From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202322689)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322689

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

30 April 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:
    1. The condition of the property when let and the landlord’s handling of associated repair issues.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident became a tenant of the landlord on 24 April 2023. The property is a first floor flat. The resident has autism and suffers with his mental health.
  2. The resident moved into the property on 24 April 2023. Between April and June 2023:
    1. Operatives completed a live electrical test on 24 April and reported replacing lighting cables due to rodent damage.
    2. An operative uncapped the gas supply on 25 April. There was a water leak from the pipes in the loft coming through the kitchen and they recapped the gas. They could not fix the pipework on the day as 2 people needed to access the loft for safety reasons.
    3. Operatives attended on 27 April to fix the pipes in the loft. They could not complete the work due to squirrels in the loft and said the landlord needed to resolve the pest issue first. The landlord arranged to drop off temporary heaters on the same day.
    4. On 28 April, it identified that there was a large tree near the roof that it needed to inspect and cut back. It asked someone to clear the garden as it had not done this during the void period. The resident asked the landlord to cut back the trees on 19 May as it was touching his window and roof.
    5. On 4 May, roofers blocked holes in the roof and checked the roof space. It arranged to reattend on 10 May to connect the gas. It changed the appointment to 5 May following a call from a representative regarding the resident’s mental health. It repaired the pipe and uncapped the gas. It has said he reported that the thermostat for the boiler was not working on 15 May. It said it repaired the thermostat and receiver on 22 May.
    6. The landlord reviewed the rent account on 5 May as it had not received payment. On 11 May, the resident told the landlord that UC would not send payment as it had not verified the tenancy. It verified the tenancy with UC on 15 May and began to receive monthly direct payments on 14 June.
    7. On 15 May, the resident reported that the toilet was leaking from the waste pipe and causing a foul smell throughout the property. The landlord initially booked the repair for 22 May but attended on 16 May. On 17 May, he reported water leaking externally from a pipe linked to his toilet. It completed work to isolate and repair a ball valve in a neighbouring property on 22 May.
    8. The landlord has said that the resident reported damp on the walls and ceilings on 16 May. The landlord inspected the property on 19 May and found that a wall in the hallway was damp, with wet cavity insulation, and it needed to reskim the kitchen ceiling. It has said it completed a further survey on 25 May regarding the damp repairs. It then raised remedial damp works on 5 June 2023.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 14 June 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the repair issues since the start of the tenancy. In summary:
    1. He set out a timeline of what happened in relation to the gas and heating. He explained that he received a call on 9 May to say that the landlord had completed all repairs to the gas supply despite there being no working thermostat and the power control for the boiler was duct taped together.
    2. He listed other concerns related to the toilet (which he said had an incorrect inlet pipe that caused a sewage smell throughout the property), damp, an outbuilding full of paint waste, and waste bins that were full at the start of the tenancy (and the council would not take the rubbish). He believed that the landlord should have resolved these issues before he moved in. He added that there was a lack of lighting at the front of the property which was a health and safety issue as he could not see debris or the step. He asked the landlord to install a motion sensor light.
    3. He noted that the landlord should have referred him to its early intervention team before the tenancy began in relation to his rent. He felt that it allowed the rent arrears to build up due to not following its own processes.
    4. The landlord provided temporary heaters, but he was not able to access hot water or bathe so needed to stay at friends’ houses. This meant he needed to spend money on taxis to be at the property for appointments. He did not have full enjoyment of the property due to the damp smells and its current condition.
    5. He did not feel the property was habitable from the start of the tenancy and asked the landlord to credit 8 weeks worth of rent to his rent account, reduce his rent by 50% until it completed repairs, and cover his additional costs during this period. He also asked for £100 compensation for the distress caused.
  4. The landlord completed remedial damp works on 5 July 2023.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023, the landlord explained:
    1. It capped the gas supply at the end of the previous tenancy and the issues with the gas and leaks from the heating pipes would not have been apparent. It assumed that the pipes were damaged while the property was unoccupied as it did not find leaks during this time. It apologised for the short delay in the pipework repair which meant he had no hot water until 9 May. It added that the work order it completed was to repair the pipes and restore the gas supply.
    2. It had not received previous reports of thermostat problems so it assumed this was working. He reported that the thermostat did not work on 15 May 2023 and it fixed this on 22 May 2023. It did not find any failing in its handling of this matter.
    3. The toilet was in good working order during the void checking process with no evidence of incorrect pipework or leaks. It attended the day after the resident’s report on 15 May 2023 and found it responded swiftly to this.
    4. It did not identify damp or mould during the void checking process and found that the leak during the gas uncap caused the damp. It did not find any failing in how it responded to his report of damp on 16 May 2023 as it inspected on 19 May 2023 to identify work needed to the walls and kitchen ceiling, and completed work by 5 July 2023.
    5. It did not find evidence of rodents at the property during the void checking process and said it would have taken pest control measures if this was the case. Once it suspected that there was a pest issue, it engaged pest control services and resolved the matter swiftly.
    6. It identified that the outbuilding contained waste during the void checking process but was unable to empty this before the tenancy began and planned to remove this once he moved in. It said it had tried a number of times to do this but it could not access the outbuilding due to a padlock. It asked the resident to contact it if he wanted it to clear the outbuilding.
    7. It apologised that there was waste in the bins at the start of the tenancy. It asked its team to empty these. It also asked a staff member to assess the need for lighting in the communal area.
    8. It recognised that it did not review the resident’s affordability assessment before the tenancy as its staff member did not know the tenancy start date. This meant it did not agree a rent commitment in advance which is what it would have done if it had flagged the affordability issues correctly. It took appropriate action by setting up an alternative payment arrangement and offering to refer him to its money advice team once the tenancy began. It apologised for its error and that it did not offer its service. It confirmed that it changed its process to ensure it did not repeat the same error.
    9. It could not conclude that the repair issues resulted from any significant failing on his behalf and would not credit his rent account or reduce the rent. It explained that it expected some disruption during works, but it did not find that the property was uninhabitable. It offered £150 for its failure to review his affordability prior to the tenancy and for the time and trouble incurred during the works. It also apologised for the delay in acknowledging the complaint and offered £40. It said it would pay this to the rent account if accepted.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 9 August 2023 on the below grounds:
    1. He felt that it should have checked the heating system as part of the void process and did not agree with its position that there was no failing as it took 2 weeks to reinstate the system.
    2. He said there was black mould in the area around the toilet before it installed the new flooring. After this, water escaped in the same area.
    3. He did not feel the landlord should have waited for a damp survey before reskimming the kitchen ceiling as the damage was obvious.
    4. He said it was clear that there were rodent droppings in the property before the tenancy began and provided a photo.
    5. He said that the compensation it offered would leave him at a disadvantage, adding that he had rent arrears that he could not afford and should not exist.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 5 September 2023 and issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 September 2023. It said:
    1. It was unable to uncap the gas supply until a tenant had contacted the utility provider to update the account. It was not able to check the system or understand any faults until it uncapped the gas and reinstated the boiler. Due to the pipe leaks, it could not uncap the gas until this was resolved. It recognised that not having heating and hot water for 2 weeks caused some inconvenience. It considered its previous offer of compensation to be proportionate in recognition of this.
    2. It did not find evidence that it fitted an incorrect pipe to the toilet, or evidence of leaks. It responded promptly to his reports once it was aware of the issue. It said a surveyor assessed any reports of damp to determine what work it needed to complete.
    3. It established that the resident took the photo of droppings on 16 May 2023, around 3 weeks into the tenancy. At the time of the void process, its teams were not taking photos of the conditions of rooms. It was unable to evidence that there was a possible pest issue before he moved in. There was no evidence of the property requiring pest control services until the report of squirrels in the loft. It apologised that it was not able to provide a more conclusive outcome.
    4. It believed the compensation it offered (£190) was appropriate to put right the inconvenience caused by having no heating and hot water for 2 weeks, the error in passing his information to its Early Intervention team, and its complaint handling.
  8. The resident referred his complaint to us as the condition of the property when it was let, and the number of repair issues, had impacted his mental health condition. He said the landlord was aware of his health and social care needs before he moved in. He needed to stay with friends while he could not live in the property which caused additional expense. He felt it needed to change its void checking process. He wanted it to pay 8 weeks worth of rent to his rent account for the time he was not able to live in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the situation impacted his mental health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond our role to determine whether the landlord’s actions had a direct impact on his health, say whether it was liable, or award damages. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused.

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including the roof, as well as water pipes, gas installations, sanitary installations, and walls, ceiling and plasterwork. The resident is responsible for paying rent and informing the landlord of changes that may impact any welfare benefit claim.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and make safe. Emergency repairs include a total loss of hot water and heating in winter months and excessive water ingress. It completes urgent repairs within 5 working days. These include intermittent heating or hot water faults, partially blocked toilets and minor leaks. It completes routine repairs within 15 working days, and larger (non-routine) repairs, such as damp prevention works and large plastering works, within 90 working days.
  3. The void management policy confirms that the landlord would cap the gas supply to a void property. The engineer would complete a check to determine any remedial works required and produce a gas safety inspection form. Where there is no gas and/or electric available to facilitate works, the engineer would visually assess the whole installation and note that tests are unable to be performed on the gas cap certificate. The gas remains capped until the landlord completes void works.
  4. The landlord’s New Home Relet Standard sets out the minimum standard a resident can expect when moving into one of its properties. It says that it will check that all gas, electrical fittings, and sanitary ware it supplies are in a safe and good working order, that the property is clean, clear of all previous belongings, free from pest infestations and free from mould growth, and that the garden is neat and free from rubbish.

The condition of the property when let and the landlord’s handling of associated repair issues

  1. When a property is void, a landlord is obligated, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that when a tenancy commences it is ‘fit for human habitation’ and free from category one hazards. The landlord should complete all necessary repairs during the void period or complete outstanding repairs once the resident moves in (with their agreement). In some cases, repair issues may only become apparent once a resident moves in and begins to use the property. The landlord should complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. A landlord should keep robust records of its voids and repairs works. When there is a disagreement between a resident and the landlord about the condition of the property, it is responsible for providing documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that it completed repair work to a satisfactory standard prior to letting. The evidence that the landlord provided in this case is not comprehensive. It has explained that, at this time, it did not take photos of room conditions or retain detailed information about work completed during void periods, but it has since changed its processes.
  3. The landlord has provided evidence to show that the property was in a poor condition at the time of the property clear out around 23 January 2023. Based on the images provided at the time, the landlord would not have been able to fully determine the extent of repairs needed prior to the clear out. We have not seen clear evidence documenting any subsequent inspections. It ordered works in March and April 2023 to redecorate the property and to fit flooring in the bathroom and kitchen once the tenant had moved in. It has also provided a void checklist, completed on 12 April 2023, where it noted that it checked the property for infestations and the toilet was in working order. It ordered work to cut back and clear the front, side, and rear garden on the same day.
  4. We have been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the lack of supporting evidence related to the void period in this case means that the landlord has not demonstrated how it satisfied itself that the property was in a suitable condition prior to letting. We have addressed the reports individually below.

Gas repairs

  1. Within its responses, the landlord maintained that it does not uncap the gas supply, and it is unable to test installations until a tenant moves in and updates account details with a utility supplier. However, its relet standard states that residents can expect all gas and electrical appliances/fittings it supplies to be in a safe and working order, and the property to be ready to move in.
  2. The landlord said that it capped the gas to the property on 13 January 2023. It has explained that the previous gas safety certificate was valid at the time and remained valid until it uncapped the gas and issued a new certificate. The sign-up documents for the property on 18 April 2023 include a gas safety form, stating that it capped the gas following a gas safety check. It explains that the resident would need to contact utility suppliers to set up and account to arrange for it to uncap the gas. The form also states that the resident signs to confirm they have received a gas safety certificate for the property.
  3. The gas safety form completed at sign up suggests that the landlord completed a gas safety check before capping the gas which was not the case. It has not provided any gas safety certificates, or the gas safety inspection form it should have completed when it capped the gas, in line with its policies. The form also suggests that any gas safety certificate it may have provided at the time of sign up would be valid, despite not yet reinstating the supply.
  4. It is not unusual for landlords to arrange an uncap and test appointment at the start of a new tenancy when a tenant moves in. However, the information the landlord supplied in relation to the gas supply and installations at the property, and its relet standard, is misleading and unclear. Its current approach indicates that the landlord accepts that residents may be inconvenienced by the need for gas related repairs when they move in. It would be appropriate for the landlord to consider revising this approach, especially in cases where a property is found to be in a very poor condition prior to reletting, to prevent inconvenience to new tenants.
  5. It is evident that the resident was without full use of the gas supply and access to central heating and hot water between 25 April 2023 and 5 May 2023, a period of 10 days. Following this, he reported that the thermostat on the boiler did not work, which the landlord fixed on 22 May 2023, 17 days after it reinstated the gas. The landlord has acknowledged a short delay in reinstating the gas supply for which it apologised. However, it found no service failure in its handling of the faulty thermostat once the resident reported this on 15 May 2023.
  6. There were some delays that were outside of the landlord’s control when reinstating the gas supply. It needed to arrange another appointment initially as 2 operatives needed to access the loft space for safety reasons. Once it identified that it could not complete work to repair the pipes and reinstate the supply on 27 April 2023(due to squirrels in the loft), it acted reasonably by providing temporary heaters and instructing pest control services.
  7. We note that it booked the appointment to fix the pipes and reinstate the supply for 10 May 2023 following work to clear pests and repair access points on 4 May 2023. This would have been a period of 9 working days following the initial visit and outside of its urgent timescales. While the landlord completed work on 5 May 2023 (within 7 working days), it is evident that this was prompted by contact from the resident and a third party over concerns regarding his mental health. The landlord should have proactively taken steps to resolve the issue as soon as possible, without prompting, given that it was aware the resident was without access to heating and hot water, and his vulnerabilities.
  8. The landlord said that the resident reported the thermostat on 15 May 2023, and it completed the repair on 22 May 2023. It said it found no failing in how it handled this but has not provided repair or communication logs referencing the this work or the resident’s report. The work to repair the pipes and reinstate the gas took place on 5 May 2023, and the landlord said the system was left fully functional. However, it has not provided documentary evidence it relied on to confirm this. It has not provided a gas safety certificate from 5 May 2023 to show there were no issues at the time.
  9. In its complaint responses, it said it assumed the thermostat was working as it was not previously notified of issues. We have not seen the repair history for the property before the resident moved in and its assumption is reliant on previous tenants reporting issues. This may not be reasonable given the condition of the property prior to the clean out.

Pests

  1. The landlord said that there was no evidence to suggest the presence of rodents at the property during the void checking process. The resident has maintained that there was evidence of pests and provided a photo showing droppings. The landlord explained that it was not taking photos of the condition of rooms prior to reletting a property at the time and it was unable to evidence that there was a potential pest issue before he moved in.
  2. We have not seen clear evidence to verify that the landlord could have identified pests in the property prior to the tenancy. However, it is evident that there was pest activity before the resident moved in on 24 April 2023. This is evidenced by the chewed electrical lighting cables found on the day, and damaged pipework. While the landlord did not identify pests during the void checking process, its response that it was unable to reliably evidence that there was a potential pest issue before he moved in was somewhat dismissive in view of the work needed.
  3. Once it was made aware of pests by operatives on 27 April 2023, the landlord acted reasonably by instructing pest services and attending to block access points in the loft between 28 April and 4 May 2023. This was within its urgent repair timeframe which was appropriate in the circumstances. However, we note that an electrician made it aware that they needed to replace lighting cables due to rodent damage on 24 April 2023. It had an opportunity to identify the need to complete an inspection of the loft from this date to determine if there was evidence of pest activity. However, this may not have significantly reduced the time it took to resolve the issues.
  4. It is unclear from the records provided as to whether the landlord inspects the loft space to identify access points during the void process or considers completing a pest control inspection in cases where the property is left in a very poor condition. We have included an order below for the landlord to clarify the updates it has made of its void checking process following the complaint and have asked it to consider these matters.

Damp

  1. The resident reported that there was a damp smell throughout the property, and he was concerned about the length of time it took to complete remedial works following the leak on 25 April 2023. In its responses, the landlord said that it did not identify damp or mould within the property during the void checking process and that any damp was a result of the leak on 25 April 2023.
  2. While it is evident that the leak caused damp and damage to the property, the photos of the property taken during the clear out in January 2023 indicate some damp staining and mould in the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord’s response to the resident lacked transparency. We note that it completed decoration works, including a fungicidal wash, prior to letting the property and the resident has advised that he did not identify any reasons why the property would not be suitable during his viewing. This indicates it had removed any visible mould at the time of letting, other than on the bathroom flooring which it was due to replace.
  3. Following the leak through property on 25 April 2023 during the initial gas uncapping appointment, we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord inspected the property to determine the extent of any damage within a reasonable period. While it resolved the leak by re-capping the gas at the time and later repairing the pipework, it did not proactively assess the property which caused inconvenience to the resident.
  4. In its communication, the landlord said that the resident first reported signs of damp in the walls and ceilings on 16 May 2023. It attended within a reasonable timeframe on 19 May 2023 to assess the property, finding that there was one damp wall, the leak had affected the wall insulation, and it needed to reskim the kitchen ceiling. The landlord said that a surveyor also attended on 25 May 2023 to complete a survey. We have asked for a copy of this survey; however, the landlord has provided an asbestos survey from October 2024, and it remains unclear as to whether there was a visit on this date.
  5. The landlord raised a work order on 5 June 2023 to complete works. Its records indicate that this was to carry out remedial damp repairs to marked walls in the hallway, check and clear the cavity, and fully re skim the kitchen ceiling. It reported completing this work on 5 July 2023.
  6. Overall, the time taken to complete remedial work following the leak was 48 working days. This was in line with the landlord’s non-routine repair timescales and considered reasonable. Despite this, it is evident that the resident needed to spend time and trouble reporting matters and we have not seen clear evidence of communication or that the landlord proactively sought to assess the property following the leak.

Toilet

  1. The resident initially reported that his toilet was leaking around the waste pipe on 15 May 2023. The landlord initially booked to attend within its urgent repair timescales but attended within its emergency timescales on 16 May 2023 – this was appropriate. The resident also reported water leaking externally from an overflow pipe on 17 May 2023 but the landlord identified that this was linked to a neighbouring property.
  2. The resident has maintained that the landlord should have identified issues with the toilet prior to letting the property as there was a thick black mould patch on the flooring near the toilet and water escaped in the same position once it replaced the floor covering. We have a lack of clear evidence of the landlord’s void inspections. While the landlord may have had an opportunity to identify the matter sooner, it was not on notice of the repair issue until the resident reported the leak.
  3. Once it was aware of the problem, the landlord attended within its emergency timescales at the resident’s request, which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it remains unclear from the evidence provided as to what the problem was or how it rectified this on the visit. While the landlord said it found no evidence of a leak or that it fitted a pipe incorrectly, it has not provided evidence to show how it satisfied itself that this was not the cause of the problem at the time.

Rubbish and waste

  1. The resident reported that the outbuilding was full of paint waste within his complaint. The landlord has said that this was identified during the void period but it could not resolve this before he moved in. Its void checklist indicates that its standard to make sure the garden was free from rubbish and neat was due “to be done”. However, it has not provided evidence to show the outbuilding was on the void checklist or that this formed part of its instructions for the work to clear out the property or garden.
  2. In its complaint response, it said that it had “diarised” this work for removal once the tenancy began and made a number of attempts to carry out the work. It has not provided any evidence to indicate this was the case, or that it informed the resident of planned visits. While it was reasonable for it to ask the resident to contact it to arrange an appointment, the landlord has not demonstrated that it had identified or attempted to resolve this at any stage prior to the complaint.
  3. The resident also reported that his waste bins were full at the start of the tenancy and the local authority had refused to take these. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising to the resident and advising it would arrange to empty the bins. It is unclear whether the bins were full due to the landlord’s clearance of the property or whether someone else had put rubbish in the bins. However, the landlord acted within a reasonable timescale.

Request for lighting

  1. Within his complaint, the resident raised concern that the lack of lighting to the front of the property was a health and safety issue and a tripping hazard due to debris from the trees and steps that he could not see at night. The landlord acted reasonably by raising this internally at the time. However, we have not seen clear evidence to demonstrate that the landlord investigated or addressed this matter following the complaint. We have included an order below for the landlord to address this.

Conclusion

  1. We have found service failure in relation to the condition of the property when let and the landlord’s handling of associated repair issues. The landlord’s records related to its void inspections and work are not comprehensive and we have not seen sufficient evidence to show how it satisfied itself that the property was in a lettable condition. It has said it has taken steps to improve its process, and we have included an order for it to provide clarity below.
  2. Within his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to credit 8 weeks worth of rent for the time he felt unable to live in the property and reduce his rent by 50% until it completed work. We have not seen evidence to verify that the resident was unable to use the property for 8 weeks, or that the equivalent rent amount should be paid as compensation. While it needed to complete work to put right the damage caused by the leak on 25 April 2023, this was completed within a reasonable timescale and the landlord was not obligated to reduce the rent as a result.
  3. It is, however, evident that the resident was inconvenienced by multiple factors when moving into the property. This resulted in no hot water or permanent heating supply for 10 days. It remains unclear as to whether the resident was without full use of the heating between 5 May 2023 and 22 May 2023. He also needed to spend time and trouble pursuing repairs and we have not seen clear evidence to show that the landlord acted proactively or adequately considered his vulnerabilities.
  4. The landlord offered a total of £150 compensation for this aspect of the complaint, alongside its failure to refer the resident for support regarding his rent at the start of the tenancy (addressed below). In its complaint responses, it said that the compensation recognised the time and trouble he spent during the works to the property, including the delay in reinstating the gas supply. It later added that this figure adequately recognised that he was without use of heating and hot water for 2 weeks.
  5. Our remedies guidance states that compensation offers between £100 to £600 can be considered proportionate in cases where there were failings that had an adverse impact on the resident, but where there may be no permanent impact. The landlord’s overall offer is within this range. However, it is at the lower end and did not fully recognise the combined inconvenience and time and trouble caused. This figure is not sufficient to put right both this matter and the error in its handling of the rent (below). We have included several orders below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account

  1. In his complaint, the resident raised concern that the landlord’s failure to follow its process had contributed to arrears on his rent account building. The landlord has not disputed that it should have passed the resident’s details to its early intervention team and offered its service to make referrals to assist him with meeting the costs of the new tenancy. It apologised and offered compensation that was partially for this aspect of the complaint. It also said that it had adjusted its processes to ensure it did not repeat the same error, demonstrating that it had taken points of learning from his complaint.
  2. The pre-tenancy interview form, completed on 13 March 2023, confirmed that the resident claimed universal credit, and listed his mental health vulnerabilities. The resident completed an affordability assessment on 18 April 2023 which indicated that he was financially vulnerable and would not be able to afford the tenancy but may be entitled to support via universal credit (UC). The landlord suitably recognised that it did not share this information with relevant teams and should have offered him additional support in view of the information it was aware of.
  3. The resident has provided evidence to show that he made UC aware of his change in circumstances on 24 April 2023, the day the tenancy began. The landlord’s internal records show that it reviewed the rent account on 5 May 2023 and identified that the resident’s details were not passed to the relevant team before sign-up. It noted that due to the resident’s vulnerabilities, it should apply for an alternative payment arrangement directly from UC. We have not seen evidence to show that the landlord progressed this or sought to communicate with the resident at the time to confirm its intentions.
  4. In its communication with us, the landlord has said that the resident’s communication about his universal credit application and pending payments was “sporadic” between April and June 2023. This suggests that the resident had not responded to its contact. However, we have not seen evidence to show that the landlord communicated directly with the resident regarding the arrears prior to 11 May 2023.
  5. On 11 May 2023, the resident explained that UC told him the landlord said he was not one of its tenants at the property and had not verified the tenancy. He has provided documentary evidence to support that this is what he was told. Landlords are unable to amend the details of a claim or verify the claim if there are discrepancies in the any of the details provided. We do not have sufficient evidence to confirm whether, or why, it did not confirm the tenancy at this time, or whether this was a failing on its part. However, we recognise that had the landlord referred him to its early intervention team from the outset, it may have had the oversight needed to prevent any delay in processing the UC claim and direct payments.
  6. The landlord verified the tenancy on 15 May 2023 and confirmed the rent figure and the tenancy start date of 24 April 2023. It began to receive direct payments from UC into the rent account on 14 June 2023. This payment was the monthly figure and left the rent account in arrears of £291.68 (just under 4 weeks rent). This indicates that the housing element of the claim was not calculated from the tenancy start date on 24 April 2023.
  7. The landlord acted reasonably by recognising its failure and confirming its offer to refer the resident to its money advice team within its stage 1 complaint response. While it could have done more to explain that the arrears at the time had not been covered by the first UC payment and provided guidance, this did not significantly impact the resident for the reasons set out below.
  8. In his escalation request on 9 August 2023, he said that the arrears should not have existed, and he could not afford to pay them. We understand that this was a difficult time for the resident, and he has shared that he had difficulty managing his finances. However, he has provided evidence to show that UC recalculated his claim in August 2023 to account for his housing eligibility from the start of his tenancy. It also directly paid him the monthly rental amount of £317.04 on 7 August 2023, prior to his escalation request. This indicates that any errors in his eligibility for the rent element of his claim were corrected. While he did not pay this to the landlord at the time, he subsequently took steps to clear the arrears on 16 November 2023.
  9. In summary, we have found that the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident for its failure to refer him or offer support regarding the rent at the start of his tenancy. As set out above, its overall figure of £150 compensation is not considered proportionate to put right both aspects of the complaint. However, it suitably recognises the time and trouble he spent attempting to resolve matters related to his UC claim. This may have been avoided had the landlord referred him to its early intervention team at the start of his tenancy or requested payments directly from UC from the outset.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and would send a response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days of accepting the review request. If the landlord needs more time to investigate the complaint, it would contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a response timescale.
  2. The resident initially raised a complaint on 14 June 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge his complaint until 14 July 2023, 1 month later. It responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 28 July 2023, which was within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It acted reasonably by recognising the delay in acknowledging the complaint, explaining that the delay was due to demand on its service and offering £40 compensation.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 9 August 2023. It acknowledged his escalation request on 5 September 2023 and provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 September 2023. This was a total period of 24 working days. The overall delay at this stage was unlikely to cause significant inconvenience. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining the reason for the delay in providing its response and agreeing a new response timescale with the resident on 8 September 2023, suitable managing his expectations.
  4. Overall, the landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It was a shortcoming that the landlord did not inform the resident of the potential delay in advance. However, its offer of £40 compensation satisfactorily put right the minor inconvenience and uncertainty caused by the delay in acknowledging the complaint. As such, we have found the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the condition of the property when let and its handling of associated repair issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the rent account, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its handling of the complaint, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the condition of the property when let and associated repairs.
    3. Confirm the outcome of the resident’s request that it installs a light at the front of the property, if it has not already done so.
    4. Clarify the changes it has made to its void checking process following the complaint.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that:
    1. The landlord pays the resident £190 compensation as previously offered as the findings of reasonable redress were made on the basis that this is paid. This should be paid to the resident directly. It should confirm that it has done so within 4 weeks.
    2. The landlord considers inspecting loft spaces to identify access points during the void process or considers completing a pest control inspection in cases where the property is left in a very poor condition.
    3. The landlord considers completing a full check of the gas installations where a property is left in a very poor condition before reletting.
  2. The landlord is to confirm its intentions within 4 weeks.