved. Therefore, it was 9 months late.
- The landlord informed the resident verbally that due to the scale of the work involved, it would need to get 2 contractors to quote for the works, select a contractor and then get the work booked in. The landlord advised this could take up to 2 months and recommended that the resident was decanted from the property during the works due to the potential impact on her health. The resident disputes that she was given a time scale for the works and chased the repairs on 17, 19 and 26 July 2023.
- The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure defines a non-routine repair as one which requires more complex or substantial work to complete the repair in full. This includes repairs that have a longer duration or that require organisation of materials, access equipment and on occasion, support from specialist contractors. The landlord will aim to complete non-routine repairs within 90 days of the repair first being reported. The procedure also states that larger works, such as kitchen installations, will usually be included in a planned maintenance programme with no fixed timescale.
- Due to the amount of work involved and the need for specialist contractors, it was reasonable of the landlord to suggest a 2-month time frame. This exceeded the timescale set out in its procedure. It was also appropriate for the landlord to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities and provide a decant while the work was conducted, in this case, the offer of a hotel. The landlord could have avoided confusion over its time scales by providing the resident with them in writing.
- On 28 July 2023, the resident informed the landlord that she refused to stay in a hotel while the work was completed and stated the operatives could work around her. Internal landlord notes show the work had been booked to begin on 14 August 2023 and the landlord was unwilling to allow the work to take place while the resident was in the property due to the risk of exposure to dust.
- The landlord contacted the resident on 1 and 2 August 2023 to explain the reasons why a decant was needed and it reiterated its concerns for her health and wellbeing. The resident continued to refuse the offer of hotel accommodation and suggested the landlord should move her to another property. The landlord explained that as the work had only been scheduled in for 10 days, it would be unable to provide a decant to another property.
- The landlord does not have a decant policy, or one which applies to temporary accommodation. The work was scheduled to cover a two-week period and was due to start imminently. Its offer to only decant the resident to a hotel for the period of the works and not offer an alternative property was reasonable and proportionate given the length of the proposed activity.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 August 2023. The landlord apologised if the timescales had not been communicated clearly and stated:
- It was satisfied that following the survey July 2023, there had been no failings in its approach.
- It had offered hotel accommodation while the repairs took place, in view of the resident’s reported medical issues and the potential risks to her health.
- Talks were still underway to establish a way forward, but the works could not begin until the resident had been temporarily accommodated elsewhere.
- The evidence shows that the resident had provided the landlord with letters from her doctor outlining their concerns that her living conditions were having a negative effect on her health. The landlord appears to have made a risk-based decision not to conduct the works with the resident in situ, on the basis to do so may have worsened her health. In such circumstances, it is reasonable that the landlord adopted an approach which prevented a potential immediate risk to the resident’s health and while attempting to facilitate a solution to the substantive issue. The landlord stayed in communication to try and find suitable temporary accommodation for the repairs to be completed.
- While it was reasonable for the landlord to state it had taken an appropriate approach to deal with the issue since the inspection in July, it did not acknowledge its previous failings in its stage 2 response that led to the complaint being escalated. The inspection should have taken place 9 months earlier when it was made aware the issues were ongoing. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to address this in its complaint response.
- Following the stage 2 response the landlord continued to liaise with the resident to look at alternative options to temporarily accommodate her so the works could take place. The landlord agreed to pay for a more expensive hotel, with an additional food allowance, and pay for the resident’s belongings to be stored. The resident later declined the offer of storage.
- The landlord completed the damp and mould works to the resident’s property on 13 October 2023, and a new kitchen was installed. The landlord has not disclosed any further reports of damp and mould at the property.
- Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so the Ombudsman considers whether the redress was in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
- The landlord’s actions from the inspection in July 2023 were swift, appropriate, and demonstrated it put the resident’s vulnerabilities at the forefront of its decision making. It went to great lengths to find a compromise with the resident, and in doing so, incurred higher costs. However, its failure to follow up the damp matter in November 2021 and provide a further inspection in October 2022, led to a significant delay in resolving the issue. This delay occurred in circumstances where the resident had informed the landlord that its earlier works to resolve the issue had not worked. This caused the resident to feel ignored and distressed, leading to a breakdown in the landlord and tenant relationship.
- Whilst the good work of the landlord is acknowledged, its failure to acknowledge and put right its early failings amounts to maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £300 compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This amount of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
Repairs to the bathroom
- On 3 October 2022, the resident complained to the landlord that a tile had fallen from the bathroom wall and almost hit her on the back of the head. She states that other tiles were also loose. The landlord attended the property the following day to secure the loose tiles and replace the grouting. The landlord also completed a health and safety form to record the “near miss”.
- The landlord’s responsive repair procedure defines an urgent repair as a situation that is causing the tenant discomfort, inconvenience and nuisance and it is likely to lead to further deterioration if the problem persists. It also states that urgent repairs will be attended within 5 working days of the repair being reported.
- The landlord’s health and safety policy states that managers have a responsibility to ensure that all accidents or near misses are reported and recorded to prevent similar incidents in the future. The landlord acted swiftly by recording the incident on the day it occurred and completing the repair the following day in line with its repair procedure.
- The landlord contacted the resident on 13 October 2022 to obtain further details of her complaint. It recorded that the resident was unhappy with the bathroom due to the loose tiles and the flooring was not fit for purpose. The resident also queried why her neighbour had received a new bathroom and she had not.
- The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 November 2022. The landlord said:
- It had not received any previous reports of loose tiles from the resident, and it was satisfied that it had acted swiftly and in line with its policies.
- The bathroom floor was the responsibility of the resident.
- The resident’s bathroom was subject to an annual inspection and on 8 June 2022, the bathroom had been ranked as in good condition. However, the landlord offered to complete a further inspection to assess whether the condition had changed.
- The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure sets out the responsibilities of both the landlord and the tenant. The policy states that repairs to the floor coverings of the property are the responsibility of the tenant.
- The landlord’s stage 1 response appropriately addressed the aspects of the resident’s bathroom complaint. The landlord was also fair in offering a further inspection of the bathroom, even though it was not due for another 7 months.
- The following day the landlord raised an order to have the resident’s bathroom inspected. From the documentation provided, it is unclear what date this took place, but the bathroom was ranked 4, very good.
- The resident did not escalate this aspect of her complaint. The landlord referred to the complaint in its stage 2 response, dated 3 August 2023, but did not make further comment on it.
- The landlord had not been notified of any issues with the bathroom prior to the resident’s report of the falling tile in October 2022. Despite this, the landlord took swift action to resolve the issue and a proactive approach to understanding what other concerns the resident had. The landlord addressed these concerns in line with its policies and conducted a further inspection. This was a positive step for the landlord to take, to reassure the resident it was taking her problems seriously.
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.
ASB and the associated request for a separate garden
- The resident’s property is a ground floor flat, with a flat above her. Each flat has a separate front door, and they share a communal garden. The ASB reported by the resident relates to her neighbour above.
- When the resident made her complaint to the landlord on 3 October 2022, she did not mention any concerns over ASB or having a separate garden. On 13 October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident for details of her complaint. The resident told the landlord that she also wished to complain about:
- Why she could not have a gate in the communal garden to separate areas for her and her neighbour.
- Dissatisfaction with the noise and littering caused by her neighbour.
- In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 3 November 2022, the landlord stated it had not found any previous requests from the resident for the garden to be separated, and as such, it would not be treated as a complaint. It also provided the resident with advice on how to make a request for the garden to be separated. In relation to the noise and littering, the landlord stated it would not include these matters in her complaint response as they had already been investigated using its 2-stage complaint process.
- The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a number of reasons why it will not accept a complaint from a tenant. Included in that list, is when a tenant reports a problem to it for the first time or complaints that have already been investigated under the policy. It was appropriate for the landlord not to deal with these issues as a complaint at this stage and provide the resident relevant advice.
- On 2 June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that her upstairs neighbour had left items of property all over the communal garden. The landlord wrote to the neighbour the same day, asking them to remove the items before 16 June 2023. The landlord inspected the garden on 7 June 2023 and found the issue had been resolved. The landlord closed the matter as resolved.
- The tenancy agreement in place, for both the resident and the neighbour, states that it is the tenant’s responsibility to keep the garden in an acceptable and tidy condition. It was appropriate for the landlord to contact the neighbour and remind them of this responsibility, which effectively resolved the issue.
- On 3 June 2023, the resident stated the neighbour verbally abused her, due to the neighbour receiving a letter from the landlord regarding the garden. The resident reported this to the police the same day and then to the landlord on 5 June 2023. The landlord contacted the resident the same day to arrange a face to meeting and recorded the matter as ASB.
- The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB in line with the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 as:
- conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
- conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
- conduct capable of causing “housing‐related” nuisance or annoyance to any person (housing related meaning directly or indirectly relating to its housing management functions).
- The policy also states that when a report of ASB is made, if the query cannot be dealt with immediately, the landlord will contact the tenant within 2 working days. The landlord’s response was prompt, on the day the resident made her report, and exceeded the timescales set out in its policy.
- The landlord met with the resident on 8 June 2023, to discuss the ongoing ASB issues. The resident said she had provided the police with a statement regarding the verbal abuse, and she wanted to press charges. The resident also stated that the neighbour’s children had been inviting friends into the garden, their bikes were obstructing the footpath, and there was often foul language heard. As a resolution, the resident stated she wanted:
- The neighbour to be told to keep the garden tidy.
- The neighbour to be told not to have friend’s children in the garden.
- The garden to be split so her neighbour was unable to reach her windows. and she had a separate path to her front door.
- The landlord stated that a further garden inspection had been conducted that day and there were no issues with the condition of the garden. It informed her that children were allowed to play in the garden, and have visitors, as it was a shared space. However, the landlord would ask the neighbour to show more consideration and not leave bikes on the path obstructing the resident’s access to her property.
- The landlord told the resident that splitting the garden would be impractical, as it would prevent the neighbour from accessing the washing line and this was unfair. However, the landlord agreed to consult with the neighbour about splitting the garden.
- Following the meeting, and on the same day, the landlord completed a risk assessment for the resident, invited the neighbour to attend an interview regarding the allegations, and spoke to another tenant who had heard the verbal abuse. It also created a plan of action, which included:
- Liaising with the police.
- Speaking to the neighbour about the allegations made.
- The landlord’s ASB policy states it is committed to responding early to complaints of ASB and agreeing action plans with tenants on how their complaint will be dealt with. While the policy is silent on timescales, this Service would expect actions to be carried out within a reasonable amount of time. Given the allegation potentially involved a crime and the likelihood of the resident and the neighbour having further contact, it was appropriate that the landlord act promptly. The landlord’s response was positive, in that it carried out actions on the same day, demonstrating its commitment to resolving the issue for the resident.
- The landlord liaised with the police on 9 and 11 June 2023 and established that criminal matters were not being pursued. On 12 June 2023, the resident reported to the landlord she was having further issues with children using the communal garden and kicking balls against her window and fence.
- The neighbour contacted the landlord on 12 June 2023 after receiving the letter setting out the allegations. The landlord made various attempts to recontact the neighbour throughout June without success. On 6 July 2023, the landlord sent the neighbour a further letter, setting out the need for an interview. The neighbour called the landlord the same day and gave their version of events. They stated:
- The resident started shouting and screaming at them first.
- They responded with a verbal insult.
- They found the resident’s complaints unfounded and harassing.
- They considered splitting the garden but deemed it unfair and unmanageable.
- On 3 July 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again to say that she had received no update since her meeting on 8 June and that the landlord was blocking her emails. From the documentation provided it would appear that the resident was not updated following her meeting with the landlord. The landlord’s ASB policy is silent on how often it will update a tenant reporting ASB. It would have been helpful if the landlord had provided the resident with an earlier update to demonstrate the prompt actions it was taking to investigate her report.
- The resident provided screen shots of emails to the landlord being returned as undelivered. These screen shots show that the resident had mistyped the landlord’s email address causing them to be returned. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord blocked the resident’s emails.
- The resident’s main reason for calling the landlord on 3 July was to escalate her substantive complaint as she was disappointed that the landlord could not agree to her request to split the shared garden. While the more recent instances of ASB were not originally complained about, the landlord included the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction when it escalated her complaint.
- Under normal circumstances it would not be reasonable to take a complaint straight to the second stage of the process as this removes the resident’s ability to access a further review of the complaint if they are unsatisfied with the outcome. However, the resident was clear that the request for a separate garden was inextricably linked to the ongoing reports of ASB and the landlord acknowledged this by including the ASB matter in the substantive complaint.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 August 2023. The landlord said that while it appreciated her frustration with the garden situation, it was unable to accommodate her request for the garden to be split. It further stated that it was sorry to hear of the incidents between the resident and her neighbour, but after reviewing the recent ASB reports it found no failures in the handling of the case thus far.
- The landlord was under no obligation create separate spaces in the garden for each tenant. The evidence shows that despite this, the landlord considered the request and liaised with the affected neighbour to try and seek a resolution. However, any separation would ultimately be unfair and unmanageable to one or both parties. The landlord’s handling of the request was fair and reasonable to both parties involved, and its decision-making process was considered and reasonable.
- The landlord acted swiftly to the resident’s reports about the neighbour and evidenced a multi-agency approach to tackling the problem. The ASB case remained open after the stage 2 response had been issued. However, the landlord’s response was appropriate and fair.
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB and the associated request for a separate garden.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of ASB and the associated request for a separate garden.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
- Provide the resident with an apology for the failings identified in this report.
- Pay directly to the resident £300 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
- In accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct a review of the key failures highlighted in this report. Within 8 weeks, the landlord should present this review to its senior leadership team and provide the Ombudsman a report summarising its identified improvements. The review should focus on:
- Understanding why the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had followed its damp procedure when the matter was first reported, specifically why actions under this procedure were not implemented, and any changes it needs to make to ensure it is able to effectively tackle reports of damp and mould are made.
- The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the orders within the timescales set out above.