Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202319303)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319303

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

20 February 2025

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a neighbour storing bulky items in the communal garden.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenancy of the landlord. The tenancy started in 2020. The property is a flat in a block that has a shared communal garden.
  2. The resident notified the landlord in August 2022 that a neighbour had erected a trampoline in the communal garden. The landlord wrote to all resident in the block on 9 September 2022 reminding them that communal gardens are for all resident’s use. It asked them to arrange for the removal of any items stored there.
  3. The trampoline was not removed, so the resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 5 February 2023.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 22 February 2023. It apologised and agreed to send another letter to the block.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 25 May 2023 because the trampoline remained in the communal garden.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 16 June 2023. It apologised that it had not completed the actions it had agreed to in its stage 1 response. It awarded her £100 compensation and said it would move quickly.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 1 September 2023 unhappy with the action the landlord had taken because the bulky items were still in the communal garden. She wanted the landlord to remove the items.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has a 6-stage removal of tenant’s belongings in communal areas procedure. It states that it is not always necessary to follow all 6 stages and its Caretaker should make an assessment of each case and decide which steps to follow. The 6 stages are:
    1. A letter placed on the items that asks to owner to remove them.
    2. A letter sent to the owner of the items or all residents in the block if not known.
    3. Escalation to Assistant Manager in the caretaking team who will decide on action to take.
    4. Lettings and Tenancy Officer attempts to make contact with owner of items to inform that it is a breach of their tenancy agreement.
    5. A letter sent to the owner if known or attached to the items if the owner is not known warning that items will be removed to storage. Items should then be taken to storage for a period of 28 days.
    6. If owner does not remove items after 28 days items should be disposed of.
  2. When the resident notified the landlord of her neighbour storing a trampoline in the communal garden, she wanted to clarify that the garden was a communal space. After it had confirmed that it was, she asked it to send a letter to all the residents in the block on 26 August 2022 to ask for removal of the trampoline.
  3. The landlord wrote to all residents in the block on 9 September 2022 and told them they should remove any items stored in the communal garden. While there is no evidence it considered its procedure at that time, given the resident had asked it to send a letter to everyone in the block the action it took was reasonable.
  4. The resident e-mailed the landlord on 18 October 2022 and asked if there was anything else it could do because the trampoline was still there. There is no evidence the landlord responded to her concerns, nor did it consider whether to begin its removal of tenant’s belongings procedure.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord that the trampoline was still in the communal garden on 5 February 2023. She said she felt that the issue was preventing her from being able to enjoy the communal space.
  6. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it apologised it had not responded to her earlier e-mail. It agreed to send another letter to the block to remind them the garden was a communal space. It would give 28 days for the neighbour to remove the trampoline. It hoped that by setting a timescale it would prompt the neighbour to remove it. It said it would escalate the case in line with its procedures if the items remained after 28 days. Given the previous letter had not been successful and the trampoline had been in the communal garden for almost 6 months the landlord should have considered beginning its removal of tenants belongs procedure as part of its stage 1 response.
  7. The landlord wrote to all residents on 22 February 2023 and told them that if the items being stored in the communal garden were not removed after 28 days it would remove them.
  8. The resident e-mailed the landlord on 2 April 2023 and said that the 28 days had elapsed, but the trampoline was still there. As the landlord had told her it would begin its procedure if the items were not removed, it would have been appropriate for it to have visited the property after 28 days instead of relying on the resident contacting it.
  9. During April and May 2023 the landlord asked the resident for details of who owned the trampoline. It told her that it did not have the capacity to knock on every door to establish who the owner was. That further delayed matters unnecessarily because its procedure allowed it to act without knowledge of who owns the items stored in communal areas. Again, it missed an opportunity to begin its procedure by visiting the property and leaving a letter on the trampoline.
  10. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 25 May 2023 because the landlord had not acted on her earlier reports. She said the neighbour had added a football goal to the garden as well as the trampoline.
  11. As part of its stage 2 complaint investigation the landlord wrote to all residents in the block and asked the owner of the items to remove them from the garden before 20 June 2023. It said if they did not it would remove them and charge the owner the cost of the removal. Given the previous letters had not resulted in the neighbour removing the trampoline it was appropriate it set a deadline.
  12. The landlord apologised in its stage 2 response that it had not progressed the commitments it made in its stage 1 response in a timely manner. It assured the resident that it would take prompt action following its response and awarded her £100 compensation for the inconvenience she had experienced. That response would have been reasonable had the landlord progressed to the conclusion of the bulky items being removed.
  13. The landlord identified the owner of the bulky items and spoke to them on 22 June 2023. It gave them a further 2 weeks to arrange removal of their items from the garden. Although the initial deadline of 20 June 2023 had elapsed it was proportionate to allow a further 2 weeks. However, the landlord did not monitor the situation and there is no evidence it completed a visit to the garden to inspect whether the neighbour had removed the items.
  14. An internal landlord e-mail from 8 September 2023 referred to the items having been removed. However, it did not provide any evidence to show that it had visited and the resident contacted this Service in February and May 2024. She said the items were still in the garden. The landlord visited the block over 6 months later, on 16 May 2024 and confirmed the owner of the items had removed them.
  15. That it took almost a year after its stage 2 response for the bulky items to be removed, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of that issue. It did not follow up with the owner of the items in June 2023 and it failed to show it had considered its own procedures when it acted. It put the onus on the resident to keep it updated when its procedure did not require it to. The resident told this Service that she did not feel it had taken her concerns seriously.
  16. When deciding on an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy have been considered. The landlord’s policy states it will consider the duration of any avoidable distress or inconvenience and the severity of any unfair impact. An additional amount of £150 has been decided as appropriate to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by landlord’s delay in enforcing removal of the bulky items. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a neighbour storing bulky items in the communal garden.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 in compensation in relation to the failings highlighted in this report. It should pay the resident directly and not use the amount against any rent or service charge arrears.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence it has made the payment within 4 weeks of the date of this report.