Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202403194)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403194

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

26 February 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 reports of damp and mould.
This report also considers the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 6-bedroom semi-detached house, since 1990. The resident’s daughter has supported her in her complaint to the landlord and this Service. For clarity, we will refer to both in the report as ‘the resident’.
On 12 January 2024 the resident made a stage 1 complaint. She said:
1. There was damp and mould in “almost every room” of the house.
2. The walls were “wet” and “mushrooms were growing on the ceilings”.
3. Mould had caused damage to personal belongings, clothes and furniture.
4. The household included a 6-year-old and an 86-year-old. They had asthma and recurrent chest infections.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 January 2024. It said:
1. In line with its complaints policy it had applied discretion and considered events that took place within the previous year.
2. It had carried out works throughout 2023. Some work had not gone ahead as it had been unable to gain access to the property.
3. Initial roof works had not resolved the leaks and further inspections were required. This was delayed because scaffolding had not arrived.
4. It had booked further roof repairs for 9 February 2024.
5. It was satisfied that it had taken the appropriate action “within the correct timescales where access was allowed”.
6. It upheld the complaint because:
  1. Inspections and repairs were delayed as scaffolding was not in place.
  2. Initial repairs were unsuccessful.
  3. The resident had experienced damp and mould for “a prolonged period”.
  4. Operatives had missed an opportunity to report the general condition of the property.
7. It offered £300 compensation.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process on 20 February 2024. She said:
1. It had been aware of the repair issues for “a long time”. She had not made a complaint sooner as she thought it would resolve the issues.
2. The property was “not suitable to live in”.
On 19 March 2024 the landlord asked the resident for an extension to the stage 2 complaint response timeframe. It explained that further time was needed as it was waiting for its repairs manager to return from leave. The resident agreed to the extension.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 22 March 2024. It said:
1. It had carried out repairs to the roof, downpipes and gutters.
2. It had also completed mould washes to several rooms.
3. Further works were required to the roof and a mould wash to the bathroom. When the walls were dry it would carry out plastering and decorating works.
4. It considered the property to be habitable. It appreciated the works would cause some disruption but would keep this to a minimum.
5. It again offered the £300 compensation it had offered at stage 1.
The resident brought her case to the Ombudsman as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint. She added that the damp and mould had returned. The case became one we could consider in December 2024.

Legal and policy framework

The terms of the tenancy agreement oblige the landlord to repair the structure of the property. This includes the external walls, the roof, and the gutters and drainpipes.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs within 5 working days.
3. Routine repairs within 15 working days.
4. ‘Non-routine’ repairs within 90 working days.
The repairs policy describes mould washes as routine repairs and “damp prevention works” and roof repairs as non-routine repairs.
The landlord’s 2022 damp and mould policy states it will carry out repairs within the timeframes outlined in its repairs policy. It also states that in cases of severe of recurring damp and mould it will carry out a comprehensive assessment. It will then keep the resident informed of any diagnosed issues and any required works.
We note that the landlord updated its damp and mould policy in October 2024 and that the new policy contains further detail. This was after the events considered by this investigation.
The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The policy in place at the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint states it may not consider events that took place more than 6 months before. It states it will apply its discretion when deciding what it will consider.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident states the damp and mould issues have been ongoing for an extended period. The landlord does not refute this.
This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this investigation has focussed on the period from January 2023. This is where records indicate the beginning of events leading up to the resident’s complaint. Reference to events that occurred prior to that date is made in this report to provide context.
We acknowledge the resident’s comments that the damp and mould in the property has affected the health and wellbeing of members of the household, some of whom are vulnerable. However, this Service is unable to establish a causal link between reports of the health issues experienced by complainants and the actions or inactions of landlords. The resident may wish to seek legal advice about this, or to ask the landlord for details of its liability insurer, as a personal injury claim is the more appropriate way of dealing with this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The records show that in February 2023 the landlord carried out an inspection of the property following reports from the resident of damp and mould. The landlord’s damp and mould policy in place at the time of the events did not specify a timeframe for when an inspection should be carried out. We note however that its 2024 policy outlines timeframes for inspections dependant on the severity of the damp and mould. The updates to the landlord’s policy take into consideration the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould. This is positive.
The landlord has not provided this Service with records prior to February 2023, as such it is unclear what prompted this inspection. We also cannot determine whether it was carried out within a reasonable time of the associated report.
The landlord has also not provided this Service with a copy of the February 2023 inspection report. As a result we do not know what it found and therefore cannot determine whether any actions it took were reasonable and proportionate.
In March and April 2023 the landlord and its contractor attempted to visit the property twice to carry out further inspections but the resident did not provide access. The lack of access would have caused some delay in resolving the damp and mould issues. We acknowledge this was outside the landlord’s control.
In October and November 2023 the landlord carried out mould washes to the bedrooms and the boiler room. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out mould washes. However, it is not clear why it took the landlord 8 months to carry out mould washes following the resident’s report. This vastly exceeded the timeframe of 15 working days within the landlord’s repairs policy. This was an inappropriate delay, particularly given the vulnerabilities in the household.
On 17 November 2023 the landlord carried out a further inspection following reports from the resident of damp and mould in the living room and rear attic bedroom. The inspection noted:
1. “Water streaming down” the external brickwork due to a gutter leak.
2. Damp meter readings showed the internal walls were damp.
3. The resident was unable to open the back door as it had warped due to water damage.
The landlord raised works to the gutters and drains and back door. It is not clear why it took a month to raise these repairs. Considering the seriousness of the findings of the inspection we would reasonably have expected it to raise the works earlier. It was unreasonable that it did not do so.
It is clear in this case the landlord was finding it difficult to identify the root cause of the damp. We appreciate that resolving water ingress is not always straightforward and can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. Where a process of elimination is needed, we would expect to see that the landlord developed a clear action plan. It should monitor this to ensure it finds the source as soon as possible and can promptly implement a remedy. The landlord has not showed that it took appropriate and prompt action to find the cause of the ingress and to then complete a repair. This was a failing.
The resident referred several times within her communications with the landlord to vulnerabilities within the household. We would have expected the landlord to take these into account when deciding what action to take and to ensure that any risks to the resident and her family had been mitigated. That it did not demonstrate that it had done so was inappropriate.
In January 2024 the resident provided the landlord with photographs of the property. The images show black mould on walls and ceilings, mushrooms growing, water marks, bubbling plaster, and crumbling brickwork. She also attached images of mould growing on clothing and shoes.
Later that month the records show the landlord attempted to inspect the roof but that it did not complete this due to “no access”. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response indicates it could not access the roof due to scaffolding not being in place. This delay can therefore not be attributed to the resident.
The evidence indicates that the landlord was uncertain about what works had been completed and what was outstanding. Internal emails stated that it was “not sure” if repairs such as “the issue with the back door, bowed ceiling and fungus on the coving” had been addressed. They also show it was “not sure” which rooms had received mould washes.
The landlord stated within its stage 1 complaint response that it was “difficult to fully understand” the condition of the property from “a handful of photographs and listening to multiple operatives who [had] visited recently”.
That the landlord was unaware of what work had been completed is evidence of poor repairs management. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to actively monitor the works. It should have also ensured that it could access accurate information about the works from within its own records.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service and assists landlords in fulfilling their repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the property. This enables it to monitor and manage outstanding repairs and provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of the landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The landlord’s lack of clarity on the state of repairs indicates that there were shortcomings in its record keeping.
The landlord stated it would carry out a further inspection to ascertain what works had been carried and identify any additional works required. Given its uncertainty about the property condition this Service acknowledges that this was necessary. The landlord carried out an inspection 4 days later. This was prompt and demonstrated that it was prioritising the issue. This was appropriate.
Records from the inspection show the property condition was “a lot worse than the initial photos”. It raised further works to the roof and guttering, mould washes, and said it would raise orders for plastering and decorating when the walls had dried.
The landlord replaced broken roof tiles and cleared the guttering a week after its inspection. It carried out mould washes to the bedrooms, bathroom and WC approximately 2 weeks later. This action was timely and in line with the timeframes in its repairs policy.
In her stage 2 complaint escalation the resident told the landlord the property was not “suitable” to live in. We consider that the landlord should reasonably have investigated why the resident felt this way. Instead, it replied and said it considered the property to be “habitable”. This did not adequately address the resident’s concerns.
In the middle of February 2024 the resident reported that water was coming through the brickwork in the cellar when it rained. The landlord raised a repair which it recorded as complete on 8 March 2024. It is not however clear from the records what work it completed. This is a further indication that the landlord’s records are not sufficiently detailed.
In late February 2024 the landlord raised further repairs to the roof. The records show the landlord completed the repairs at the start of April 2024 but it is again unclear what works it carried out. This is further evidence of record keeping problems.
Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaint process the resident has continued to report issues with damp and mould. As a result and in line with its 2024 damp and mould policy, in January 2025 the landlord instructed an independent surveyor to carry out a full disrepair inspection of the property. As this took place 10 months after the landlord’s final complaint response, this is outside the scope of this investigation. However, it is positive to note that the landlord is continuing to investigate the cause of the issues affecting the property.
The landlord has offered the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould in the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer some redress. However, we do not consider that this is proportionate to the detriment experienced by the family. The evidence shows that the damp and mould was widespread throughout the property and that in some rooms it was severe. For that reason, we consider that rent-based compensation would be appropriate in this case.
The resident has paid approximately £5,218 (taking account of some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s failings. We consider this timeframe to be from 28 June 2023 (90 working days after the resident reported the repair) to 9 December 2024 when the complaint became one we could consider.
In the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the 75 weeks that the resident’s enjoyment of the property has been reduced by the damp and mould. While there was a significant damp problem, none of the rooms were rendered unusable. Considering the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for it to pay £2,076 compensation. We have calculated this figure as approximately 20% of the total rent during the period in question.
We also order the landlord to pay £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its handling of the issue.
Overall, the landlord’s unsatisfactory records have prevented this Service from fully assessing its handling of the damp and mould. We acknowledge that the landlord has carried out several inspections of the property and completed various works to resolve the damp and mould. We have not however seen evidence that it developed a clear action plan to help it identify the cause of the issue. Nor has it demonstrated that it appropriately considered the vulnerabilities in the household. We therefore cannot conclude that the landlord adopted a proactive approach to resolving the issues at the property. As a result, we have found maladministration in its handling of the reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling.

The landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response that its complaints policy only permitted it to consider events that had taken place within the last 6 months. It said however that it had applied its discretion and had considered events over the last 12 months. That the landlord applied its discretion and considered a longer period was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Code states that a landlord must address all points raised in the complaint definition within its response.
The resident stated in her original complaint that the conditions in the property had caused damage to her belongings. The landlord did not acknowledge or address this issue in either of its complaint responses. This was inappropriate and a departure from the Code.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on complaints involving insurance issues states landlords should consider whether there is evidence that it has been at fault for any claimed damage to a resident’s property or belongings. If it accepts that it was or may have been at fault, it may not be reasonable to ask residents to claim on their own contents insurance policy as all claims made on a policy may affect the resident’s future premium and/or require them to pay an excess.
Damp and mould, usually occurs gradually over time rather than being sudden and unforeseen. Therefore it may not be reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident to its own insurer. We have ordered it to consider the resident’s report of damage to her belongings or refer her to its insurer.
We also note that, while the resident clearly referred to vulnerabilities in the household within her original complaint, the landlord did not address this in its response. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate empathy and a failing to address all issues of the complaint.
The landlord acknowledged and apologised in its complaint responses to some failings. This was positive. It did not however identify all the failings identified by this investigation. Furthermore, as the resident continues to report damp and mould, the landlord’s handling of the complaint did not fulfil the main aim of a complaints process, to resolve the issue of complaint. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,276 which comprises:
  1. £2,076 for reduced enjoyment of the property due to its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  2. £100 for distress and inconvenience due to its handling of reports of damp and mould.
  3. £100 for distress and inconvenience due to complaint handling failings.
  4. This includes the landlord’s previous offer of £300. If it has already paid this, it should deduct this amount from the compensation ordered.
3. Contact the resident to outline its plan of action following the independent survey completed in January 2025. It should also agree a convenient start date for works with the resident along with a plan for post-inspecting the works and monitoring their effectiveness.
4. Demonstrate that it has considered the resident’s report of damage to her belongings or refer her to its insurer.