Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202342720)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202342720

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

30 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for repairs to his flat.
2. Request for repairs to the building.
3. Reports about the upkeep of communal areas.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom flat, on the middle floor of a 3-storey building, owned by the landlord.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 January 2024. He asked why there had been no investment in the flats for over 10 years and how it planned to improve this. He said there was damage to his ceiling, a draughty balcony door, rising damp, and described the poor condition of the external brickwork. He said his boiler was 15 years old and was “not fit for purpose.” He also raised concerns about the upkeep of the communal grounds and multi-coloured walls in the hallway. He said that he was struggling mentally and physically with the ongoing issues and felt he had no support in resolving these.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 29 January 2024. Its repairs history showed only 1 reported repair in the past 12 months, so it treated the resident’s repairs as new requests. It explained its approach to planned maintenance and said that while it had no immediate plans for investment, it would investigate his reports. It had acted once it was aware of the issues and did not agree that it had neglected repairs.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 23 February 2024. He said he had been reporting concerns since 2018 but the matters were outstanding. He confirmed that it had installed a new boiler. The following day he raised concerns about his bedroom windows and damp and mould in his home.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 20 March 2024, the landlord said it was unable to consider matters over 12 months old. It had inspected the building and identified repairs to the external brickwork. It made arrangements to complete the work and rehang his balcony door. It found no evidence of damp or mould in his home. It empathised that his health had declined and offered to make referrals to other agencies on his behalf.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to us. He said that it had not completed the repairs and wanted it to resolve the issues and address his poor living conditions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told the landlord that the ongoing repairs had affected his mental and physical health. He said that his asthma had got worse since moving into the property and he was experiencing anxiety. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an illness, oral testimony can be examined in court.
Therefore, the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s neglect of the property affected his health is better dealt with via the courts. We can, however, consider any inconvenience or distress that was likely caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Request for repairs to his flat

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, routine repairs within 15 working days, and non-routine repairs within 90 working days.
In the resident’s complaint he said that his wooden single glazed balcony door was draughty, he had structural damage to his ceiling and walls, and his boiler was 15 years old.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it visited to repair the boiler on 5 October 2023, 2 days after the resident reported it. Its notes on the repair stated, “required new boiler”. There were no recorded repairs for the boiler after this date. There was no evidence provided by either party to show that the ceiling damage or balcony door had been reported prior to the resident’s complaint.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had checked its repairs history and found only 1 reported repair. This was for the boiler in October 2023. It said that the previous repair was in 2019. This showed that the boiler had remained fit for purpose. It explained that it did not replace boilers only due to age but also considered the efficiency and repairs history. If a boiler had multiple repairs over a short period of time or was beyond repair, it would consider replacement. However, it had sent the resident’s photographs and the engineer’s comments from the last visit to its management team to consider. It would contact him if it decided to replace the boiler.
The landlord’s response was reasonable and showed that it had investigated its repairs records. Its records did not demonstrate that the boiler had failed or required regular repair. It was also reasonable to refer the matter to the appropriate team to consider. However, its records of October 2023 did refer to the boiler requiring replacement. It is not known why it did not consider replacing it at the time and only considered this once the resident raised a complaint. That said, the boiler was repaired in October 2023 and there were no further reports of it not working or the resident being without heating or hot water.
The landlord said that it had treated the resident’s reports as new repairs. Its asset management team had been liaising with him to arrange a suitable appointment. It did not agree that it had neglected his repairs.
The landlord’s response was appropriate. Given that there was only 1 reported repair in the previous 12 months, it was reasonable for the landlord to raise the issues as new repairs. It showed that it was committed to arranging to inspect his home and assess the work.
The landlord’s records dated 2 February 2024, show that it visited the resident the previous day. It said that it was replacing the boiler the following week and there was a “live ticket” to rehang the balcony door.
In his escalation request the resident confirmed that the landlord had fitted a new boiler. He said that he had struggled to get support to resolve his issues and address his poor living conditions. He was struggling with his asthma and since moving into the property had visited his GP many times to get medication. His first complaint was in 2018 when the poor windows in the living room failed, and he had to get new ones fitted. He wrote further on 24 February 2024 stating that he had black mould and damp around his bedroom windows and an infestation of maggots.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it explained that its complaints policy would normally consider issues which had arisen within 12 months. It noted the resident’s comments about a living room window in 2018 and said it had completed the repairs at the time. This therefore fell outside the scope of this complaint. Its response was appropriate and in line with our Complaint Handling Code which says that landlords must accept complaints unless there is a valid reason not to do so. Acceptable exclusions include where the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred over 12 months ago.
The landlord said that it had arranged to rehang the resident’s balcony door on 29 April 2024. It found no evidence of damp and mould in his home and had fitted a new boiler. The photographs, sent by the resident, indicated condensation on the windowpanes and some black mould in the corner of the frame. It gave advice on dealing with condensation. It agreed that it would be unpleasant to find maggots in his bedroom. It said this was larvae from flies which had laid eggs where there was a food source. This had enabled them to hatch. It appreciated this was not the answer he had hoped for but there was no action to take in response to the issue.
The landlord’s response was reasonable in relation to damp and mould having found no evidence during its visit. However, while it had made an appointment to rehang his balcony door on 24 April 2024, this was 79 working days since he raised his complaint. This was not in line with its repairs policy timescale of 15 working days for routine repairs. It also failed to mention the ceiling in its response, and it failed to show how it would address this. While the windows had not formed part of the resident’s original complaint, it would have been reasonable to have inspected the windows to make sure that condensation was the cause.
The landlord empathised that the resident’s health had deteriorated. It acknowledged that his GP was aware of the issue and said his GP was normally the first point of contact to discuss any concerns he had about his health. It asked him to let it know if he would like it to make any referrals to other agencies on his behalf. Its offer was reasonable and showed empathy for his health concerns.
The evidence shows that the resident’s GP wrote to the landlord on 24 April 2024, saying that they were aware he was living in a house with damp which was making his asthma worse. They asked it to consider a change of accommodation. There was no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded or considered the GP letter further. That said, on inspecting the resident’s home it found no evidence of damp or mould.
The landlord’s records of 23 May 2024 refer to calling the resident to raise an inspection for damp and mould in the bedroom and lounge. In the landlord’s explanation it said that it visited again on 7 June 2024 and found no mould growth or staining to the walls. Having inspected on 2 occasions and finding no visible signs of damp or mould, we find no failings in relation to this matter.
However, records of the same date refer to a “longitudinal crack to the lounge ceiling”. There was no evidence provided to suggest that the landlord had completed repairs for this matter and as stated previously it failed to address this in its stage 1 and 2 responses. The resident also advised us that it had not completed any repairs to his ceiling.
The landlord’s records of the same date also referred to “there is a timber door leading to the enclosed balcony lounge rear elevation which may compromise fire regulations”. It is reasonable to assume that this related to the resident’s balcony door. There was no evidence provided to suggest that further consideration had been given to this or that it had completed any work. The resident told us that it completed no repairs to his door and he is still experiencing draughts.
For the above reasons, we find that the landlord had not reasonably addressed the resident’s repairs concerns with regard to his balcony door and ceiling and make a finding of service failure.

Request for repairs to the building

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good order. This includes the external walls, gutters, and rainwater pipes.
In the resident’s complaint he said that there had been a lack of investment in the building, and it was “run down”. There was rising damp all over the building and poor brickwork where mortar had washed away.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported leaking gutters over the rear entrance door on 28 February 2023. It responded that the gutters had been cleared in September 2022. It also referred to a photograph he sent of an external issue with a pressure valve in a boiler. It said it needed to confirm if the pipe came from the back of his boiler or someone else’s and would raise a job to resolve the issue. Its repairs records also show further reports about the guttering in August 2023. It is not known whether the reports were actioned at the time based on the evidence provided.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said it had repointed the building in 2013 and renewed kitchens in 2011. It explained its process for identifying planned investment work through stock condition surveys, surveyor visits, gas servicing programmes and by known age of building elements. While it had no immediate planned investment works, it would always investigate reports of disrepair and dissatisfaction from its customers. It would inspect the communal areas on 14 February 2024. It sent his photographs to its inspector who would raise any required repairs. This was a reasonable response as it confirmed the actions it would take to assess the resident’s concerns for the building.
The landlord’s records of 2 February 2024 said that the rear elevation needed repointing, and the wet cavity fill required removal. It said it would benefit from a top up of cavity fill when it repaired the brickwork. It also noted that the gutters were allowing rainwater to pour down directly above the rear communal entrance which required cleaning and the installation of a support tray. The front gutter was also blocked with leaves and was overflowing over the front corner of the gable end. There was also boiler “blow off” from another flat which caused water to stain the external wall.
In the resident’s escalation request he said that the information in the landlord’s response was wrong. He said he had made multiple phone calls and sent emails regarding the poor upkeep of the building. On 20 February 2020 he raised concerns about rising damp and 4 years later it still had not resolved the matter.
In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that the resident’s reports of 2020, fell outside the scope of its policy. It explained that as his home was on the first floor, it was unlikely that any damp he was experiencing was rising damp. This type of damp would normally be present on the lower part of the walls on the ground floor properties. It had inspected the building and identified some external repairs. This included perished mortar joints and defective gutters, and it had raised orders to complete the work. It found no signs of damp or mould inside his home.
The landlord acknowledged the work required to the external walls. It also explained its findings with respect to damp and mould. This was reasonable, however, it should have provided a timescale for the works it proposed.
Following enquiries to the landlord, the resident’s MP wrote to him advising that the work would be undertaken in May 2024.
The landlord’s records dated 23 May 2024 stated that further investigation was required to the metal roof system. The eaves did not appear to be long enough, and rainwater was falling behind the gutter on both elevations. It also referred to gullies requiring unblocking and the rainwater pipe needed to be fixed. There was no evidence provided to suggest that any further investigations had been carried out in relation to the roof system.
The evidence shows that the resident continued to chase the outstanding work. He wrote on 6 June 2024 stating that as of that day no work had been carried out. He said that scaffold had been put up to repair the guttering but had been put on the rear not the front. He referred to the MP letter and said it had failed to meet the timescales. He had not received any contact from the landlord to explain what was going to happen.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that it inspected the building on 1 February 2024. The works were passed to its major works team on 26 April 2024 and the job was allocated to its contractor. On 20 May 2024 it completed work to the front and rear gutters. It raised a job on 15 February 2024 to remove the brickwork and complete the pointing. This was not a routine repair and was passed to its major works team. The work was completed on 21 June 2024. This was in line with its repairs policy timescale for non-routine repairs of 90 working days.
While the landlord’s should have kept the resident better informed about the scheduled repairs, its responses demonstrated that it appropriately considered his concerns and undertook repairs within its repairs policy timescales. We have, therefore, made a finding of no maladministration.
The resident told us that the landlord had not completed the above repairs. He sent photographs on 21 January 2025, showing water staining to the walls under the windows of the building, following rainfall. This suggests that there is still an ongoing issue with either the gutters or the roof eaves as mentioned earlier in this report. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to re-inspect the building and the resident’s concerns.

Reports about the upkeep of communal areas

The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2023 stating that the communal gardens were “shocking” and there were dead leaves and rubbish everywhere. The landlord’s response on the same day was that it did not normally do garden work in the winter, but it would get the rubbish cleared. This was a reasonable and timely response.
In the resident’s complaint he raised concerns about the communal grounds and bin store. He also said he was unhappy with the communal hallway walls which were painted in multiple colours.
On 22 January 2024 the resident wrote again and sent photographs of the bin store. He said that more black bin liners had been dumped and were in the wrong bins. He asked the landlord to contact the person responsible or get someone to speak to them. In its response of the same day, it said it was “a bit stuck” unless it knew who was leaving the rubbish. If he had any further problems to let it know and it would send someone to see if there was any evidence to recharge. If the bags were on the floor to let it know and it would send someone to clear it. Its response was reasonable and prompt and demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s concerns.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it said that the resident’s complaint about the general upkeep and maintenance of the area had been discussed with its management team. He reported issues relating to the bins and cleanliness of the area on 20 December 2023. It took appropriate action by arranging to clear excess waste and wrote to residents responsible for inappropriate waste disposal. He had asked for an alternative approach to be taken against residents not disposing of waste correctly. He was advised that it would take enforcement action against those responsible for recurring issues. However, given the time of year, it exercised discretion not to take such an approach immediately over the Christmas period.
The landlord’s response was appropriate, it cleared the waste when it was aware of the issue and explained the action it had taken. It was also reasonable to consider the Christmas period which would have likely produced more waste.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that the resident was unhappy with the colour scheme of the internal communal walls. It had fed this back to its investment team to consider when the communal areas were next due for redecoration.
The landlord’s overall response was appropriate, having put forward the resident’s concerns to its investment team to consider. We find that there was no failing in its handling of this matter.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to his flat.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the upkeep of communal areas.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £150 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, for its failings in relation to his request for repairs to his flat.
2. Inspect the resident’s home to assess his balcony door and the crack in the ceiling. It must ensure that the door meets fire regulations and clarify the timescale for completion of any identified repairs. It must advise the resident and us about its findings and the timescale for works.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should investigate the resident’s claims that the water is still overflowing the gutters and causing the walls of the building to be wet. This should include its records relating to the eaves not being long enough. It should provide an update to the resident on its findings and any identified repairs with a timescale for completion.