Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202322464)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322464

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

28 March 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of leaks affecting his property.
    2. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour.
    3. The associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident had an assured tenancy at the property which was the subject of his complaint to the landlord and this tenancy began on 6 January 2023. The property was a bedsit on the first floor in an independent living scheme designated for residents aged 55 and over.
  2. The resident moved to an alternative property in the same scheme on 25 September 2023 and then subsequently moved out of the scheme altogether in September 2024 to accommodation he had sourced with his partner.
  3. The landlord has advised this Service that it did not receive any information of vulnerabilities relating to the resident during the application or tenancy sign up process for the property. However, in his stage 2 complaint the resident referred to the impact the reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) issues were having on his mental health.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023 to report a leak in his airing cupboard. During January 2023, operatives attended the property and carried out repairs to the water cylinder in the airing cupboard, however, the leak continued. The leak was finally repaired by a plumber and the final repair was completed on 3 February 2023.
  5. The resident also reported brown stains and cracks on his bathroom ceiling in February 2023. During February and March 2023, operatives inspected the loft area above the resident’s property but were unable to detect any leaks. A surveyor also inspected the loft and the roof in May 2023 but was unable to identify the cause of the leak.
  6. The landlord raised an order in May 2023 for a roofing contractor to inspect and carry out repairs to the roof. However, in July 2023 the resident reported that the leak into his bathroom was still ongoing. The landlord arranged for a roofing contractor to carry out further repairs to the roof on 27 July 2023 and the repairs resolved the leak. The landlord replaced the damaged bathroom ceiling on 15 August 2023. The electrical fittings were then reinstated on 16 August 2023 and a final (skim) plaster coat was applied on 17 August 2023.
  7. In terms of the reported ASB, the landlord’s records show that it opened an ASB case on 7 March 2023 in relation to one of the resident’s neighbour’s who was reported to be causing ASB. The case notes stated that the neighbour was accumulating items and rubbish in the communal garden outside his flat. The resident was added as a witness in relation to the case when he later emailed the landlord about the neighbour. The neighbour lived in a block which faced the resident’s property.
  8. During March to May 2023, the landlord spoke to the neighbour’s support worker on various occasions and the support worker tried to arrange for the neighbour to remove the items from the communal garden. Although the neighbour removed some of the items, the landlord applied for an injunction in June 2023 for the resident to remove the items and to prohibit him from storing further items in the communal garden. The injunction was granted on 4 August 2023 and gave the neighbour 4 weeks to remove the items from the communal garden.
  9. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 July 2023 in which he raised his concerns about the ASB and the leaks affecting his property. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 17 August 2023 in which it stated the following:
    1. The landlord confirmed that the final repairs to address the leak in the airing cupboard had been completed on 3 February 2023 following 2 previous visits by operatives.
    2. The landlord confirmed that the roof leak affecting the bathroom ceiling had been repaired on 27 July 2023 following various previous repairs by its roofing contractor and inspections of the loft area by operatives.
    3. The landlord confirmed that a contractor was scheduled to remove the existing bathroom ceiling and replace it with a new ceiling on 15 August 2023.
    4. In terms of the ASB caused by one of the neighbours, the landlord said that its Neighbourhood Safety Team had been monitoring the situation throughout and taking appropriate action.
    5. The landlord said that a support worker had been providing support to the neighbour since the ASB issues arose.
    6. The landlord said that it had opened an ASB case on its system in March 2023 and had attempted multiple interventions with the neighbour. However, as these had not resolved the issues, it had applied for an injunction.
    7. The landlord confirmed that it had obtained an injunction on 4 August 2023 giving the neighbour 4 weeks to remove the items he had accumulated in the communal garden. The landlord said it would take further action if the neighbour did not comply.
    8. The landlord said it had agreed a management transfer for the resident to an alternative flat within the independent living scheme as he had requested this.
    9. The landlord said that its scheme coordinator had maintained regular communication with residents while the ASB issues had been ongoing. It added that any residents who had concerns could raise them with the scheme coordinator who was regularly present in the building.
  10. The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 August 2023 and said he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response because:
    1. He considered it unacceptable that it had taken the landlord 5 months to deal with the leaks in his property.
    2. The resident said that his neighbour had been living in the scheme since 2017 and therefore the landlord should have dealt with the ASB issues previously.
    3. He explained that he had experienced a detrimental impact on his mental health, wellbeing and on his work performance due to the neighbour’s ASB.
  11. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 15 September 2023 in which it stated the following:
    1. The landlord explained that leaks can be difficult to diagnose and resolve. However, it agreed that it had taken longer than usual to resolve the leaks.
    2. The landlord said that taking enforcement action for ASB was challenging when there is an element of vulnerability involved. It confirmed that the resident’s concerns had been passed to its Neighbourhood Services team and was satisfied that appropriate action had been taken.
    3. The landlord confirmed that it was progressing the matter through further legal action and would provide a fuller reply once it received advice from its solicitor. The landlord agreed to hold a residents’ meeting to update residents and discuss their concerns.
    4. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s feedback would be included in reports to its Executive Management team. It said that it had revised its customer contact standards and during 2023 a communication self-assessment project and new customer service training programme would be delivered to staff.
  12. The resident moved to an alternative property in the same scheme on 25 September 2023. He contacted the Ombudsman on 29 September 2023 to say he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the leaks that had affected his previous property and with the landlord’s handling of the ASB caused by his neighbour. He believed that the landlord should have done more to improve security in the scheme by adding extra CCTV and door locks. He also said that the landlord should review its policy in relation to residents who may need extra support.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated in his stage 2 complaint dated 18 August 2023 that his neighbour had lived in the independent living scheme since 2017 and therefore the landlord should have acted before 2023 to resolve the ASB issues. The Ombudsman has noted this point but does not consider it appropriate to investigate matters that occurred prior to 2023. This is because the resident’s tenancy started on 9 January 2023 and therefore the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that he experienced any detriment from the reported ASB prior to this date.
  2. During the complaints process, the landlord investigated and responded to various issues. However, the resident contacted this Service on 29 September 2023 and said his complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the leaks that had affected his property and its handling of the ASB by his neighbour. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on these 2 areas.
  3. The resident stated in his email dated 10 August 2023 that the reported leaks had resulted in sleepless nights and a bad chest due to the damp. He also said in his stage 2 complaint dated 18 August 2023 that the ASB issues had had a detrimental impact on his mental health, wellbeing and work performance. The Ombudsman has noted these comments, however, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option.
  4. The Ombudsman has received information showing events that took place at the independent living scheme after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 15 September 2023. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. This means that the events after the resident moved to an alternative property in the scheme have not been investigated. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks affecting his property

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure states that it operates 4 priority categories for repairs, which are:
    1. Emergency repair – complete within 24 hours
    2. Urgent repair – complete within 5 working days
    3. Essential repair – complete within 15 working days
    4. Routine repair – complete within 90 calendar days
  2. The procedure states that urgent repairs are appropriate where a situation is causing discomfort, inconvenience and nuisance and is likely to lead to further deterioration if the problem persists. The examples of urgent repairs include roof leaks where water is persistently entering the property.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023 to report a leak in his airing cupboard. The landlord raised an order and an operative carried out repairs to the water cylinder in the airing cupboard on 17 January 2023. The contractor therefore attended within an appropriate timescale as the repair was considered urgent. The operative recommended that a new ball valve was needed and therefore the landlord raised a follow-on order on 18 January 2023 to supply and fit a new ball valve to the cylinder. The work was completed on 24 January 2023 and therefore was carried out within a reasonable timescale. The job notes stated that the ball valve was tested upon completion of the work.
  4. On 19 January 2023, the resident reported that the cylinder was still leaking and therefore a further job was raised on 26 January 2023 to investigate the cylinder for leaks. It is not clear why there was a delay of a week before the landlord raised the new job and therefore this was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord. An appointment was made for a plumber to attend on 3 February 2023 and the repairs were completed on this date. The plumber therefore attended within a reasonable timescale after the job had been raised.
  5. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 February 2023 to say he was unhappy that the cylinder had still been leaking following the plumbers’ visits on 17 and 24 January 2023. Although it took 3 visits to eventually resolve the leaks from the water cylinder, the evidence shows that the landlord responded reasonably when advised about the leaks on each occasion and arranged for plumbers to attend within reasonable timescales.
  6. Although the property had recently been refurbished before the resident moved into the property, the presence of leaks from the cylinder does not necessarily represent a service failure as water leaks can develop due to a variety of reasons. Leaks may also develop after a final inspection of a property has been carried out. Additionally, it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of the issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved.
  7. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the repairs that would have been appropriate for the operatives to carry out and the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified contractors when deciding on the work needed. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord responded reasonably to the reports of the leaks in the airing cupboard.
  8. The resident advised the landlord on 1 and 3 February 2023 that there were other defects, including brown stains and a crack on the bathroom ceiling. The resident said he believed the staining indicated there was a roof leak or a leak from a pipe in the loft. He explained that he worked full-time and therefore was finding the situation stressful.
  9. The landlord’s records state that a plumber had attended the property on 13 February 2023 to carry out repairs to the shower pump and at the same time had checked the loft area and had not found any leaks. It was reasonable that the operative had checked the loft area while in the property. However, there is no evidence that his findings were communicated to the resident and therefore this was a shortcoming. The lack of communication meant that the resident remained anxious that the hole and the stains might have been caused by a roof leak or a leaking pipe in the loft. The resident therefore asked for confirmation on 3 March 2023 that the operative had looked in the loft and had found no leaks.
  10. The landlord raised an order on 3 March 2023 to repair the hole in the bathroom ceiling. An appointment was booked for 8 March 2023 but was cancelled as the operative was unable to obtain access. The operative left a card to confirm he had attended. The operative had therefore attended within a reasonable timescale after the order had been raised.
  11. On 10 March 2023, the landlord raised an order to attend to a leak from the bathroom ceiling and an appointment was booked to attend on 15 March 2023. An operative attended and inspected the loft area. The job notes stated that there were no signs of a leak in the loft and the roof looked satisfactory based on an internal visual inspection. It was reasonable for the operative to have checked the loft area to ensure there were no leaks from pipes and to have checked the roof internally.
  12. The landlord raised an order on 21 April 2023 for a surveyor to inspect the roof for a possible leak. Given that operatives had checked the loft area on 13 February 2023 and 15 March 2023 and not found signs of the leak, it was reasonable for the landlord to have raised an order for a surveyor to inspect the roof. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that this should have been raised immediately after the operative had been unable to detect the source of the leak on 15 March 2023. It had taken over a month since the operative’s visit to book the order for the surveyor to inspect. This was inappropriate as the damage to the ceiling indicated there was an ongoing problem with water ingress and therefore further investigation was needed.
  13. The surveyor inspected the property on 11 May 2023 and found there was no active leak in the loft space. However, the surveyor arranged for a further order to be raised on the same day for a roofing contractor to inspect the roof. The surveyor said that water may be entering through loose ridge tiles on the roof or the lead flashing around the flue vent. The surveyor noted that the hole in the ceiling was getting worse. Having identified potential defects to the roof, it was appropriate for the surveyor to raise an order for a roofing contractor to carry out a more detailed inspection of the roof and to address any defects that were causing the leak.
  14. The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 June 2023 and advised that the hole in the bathroom ceiling had still not been rectified. Also, the landlord’s repairs log shows that the resident contacted the landlord’s scheme coordinator on 22 June 2023 chasing the roofing job. He also contacted his MP on 20 July 2023 regarding the repair. He then wrote to the landlord on 24 July 2023 to say that he was dissatisfied because the roof had not been repaired. He said that scaffolding had been erected about a month earlier but had then been removed without works being carried out. The resident also made a stage 1 complaint on 26 July 2023 in which he stated that the roof was still leaking.
  15. The landlord stated in its stage 1 reply dated 17 August 2023 that the roofing contractor made various attempted repairs and marked the job as completed on 30 June 2023. However, in his emails sent during July 2023, the resident disputed the landlord’s information that the contractor had carried out various repairs to the roof during June 2023.
  16. Based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether roofing repairs were carried out during June 2023, however, the evidence shows that the roof leak was still ongoing in July 2023. The landlord chased the roofing contractor on 24 July 2023 and the contractor attended on the same day. The landlord’s records show that following the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 26 July 2023, the landlord recalled the roofing contractor on 27 July 2023. As a result, operatives attended on this date and found evidence of a small leak around the soil vent pipe. The repairs were therefore carried out on the day.
  17. The Ombudsman understands that it can be difficult to trace and resolve roof leaks. However, in such situations it is important to maintain good communications with the resident and to check whether any repairs carried out have resolved the leak. In this case, the landlord’s records show that it left messages for the resident on 26 June 2023 to check whether the roofing contractor had contacted him. This showed there was a lack of communication between the roofing contractor and the landlord.
  18. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 July 2023 asking whether the roof was still leaking. The landlord then raised a further job on 12 July 2023 stating that the leak was still ongoing. However, the job was cancelled and there is no information in the repairs log to explain the cancellation of the order.
  19. The Ombudsman’s view is that the level of communication with the resident was inappropriate during the period from 11 May 2023 to 26 July 2023 while the job was with the roofing contractor and the leak was ongoing. The evidence shows that the resident was unaware whether any works had been carried out during this period. This led to the resident chasing the landlord for updates, contacting his MP on 20 July 2023 and making a formal complaint on 26 July 2023.
  20. Even taking into account that the landlord had attempted to contact the resident on 26 June 2023 and had emailed him on 11 July 2023, this Service considers the level of communication with the resident to have been a failing. The landlord apologised in its stage 1 reply that it had taken longer than it would have liked to resolve the issue, however, it did not acknowledge any failings in its communication.
  21. The landlord raised an order on 2 August 2023 to replace the damaged bathroom ceiling. An appointment was booked for 15 August 2023 and the ceiling was replaced on this date. The landlord has advised this Service that as there was a textured coating present on the ceiling, with an associated risk of asbestos content, it took a cautious approach and arranged a specialist contractor to remove the coating and replace the entire ceiling. As the leak had been resolved, it was appropriate that the landlord had raised an order to address the damaged ceiling. It was also reasonable that the landlord had taken a decision to replace the ceiling as there was a risk it contained asbestos. The replacement of the ceiling and the associated works were carried in a timely manner after the order had been raised on 2 August 2023.
  22. Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks affecting his property because:
    1. There was a delay between the operative’s inspection of the loft on 15 March 2023 and the landlord raising an order on 21 April 2023 for a surveyor to inspect the property.
    2. There was a lack of communication with the resident regarding the reported roof leak during the period from 11 May 2023 to 26 July 2023 while the job was with the roofing contractor and the leak was ongoing.
  23. The failings caused the resident inconvenience and distress in having to chase the landlord. He explained in his stage 1 complaint dated 26 July 2023 that the leak had been causing disruption to his sleep and his mental health. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failures and reflects the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the failings identified above.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour

  1. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy and procedure states:
    1. “As part of our commitment to tackle anti‐social behaviour we recognise that those causing it may have underlying problems which contribute to their actions i.e. alcohol misuse, drug misuse, physical health problems, mental health problems etc. We will support those causing anti‐social behaviour to identify and resolve their problems either by signposting them to appropriate agencies or making referrals on their behalf.
    2. “Subject to local arrangements, we may offer in‐house support to those willing to change their behaviour. Where necessary we will couple any support with enforcement action to ensure the person engages and stops causing anti‐social behaviour”.
    3. “[We] will make use of the full range of non‐legal and legal actions available to us. We will take legal action where necessary to protect victims and witnesses and to stop problems escalating”.
    4. The procedure lists the legal powers available to it as civil injunction, demoted tenancies and possession proceedings.
  2. Following reports from residents living in the scheme that a neighbour was causing ASB, the landlord opened a new ASB case on its system on 7 March 2023. This was appropriate as the landlord’s notes show that it had received reports that the neighbour was accumulating rubbish in the communal garden outside his flat. Opening a new ASB case would enable the landlord to track any actions relating to the case and ensure that any related documents could be correctly filed.
  3. The landlord contacted the neighbour’s support worker on the 7 March 2023 as he was known to have mental health issues. The landlord also wrote to the neighbour on 7 March 2023 warning him to remove the rubbish in the next 2 weeks or the landlord would take legal action. It was reasonable that the landlord had contacted the neighbour’s support worker as he was known to be vulnerable. This was in line with the landlord’s ASB policy regarding providing support. It was also reasonable for the landlord to issue a warning to the neighbour as the evidence showed that his actions were negatively impacting on other residents in the scheme. The action was also in line with the ASB policy which states that where necessary it will couple any support with enforcement action.
  4. The support worker confirmed to the landlord on 14 March 2023 that the neighbour had made a start in clearing the rubbish and had agreed to remove the remaining rubbish before the landlord’s deadline. The support worker confirmed on 15 March 2023 that the rubbish had been cleared and therefore the landlord closed the ASB case on its system. It was reasonable for the landlord to close the case as the reported ASB problem about accumulated rubbish in the communal garden had been resolved.
  5. On 28 March 2023, the landlord received further reports of the neighbour accumulating rubbish outside his flat and therefore it again contacted the neighbour’s support worker. The support worker advised the landlord that the neighbour had agreed to remove the rubbish. It was once again reasonable and in line with its policy for the landlord to speak to the support worker given the neighbour’s known vulnerabilities.
  6. The landlord contacted the support worker on 19 April 2023 to say it was considering legal action as the neighbour was accumulating rubbish again. The landlord wrote to the neighbour on 24 May 2023 to advise him that he should remove the rubbish within 7 days.
  7. On 2 June 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to report that the neighbour was constantly causing noise and throwing rubbish out of his window. The landlord has advised this Service that this was the first recorded instance of the resident reporting that the neighbour was causing ASB. At this point, the landlord had already contacted the support worker and written to the neighbour giving him 7 days to clear the rubbish.
  8. The evidence indicates that the neighbour failed to comply with the warning and therefore on 8 June 2023 the landlord applied for an injunction. This was reasonable as the landlord had contacted the support worker and written to the resident giving him a deadline to remove the rubbish, which he had not complied with. The landlord’s ASB policy lists civil injunctions as one of the legal remedies that could be considered by the landlord and therefore the landlord’s action was consistent with its policy.
  9. The resident wrote to his MP on 20 July 2023 regarding repairs and the ASB issues and said he had asked the landlord to be transferred to an alternative property in the scheme. He said the landlord had refused the request because it was outside of its policy. He also wrote to the landlord on 26 July 2023 to make a stage 1 complaint, which included his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of his neighbour’s reported ASB. The landlord’s records show that while it was waiting for the injunction hearing, it had liaised with the police about the neighbour digging near pipes in the communal garden and had briefed the scheme coordinator so that she could advise residents of the legal action it was taking. It was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the police as it had immediate safety concerns regarding the neighbour digging in the communal garden. It was also reasonable for the landlord to brief the scheme coordinator so that residents could approach her for updates.
  10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 August 2023 to advise him that it had applied for an injunction order to prohibit the neighbour from causing ASB, including accumulating rubbish in the communal garden. The landlord was granted the injunction on 4 August 2023 which would last for 2 years and gave the neighbour 4 weeks to remove the rubbish he had accumulated in the communal garden. The injunction also prohibited the resident from accumulating further rubbish and from digging up the communal garden. The injunction was served on the neighbour on 11 August 2023. The landlord had therefore taken reasonable steps in the form of legal action to address the neighbour’s ASB.
  11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 August 2023 to report that despite the injunction, the neighbour had continued to accumulate rubbish in the communal garden and in the car park. The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended on 15 August 2023 and cleared the rubbish in the communal garden. Although the landlord had obtained the injunction, it was reasonable for it to clear the rubbish as it was causing a nuisance to residents in the scheme.
  12. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply to the resident on 17 August 2023 in which it explained the action it had taken, including obtaining an injunction. The landlord also confirmed it had agreed a management transfer for the resident to be moved to an alternative property in the scheme. This was reasonable as it showed that the landlord had considered the resident’s request and agreed to move him to a property that was not directly opposite the neighbour who was causing ASB.
  13. The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 September 2023 to report that the neighbour had again been dumping rubbish outside his flat and had been lighting barbecues at night. He said he was concerned that the neighbour was putting other residents at risk. The landlord’s records show that at this time it was preparing a Notice of Seeking Possession in relation to the neighbour. It was reasonable that the landlord was preparing to take further legal action as there were continuing reports of ASB by the neighbour, despite the injunction order that the landlord had obtained in August 2023. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 2 reply dated 15 September 2023 that it was progressing the case through further legal action.
  14. The landlord also stated in its stage 2 reply that it would be arranging a residents’ meeting to update residents and to hear their concerns. Although the scheme coordinator was available to discuss any concerns with residents, it was reasonable to arrange a residents’ meeting as the evidence shows that several residents living in the scheme had concerns about the neighbour’s behaviour.
  15. The Ombudsman is aware that ASB cases are often the most challenging for a landlord as, in practice, options available or chosen by a landlord to resolve a case may not result in a resident’s preferred outcome, and it can become difficult to manage expectations. In this case, this Service has found that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the ASB, including working closely with the neighbour’s support worker, issuing warnings to the neighbour and taking legal action. The landlord also agreed a management transfer for the resident to recognise the distress he had experienced as a result of living opposite the neighbour. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by the neighbour.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states:
    1. The landlord will aim to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receiving the complaint.
    2. The landlord will send a response to stage one complaints within 10 working days of its formal acknowledgement of the complaint. However, if more time is needed, the landlord will keep the resident informed and will state the reason for the delay and when the resident can expect a response. The maximum extension time to the stage 1 complaint will be a further 10 working days.
    3. The landlord will acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within 5 working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint. If more time is needed, the landlord will keep the resident informed and agree any extensions with the resident.
  2. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 July 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 August 2023 and said it wanted to discuss the complaint with him before starting to investigate the complaint. The landlord said it would issue an acknowledgement for the complaint once it had spoken to the resident. The landlord sent its acknowledgement on 10 August 2023 and had therefore taken 11 working days to acknowledge the complaint. The Ombudsman understands the landlord wanted to discuss the complaint with the resident, however, it was a shortcoming that it took longer than the 5-working day target stated in its policy to acknowledge the complaint.
  3. The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 17 August 2023, which was 5 working days after sending the acknowledgement. The landlord therefore sent its stage 1 reply within an appropriate timescale after it had acknowledged the complaint.
  4. The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 18 August 2023 and the landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 15 September 2023. The landlord therefore took 20 working days to respond, which was in line with its complaints policy.
  5. Overall, although the landlord took longer to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint than stipulated in its policy, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaints.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks affecting his property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the landlord’s handling of leaks affecting the property.