Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202424905)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424905

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

30 July 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 about:
    1. A leak following disrepair works at the property.
    2. Staff conduct.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since February 2023. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
  2. A solicitor acting for the resident sent a disrepair claim to the landlord on 6 April 2023. Following inspections, the landlord settled the claim on 15 March 2024 and agreed to do repairs. The resident moved out of her home while the work took place.
  3. After the resident moved back to her home, the landlord inspected the repairs on 4 June 2024. The resident told the landlord she was concerned about a stain on a bedroom ceiling. She thought it was due to a leak the landlord had not fixed during the disrepair works. The landlord asked the resident to let it know if it got worse.
  4. On 18 June 2024 the resident told the landlord the stain had got worse. The same day, the landlord asked its contractor to contact the resident.
  5. The contractor visited the resident’s home on 8 August 2024. It found a leak from the chimney had caused damage to the ceiling. On 9 September 2024 the landlord asked the contractor to fix the leak.
  6. The resident complained on 12 September 2024 about the delay in fixing the leak. She said she had heard nothing since the visit on 8 August 2024, and the situation was causing her anxiety. She wanted the landlord to fix the leak and compensate her for stress caused. On 20 September 2024 the resident complained about the attitude of staff who had dealt with her calls.
  7. In its complaint response on 17 October 2024 the landlord said it could only investigate events over the last 12 months. It said it thought it could fix the stain through decoration but then found a problem with the chimney. It said there were delays, which caused inconvenience. On staff conduct it said it had not recorded the calls, but its records showed its staff acted professionally. It apologised for the delay and offered £200 compensation, which it said was in addition to damages awarded in the settlement.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 October 2024. She said the complaint investigation should go back to 2021. She wanted to know why there had been a delay and wanted to see the records the landlord mentioned in its response. She was unhappy with the amount of compensation.
  9. In its final response on 27 November 2024 the landlord said it followed the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code on investigations. It said it understood the frustration caused when the disrepair work did not fix the leak, which increased because of the delay. It said it was a company decision that it only recorded contact centre calls. It said it would deal with the request for evidence as a subject access request (SAR). It increased the compensation to £300.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord had not answered her questions or provided proof. She said there was still work that needed doing when she moved back. She wanted the repairs completing and compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s complaint investigation should go back to 2021. The Ombudsman has seen that a solicitor acting on the resident’s behalf made a disrepair claim and the landlord settled this in March 2024. In this case, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters that were subject to a legal settlement. Because of this the Ombudsman’s investigation will look at the landlord’s actions after the resident moved back to the property.

The landlord’s handling of a leak following disrepair works at the property

  1. Records provided by the landlord show it received a disrepair claim on 6 April 2023 about damp and mould in several rooms. On 7 February 2024, the landlord’s contractor set out a schedule of work it needed to do. This did not mention the chimney. The landlord settled the claim on 15 March 2024 and instructed its contractor to do the repairs. The work started on 9 April 2024, and the resident moved to a hotel while the contractor did the work.
  2. Following a meeting with the contractor on 9 April 2024, the landlord asked it to provide costs for further work. This included work to fix a leak from the chimney using a cherry picker.
  3. The settlement agreement said the landlord should complete the agreed works within 120 days. This meant the landlord should have completed the work by 13 July 2024. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a work completion sheet dated 17 May 2024, which the resident signed. This shows it had completed the work agreed in the disrepair claim within the agreed timescales. However, the document does not mention the chimney. Because of this it is unclear whether the contractor did work on the chimney before the resident moved back to the property.
  4. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 4 June 2024 to look at concerns she had raised about the repairs. This included a stain on a bedroom ceiling. The landlord asked the resident to let it know if the stain got worse. The resident contacted the landlord about the stain on 18 June 2024. The landlord replied and told her it had asked the contractor to attend. Records show the landlord asked the contractor on 18 June 2024 to look into the resident’s concerns and report back. The contractor replied on 19 June 2024 and said it would arrange an appointment.
  5. The Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably at this time. This is because it was reasonable to ask the resident to let it know if the stain got worse. When she contacted the landlord again, the landlord quickly asked the contractor to investigate. From the landlord’s complaint response, it also seems the landlord applied a stain block in between these dates, as it assumed the stain was left over from the disrepair works. This was a reasonable approach.
  6. On 24 June 2024 the resident sent the landlord a message and said no one had contacted her. The resident asked the landlord for an update on the ceiling on 4 July 2024. She contacted the landlord again on 19 July 2024 and asked what was happening about the ceiling. She said she had heard nothing in a month. On 22 July 2024 the resident messaged the landlord and said it had not done the repairs or responded to her. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord replied to the resident.
  7. The landlord asked the contractor on 25 July 2024 to arrange works to the bedroom ceiling. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 30 July 2024. She said the stain was getting worse and needed more than stain block. Records provided by the landlord show the contractor called the resident on 30 July 2024 and arranged to attend on 8 August 2024.
  8. From the records provided, the Ombudsman has found the landlord did not act on the resident’s concerns about the ceiling between 18 June and 30 July 2024. During this time the resident sent messages to the landlord several times and there is limited evidence the landlord responded. The landlord had asked the contractor to contact the resident about the ceiling on 18 June 2024, but from the information provided, it did not follow this up. Because of this, an appointment did not take place until 8 August 2024. The Ombudsman has found there were communication failures and a failure to arrange an appointment in a reasonable time.
  9. On 3 September 2024 the landlord contacted the contractor and said the resident wanted an update on the repairs following the visit on 8 August 2024. The contractor responded the same day and said there was a leak on the chimney, which had caused damage to the bedroom ceiling. It said it had used a cherry picker to clean off vegetation and repoint, but it needed to erect scaffolding to do further work. It said the disrepair work did not include this work, but it could do it if instructed by the landlord. On 9 September 2024 the landlord instructed the contractor to do the work.
  10. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence, but from the communication on 3 September 2024 it is reasonable to conclude that the contractor did work on the chimney between 8 August and 3 September 2024. However, from the records provided, it seems the landlord did not ask the contractor for an update until 3 September 2024, when the resident asked for an update. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ask the contractor for an update straight after the appointment on 8 August 2024. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence the landlord did this, which meant it did not approve work to repair the leak for another month. This was 3 months after the resident reported the stain and was an unreasonable delay. The Ombudsman has found this was a failure by the landlord.
  11. In addition, the Ombudsman has seen the need for work on the chimney using a cherry picker was identified on 9 April 2024. Although not part of the disrepair claim, it appears the landlord did not do this work until August 2024. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether this work would have prevented a leak, but having found it needed to do the work in April 2024, it would have been reasonable to have done it during the disrepair works.
  12. The resident complained on 12 September 2024 about the landlord’s handling of the leak. She said there was water coming into her bedroom when she moved back, and when the landlord applied stain block, the stain came back days later. She said she had tried to raise the leak “countless times” between 20 May and 30 July 2024 but never got a response. She said she finally spoke to an officer on 30 July 2024, and a contractor came on 8 August 2024. She said the contractor confirmed rainwater was coming in, but she had heard nothing since. She said the situation was causing her anxiety and affecting her sleep because she was worried about rain and the damage caused. She wanted the work done and compensation for stress.
  13. The landlord confirmed with the resident on 13 September 2024 that the contractor would do the repairs on 19 September 2024. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 September 2024 and said the contractor had not turned up. Records show the landlord contacted the contractor the same day. The contractor replied and said it attended at 10:30am and there was a note on the door saying, “roofers do not disturb me”. It said it left because it needed access to the loft. It said it would go back the next day.
  14. The landlord confirmed the new appointment with the resident. She said the sign said, “roofers do not disturb me unless absolutely necessary” and would have given access to the loft if asked.
  15. On 20 September 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said the contractors had not turned up. On 23 September 2024 the landlord told the resident that it had spoken with the contractors that morning and due to inclement weather they were unable to attend that morning. It said it would contact them again the next day for an update.
  16. In its complaint response on 17 October 2024 the landlord said after the report of a stain in June 2024 it had worked with the resident and contractor. It did not agree there had been no contact between May and July 2024. It said at first it thought leftover damp had caused the stain, and it arranged decoration. It said the cause of a leak was difficult to detect but the inspection in August 2024 found a problem with the chimney. It said its contractor then made failed attempts to do the work, which added to the delay. It said it had done the disrepair works within 120 days but acknowledged time, effort, and inconvenience caused by the chimney work after 13 July 2024. It apologised for the delay and offered £200 compensation.
  17. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord completed the agreed disrepair works before July 2024. The resident then reported a stain on 4 June 2024. The Ombudsman agrees that it can be difficult to find the source of a leak, and it was reasonable to arrange an inspection. However, this did not happen until 8 August 2024, and the landlord did not follow up the contractor for a month after the inspection. This meant the landlord did not arrange to do the work in a reasonable time.
  18. When the landlord arranged the work for 19 September 2024, the contractors left without doing any work, which caused further frustration for the resident. There is evidence the resident regularly chased the landlord for updates, but there is limited evidence of responses. Because of this the Ombudsman cannot agree that there was regular contact between May and July 2024. The Ombudsman has found there was failure, and because of this it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise.
  19. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 October 2024. She said it was clear there was damp when she moved back. She wanted evidence of the contact the landlord said it had with her between May and July 2024, and the reason it took from 8 August to 19 September 2024 to book in the work.
  20. In its final response on 27 November 2024 the landlord said it did the agreed works in “good faith” that they would resolve the problem. It said it was “regrettable” that a new stain appeared on the ceiling. It said it thought this was from an earlier leak, which had not dried out, but it became clear it needed to do further work. It said it recognised the disappointment and frustration this caused and acknowledged this increased due to a misunderstanding of a note on the door. It said it had passed the evidence request to its data protection team. On compensation, it said the £200 offer was separate to the settlement and it could not reconsider issues addressed in the claim. It said it could increase its discretionary offer to £300.
  21. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was failure by the landlord following the report of a stain in June 2024. It initially acted reasonably, but then there were delays in arranging appointments, missed appointments, and a lack of communication. This caused frustration for the resident, who had hoped to return to a home where there were no problems with damp. She told the landlord the leaks were causing her anxiety and sleepless nights. The Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s point that it can be difficult to find the source of a leak. However, it did say in April 2024 that it needed to do work on the chimney but does not appear to have done this until August 2024.
  22. The landlord accepted its failures in its complaint responses and apologised for these. This was reasonable. It was also reasonable to deal with the request for information as a SAR. In its final response the landlord offered the resident £300 compensation. The Ombudsman has considered whether this was reasonable for the inconvenience caused between June and September 2024. There is no evidence the bedroom was unusable during this time. Because of this the Ombudsman has found the compensation of £300, which was in addition to an earlier settlement, was reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  23. The Ombudsman understands that since the final response, the resident instructed a solicitor to raise a new disrepair claim relating to the leak. An internal email dated 28 February 2025 says the landlord needs to do investigations and see the resident’s expert report before it commits to works.

The landlord’s handling of reports about staff conduct

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was staff misconduct. Instead, the Ombudsman can decide whether the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint in line with its policy, and whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it will investigate complaints, this should include complaints about staff conduct. The policy says when the landlord receives a complaint it will respond within 10 working days. When a resident escalates their complaint, it will respond within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  3. On 20 September 2024 the resident complained about staff who dealt with her calls about a missed appointment. She said she left a message for an officer on 19 September 2024 and when the officer returned her call she was rude, talked over her, tried to end the call, and had no empathy. She said she emailed the officer the next day and got an automated email saying the officer was away. The resident said the officer should have told her she would be out. She said she was put through to a second officer who was rude, talked over her, and lied. She said the second officer did not know what was going on and had not read her notes. She wanted the landlord to listen to the calls.
  4. Records provided by the landlord show that while investigating the complaint, it asked the officers for notes made following the calls. It also asked other officers who were present to provide a note of their account of the calls.
  5. In its complaint response on 17 October 2024 the landlord said it did not have recordings of transferred and outgoing calls. It said it understood the call on 19 September 2024 would have been frustrating, as the officer was unable to answer the resident’s questions without speaking to the contractor. It said witnesses had confirmed the officer dealt with the call professionally.
  6. It said the officer did a handover before she went on leave and was not at liberty to tell residents about any absence. However, the landlord said it understood the frustration caused when the resident tried to speak to the officer the following day. It said the second officer was not part of the team that managed disrepair works, and it did not expect her to know the resident’s case. It said the officer tried to help the resident.
  7. When the resident escalated her complaint on 23 October 2024 she disputed the landlord’s response and wanted to know why it did not record the calls. She also wanted the landlord to provide evidence it had relied on. She said the landlord was taking the staff members’ word against hers.
  8. In its final response on 27 November 2024 the landlord said it was a company decision to only record contact centre calls. On the evidence used in its stage 1 response, it said it was dealing with this as a SAR.
  9. The Ombudsman has found the landlord provided a reasonable explanation of why it did not have recordings of the calls. Because there were no call recordings to listen to, the landlord asked witnesses to provide a statement and reviewed the notes the officers made following the calls. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this was a reasonable approach to take in the circumstances. The landlord said it could not confirm the resident’s allegations but apologised for upset caused. It was reasonable to deal with the evidence request as a SAR.
  10. Because of this the Ombudsman has found the landlord dealt with the complaint about staff conduct in a reasonable way and there was no maladministration in the handling of the report about staff conduct.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord on its handling of a leak following disrepair works at the property.
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord on its handling of a report about staff conduct.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reoffers the £300 compensation offered to the resident if it the landlord has not already paid it.