Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202452093)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202452093

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

25 September 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 repairs to the resident’s property. These included:
1. A leak in the bathroom damaging the flooring.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Repairs around the sink area in the kitchen.
This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since September 2019. The property is a 2 bedroom terraced house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident shares her home with her 3 children. The landlord has told us that it had no historical records of vulnerabilities or specific health conditions within the household. It has said that the resident told it on 23 December 2024 that she had a young baby. On 26 February 2025, through her complaint escalation, she told it that one of her children had chronic asthma and a compromised immune system. She also said that her child was autistic.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported a leak from her toilet on 19 November 2024, 23 December 2024, and 6 January 2025. She also reported black mould in the bathroom on 6 January 2025 for which the landlord arranged an inspection.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 January 2025 to raise a formal complaint. She said that the landlord’s surveyor had not attended to carry out a planned inspection. She further complained that there was an ongoing issue of a leak from her toilet. The landlord dealt with these issues as 2 separate complaints. For ease of reference this report refers to these as complaint A and complaint B.
On 17 January 2025 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to complaint A. It said that her complaint was about its surveyor not attending a scheduled appointment. In response it said that the surveyor had attended on 15 January 2025, but no one was home. The surveyor had not left a “no access” card. It could not therefore confirm its attendance. It acknowledged that the resident had checked her neighbour’s CCTV and that this did not show the surveyor on that day. It apologised that it had been unable to gain access and complete the inspection. It had spoken with the surveyor and reinforced the need to attend as planned. The surveyor had said that they had tried to visit on an earlier date when they were in the area, but again the resident was not home. It had arranged a new appointment for 24 January 2025. It had brought this forward to 17 January 2025 between 8.00am and 12 noon. It hoped that this new arrangement was acceptable to the resident. It apologised that she had needed to complain.
On 24 January 2024 the landlord provided a formal stage 1 response to complaint B about the outstanding repairs to her toilet. It noted in this that she had raised complaint A. In its response it said:
1. It had completed repairs on 21 January 2025 to remedy “the immediate issue” and completed a temporary repair to the bath.
2. It had scheduled further works to urgently replace the bath and “rectify the flooring issue caused by the leaking bath once the floor has dried out”.
3. It did not uphold her complaint.
4. That “all damage to the bathroom can be attributed to the damage caused by yourself to the bath and its installation”.
5. It would charge the resident for the cost of replacing the bath and rectifying the damage caused by this leak.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 February 2025 to ask it to escalate complaint A. She said that she had tried to contact its repairs service about the missed inspection, but it had told her to send an email. This she believed was not acceptable. She said that mould was now affecting the whole property. It was on her sofa and laminate flooring. She said that “the situation is becoming untenable” and that the landlord did not respond to her. She said that it was aware that she had a baby and “a child with a compromised immune system and chronic asthma”. She said that someone had been round to treat the mould, but that it had not completed the work. She said that the contractor had said that it could not do the work with children in the property. She wanted the issue resolved.
In separate correspondence on 26 February 2025, the resident asked the landlord to escalate complaint B. In this she said that:
1. She understood that the landlord intended to charge her for the works to the bathroom. She disputed the landlord’s view that the source of the leak was a crack to the bath. She said that when it removed the bath, the area underneath the crack was dry.
2. The leak was from the pipework around the toilet and that the landlord had not completed an effective repair to this. She said that she had reported it several times.
3. There had been a crack in the bath when she moved in 5 years ago. She further explained that her son was autistic and often threw things. She accepted that he had broken a tile in the bathroom. She did not believe that it should charge her for the cost of the repairs.
4. A contractor had refused to treat the mould in her bathroom while her children were living in the property. There had been no follow up on this. She said that she was having to regularly clean mould within her property. She felt that this was unfair and was not her fault.
5. The landlord had not let her know of appointments it had made. These also did not recognise that she had to take her children to school.
The landlord acknowledged her request to escalate both her complaints on 5 March 2025. It provided stage 2 responses to complaint A and complaint B on 21 March 2025. Different officers within the landlord’s staff completed these.
In its response to complaint A, it set out that her original complaint was about its surveyor not attending an appointment at her home. It said that it had rearranged this for 17 January 2025, and this had gone ahead as planned. It noted that in escalating her complaint she said that the damp and mould in her home was unresolved. Its contractor had refused to treat the mould, and this had now spread throughout the property, affecting her sofa and laminate flooring. In reply it said:
1. It had first raised an order for the leak in the bathroom on 19 November 2024. It had attended on 28 November 2024, but its contractor did not get access to the resident’s home. It raised this again on 24 December 2024 and it carried out a repair to the toilet.
2. The resident had contacted it on 31 December 2024 to report damp in her bathroom. It inspected this on 17 January 2025. It raised repairs to the bathroom as an outcome of the inspection. These included renewal of the extractor fan, works to the toilet, wash hand basin and a temporary repair to the bath. It also arranged for a painter to treat the mould on the bathroom walls. It noted that the resident refused the painting on 4 February 2025.
3. It raised a further inspection on 23 January 2025. On completion of this, the landlord raised a repair order to carry out a mould wash to the bedroom ceiling and to fit new worktops in the kitchen due to water damage.
4. It was due to fit a new bath due to damage caused by the resident. The leak from the bath had damaged the bathroom flooring which it would renew. It listed the orders raised and when it would complete these.
5. It was satisfied that it had carried out all inspections in good time following contact from the resident. It noted that there had been occasions when it had been unable to access the resident’s home. It was satisfied that it had followed these up and attended soon afterwards.
6. That it could complete the mould treatment with the family living in the property. It apologised if its contractor had given her incorrect information on this.
7. It acknowledged the resident’s wish to resolve the issue of damp and mould. It recorded that there were 2 outstanding orders. These were to attend to the bathroom flooring on 31 March 2025 and on 2 April 2025 to fit new kitchen worktops, a vent and carry out a mould treatment to the effected areas.
In responding to complaint B, it said that it was satisfied that it had addressed her complaint about outstanding repairs to her toilet appropriately. This it had done in line with its complaint policy. It noted that in escalating her complaint she had referred to issues of damp and mould in her home. It said that it had dealt with this under complaint A. It noted that she believed that the damage to her bathroom was due to the leak from the toilet, not from the bath. Further she did not believe that she was responsible for the damage. It said that:
1. She had first reported a leak from the toilet on 19 November 2024. It had booked an appointment for 28 November 2024, but its contractor had not got access to her home.
2. The resident reported a leak on the toilet on 23 December 2024. A contractor attended on 24 December 2024 and completed a repair to refix the toilet and the flush cone.
3. She reported a further leak from the base of the toilet on 6 January 2025. Its contractor attended on 8 January 2025 but did not get access to carry out a repair.
4. Also, on 6 January 2025 the resident reported black mould within the bathroom. It arranged for a surveyor to attend on 15 January 2025. Following a failed appointment, it rescheduled this for 17 January 2025.
5. It had reviewed the notes of its surveyor’s inspection. This noted that there was a crack to the bath. This had caused water to leak out under the flooring, damaging the floor and causing the toilet to become loose. It raised an emergency repair to refix the toilet. It then completed follow on works on 21 January 2025. It also raised other works orders for repairs to the bathroom.
6. It acknowledged the resident’s statement that there was a crack in the bath when she moved into the property. It had looked at the detail from when it let the property and found no evidence that there was a crack to the bath. Further the resident had not reported this. It had replaced the bath on 5 February 2025.
7. It had scheduled works to the flooring for 31 January 2025. A specialist contractor would attend as there was asbestos in the floor covering. It would then refit this.
8. It concluded that its decision to recharge the resident for the replacement of the bath was correct. It had considered the extent of the works needed to the bathroom because of the leak and agreed as a gesture of goodwill not to charge the resident for this. These included the removal of the flooring, toilet, and wash hand basin, replacing the flooring with new and to refit the wash hand basin and toilet.
9. It found no failures in its handling of repair to the resident’s bathroom. It had attended within agreed timescales and dealt with the repairs in line with its own policy and procedures.
The resident contacted this service on 21 March 2024 and asked that we investigate her complaint. She was particularly unhappy with the landlord’s intention to recharge her the cost of replacing the bath. The landlord completed repairs to the bathroom and the kitchen between 31 March 2025 and the 2 April 2025. It raised an order for follow on works to “box in the back of the toilet” which it attended on 7 April 2025. Its records show that its contractor left a “no access” card. The resident has told us that the landlord has now completed all the works to her bathroom. It has also replaced the kitchen worktops. She said that she was dissatisfied with the level and clarity of its communication with her through the repairs process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out its repairing responsibilities. It says that it delivers the service on a priority basis determined by the urgency of the repair needed. It has 4 categories of repair. These are:
1. Emergency, which it will attend within 24 Hours.
2. Urgent, attended within 5 working days.
3. Essential, attended within 15 working days.
4. Routine repairs, which it will complete within 90 working days.
The policy provides examples of what it may consider within each priority. It further sets out its intention to complete a repair within a single visit. Where it needed to carry out follow on works or it needs extra materials, it says that it will tell a resident when it will complete the repair.
The policy says that the landlord will offer a range of appointment slots from Monday to Friday. It says that where a resident does not keep an appointment, it will cancel the repair or inspection request.
Further, the policy has information about when it will charge a resident for a repair. It says that a resident is responsible for any work that results from negligence or is not general wear and tear. It says that where damage is accidental it will consider the circumstances in deciding the level of charge it will make. Its policy further confirms in appendix A that where there is damage to baths, basins and toilets caused by a resident, it will recover the cost of the repair.
Section 4 of the resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the responsibility of both the resident and the landlord for repairs to the property. The resident is responsible for any repairs that result from damage caused by them. The landlord may complete these repairs and charge the resident for these. Point 4.2 says that the resident must allow the landlord access at reasonable times as long as it has given 24 hours’ notice.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy explained that it will communicate clearly about any actions to resolve such issues.
The resident first reported a leak from her toilet on 19 November 2024. The landlord’s repair records do not show how it categorised this repair. It responded on 28 November 2024. When its contractor called no one was home. It left a “no access” card. There is no record that the landlord took further steps to contact the resident or make a further appoint with her to complete this repair. There is also no evidence that the resident contacted the landlord in response to the “no access” card. It cancelled the works order in line with its responsive repairs policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 December 2024 reporting that the toilet was leaking on flushing and when the cistern was refilling. The landlord attended as an emergency the following day and completed a repair to the toilet. She contacted the landlord again on 6 January 2025. She once again reported a leak from the toilet, this time from the base of the toilet pan. Further she reported that there was black mould affecting the bathroom. A contractor attended to repair the toilet on 8 January 2025. As the resident was not home it recorded that it left a card, and it cancelled the works order. Again, this was in line with the landlord’s policy. The landlord acted appropriately in raising repair orders in response to the resident’s reports of a leak. Its records show it attended on a prearranged appointment and left a calling card when the resident was not at home. The evidence does not show that either party followed up on these failed appointments to rearrange these. There is a shared responsibility for repairs to the home. With the resident expected to report repairs promptly and to allow access to the landlord to carry these out.
To address the resident’s reports of mould growth in the bathroom it arranged an inspection by its surveyor. The landlord raised an order for the inspection on 6 January 2025. Its records show that it cancelled this on 10 February 2025 as a duplicate order. Its records show that it raised a second inspection order on 15 January 2025. It completed this on 20 January 2025. There is no record against either order of the failed appointment on 15 January 2025, referred to in complaint A. While the landlord said in its complaint response that its surveyor had attended, it was unable to show that this had happened. It acknowledged that the surveyor had not left a calling card. Further, the resident had sought a copy of her neighbour’s CCTV. There was a service failure by the landlord in not attending this appointment as agreed.
As an outcome to complaint A, the landlord’s surveyor completed an inspection on 17 January 2025. It raised an emergency repair to the toilet which it completed the same day. This was an appropriate response. It could have completed this on an earlier date had its original appointment gone ahead.
The surveyor raised several repairs to the resident’s bathroom following its inspection. This included an order to refix the toilet pan and fix leaks on the pan connector and flush pipe, together with a repair externally to the wash hand basin. The surveyor noted that there was a crack in the bath. It was to replace the bath and arranged for a temporary repair ahead of this. These were all completed on 21 February 2025. It installed the new bath on 5 February 2025.
As an outcome to its inspection the surveyor said that the crack to the bath was the cause of the leak in the bathroom. It said this had caused damage to the floor which had caused the toilet to become loose. The landlord has not provided its inspection reports as part of the evidence supplied to this service. We have also not seen photographs which show the damage to the bath. The resident disputed the landlord’s report that the crack to the bath was the cause of the damage to the bathroom. She said that this was due to the leak from the toilet.
It is important to highlight that the Ombudsman is an impartial service which can only base its decisions on the evidence provided. Where there are conflicting accounts, and a lack of contemporaneous evidence, the Ombudsman cannot conclude that there was failure by the landlord or require it to take action to put right this failure. However, in some circumstances, the Ombudsman may draw an adverse inference due to the lack of documentary evidence.
The evidence provided shows that the resident reported a leak from her toilet on at least 3 separate occasions. The landlord’s records set out that it was unable to gain access to the resident’s home in response to 2 of these reports. As there is no evidence that the resident contacted it in response to the calling cards left, it cancelled these orders. In this the landlord acted in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord inspected the resident’s home following her reports of damp and mould. It was through this that it found a leak from the bath. In its response to complaint B, the landlord informed the resident that it would be charging her for the cost of replacing the bath and the associated repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord discussed its intentions to charge her for the cost of replacing the bath ahead of its complaint response. It would have been reasonable for it to have discussed this with the resident during its inspection and explained its reasons to her. That its did not do so was a failure in its communication with the resident. It should not have presented its intention to charge her for repairs to the bathroom as an outcome to her complaint. Furthermore, its suggestion in its stage 2 response that it was acting as a gesture of goodwill in only charging her for the replacement of the bath was not appropriate.
The landlord should have communicated directly with the resident about the damage it found on the bath. It should have discussed this with her at its inspection and later followed this up in writing setting out its findings and its intention to recharge, together with the estimated costs. There would also have been the opportunity for it to consider the extent of the cost if the damage was accidental. The resident had accepted that her son had damaged a tile in the bathroom. There was a lack of clear communication with the resident that amounted to a service failure.

Complaint handling

The resident raised her complaint on 15 January 2025. The landlord treated her complaint as 2 separate issues. It referred these internally to different officers to investigate. This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the code) says that landlords should consider related issues raised during an investigation within a single response at stage 1. In this case the resident had raised the 2 issues together. It would have been reasonable, and in line with the Code, for the landlord to have considered these as a single complaint as both related to its repairs service. That it did not do so was a failure to follow the Code.
With 2 separate stage 1 complaints, the resident responded to each on the same day, asking for an escalation of her complaint. Given the nature of the issues raised by the resident, there was a level of overlap in the landlord’s responses at stage 2. In handling these as separate complaints there was the potential for confusion for the resident. A single response would have ensured clarity. The resident had to deal with different officers of the landlord about issues that were very similar in nature. This led to concerns about its communication with her. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the identified failings. This should be in line with the Service’s guidance on remedies.
2. Pay the resident a total of £75 compensation. This is broken down as:
  1. £25 for its surveyor’s missed appointment.
  2. £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident through its lack of clear communication about its intention to charge her for works to her bathroom.

Recommendations

The landlord should reconsider its position on recharging the resident for the replacement of the bath. We are aware that the landlord has not yet raised this charge.
The landlord should confirm with the resident how she would like it to communicate with her. Further, it should record any time commitments that she has, such as taking her children to school, to ensure that it can make appointments with her that are achievable.
The landlord should review its handling of the resident’s complaint. It should consider how it can ensure that it provides clear and combined responses to residents.