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

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202228709)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228709

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

12 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs and an upgrade to the communal front door.
    2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property since 26 November 2001. The property is a first floor 1-bedroom flat. She lives in the property with her husband. She is vulnerable due to mental health diagnoses; however, the landlord’s records do not reflect this.
  2. The resident has previously experienced ASB from a neighbour. The resident called the landlord on 9 February 2022 to advise it that a neighbour was causing ASB again. The landlord reopened the ASB case and took action. As a result, the neighbour left the block in May 2022 and their tenancy was terminated on 10 July 2022.
  3. However, the resident reported that the ASB continued when the neighbour left. These reports included:
    1. Banging, whistling, and voices coming from the empty flat.
    2. Damage to the individual front door of the property and multiple instances of damage to the communal front door, including glue in the lock.
    3. Damage to fencing, and stones thrown at windows.
    4. Items thrown at the resident’s car when she was out shopping.
  4. The resident told the landlord that she thought that unknown individuals were targeting the block because several of the tenants in the block had reported ASB and drug abuse. She also said that she had seen the former neighbour with individuals who inhabited a derelict building across the road.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 25 September 2022. She explained that there had been a period of quiet after the neighbour had left. However, stones were still being thrown at her windows and the communal door was broken again and left open.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 4 October 2022. It confirmed that following a telephone conversation with the resident, it understood that the complaint was about the unsecure communal front door and unauthorised people entering the block and causing damage. It noted that to resolve the complaint, she wanted it to make sure the communal door was secure.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2022. It listed the reported issues with the communal door since October 2021 and said that on each occasion it had rectified the issue within 24 hours. It said that it had replaced the door on 27 May 2022 and had not given the former neighbour a key. It said that it had also fitted a bespoke anti-tamper panel to the lock and latch of the communal door and since 7 October 2022, it had received no further reports of unauthorised people entering the block.
  8. On 2 December 2022, the resident reported further issues of ASB including verbal intimidation and abuse, damage to the communal front door, and someone shining a laser through her windows. An operative attended on the same day to repair the communal front door and provide new keys. However, as soon as they left, the latch receiver on the door was smashed off and the lock was glued again. A joiner attended at 8.30pm that evening, which was a Friday, but only had 2 keys, so residents had to let each other in and out all weekend.
  9. The resident continued to report instances of ASB including unknown people getting into the block and making threats of violence. The landlord responded to the resident each time she contacted it and installed CCTV cameras at the block on 7 December 2022. On 13 December 2022, the resident informed the landlord that she had booked a holiday over Christmas but now felt unsafe to leave because the communal door was unsecure.
  10. On 20 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord to say that she had expected a contractor to attend that day to fix a door entry fob system and provide a magnetic locking door. However, when she made enquiries about it, she was told that this was not going to happen after all.
  11. On 6 January 2023, the resident called the landlord and told it about ASB incidents that had happened over the Christmas period. This included a man and woman standing outside the property shouting threats to her.
  12. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 11 January 2023. She said that she was unhappy that the communal door had been left insecure over the Christmas period.
  13. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 7 February 2023. It said that it was satisfied that it had responded to all issues with the communal door within its published timescales. It also said that it had carried out several improvements to the block to improve security. It said that the person originally linked to the incidents no longer held a tenancy in the block and it encouraged her to continue to report incidents to the police. It did not uphold her complaint.
  14. On 20 February 2023, the resident told the landlord that the incidents of ASB had stopped. However, the resident advised us in February 2025 that the ASB had resumed and is ongoing. She also told us that the landlord has since upgraded the communal front door; however, the CCTV cameras were not working in the rear garden.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters that we consider would be dealt with more effectively through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. During the complaint journey, the resident told the landlord about the impact of ASB on her mental health. We do not dispute this; however, we are unable to make a determination about the causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB and the resident’s mental health. We will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages caused to the resident’s mental health is more appropriate for the courts and the resident may wish to pursue this in a legal setting.

Repairs to communal door

  1. The landlord correctly took responsibility for the repair of the communal front door. It confirmed within its complaint responses that the target response time, if the property was insecure, was 24 hours. This meant that it classified the issue as an emergency.
  2. There is evidence that the landlord usually attended within this timescale. However, immediately after it changed the locks on 2 December 2022, the lock was glued again, the latch receiver was smashed, and the wires were cut. Residents informed it what had happened and it attended again that evening but did not have enough keys for all residents. This meant that the residents could not leave the block at the same time for several days which was inconvenient. The resident was also concerned that this potentially compromised security because other residents were more likely to leave the door open. This caused her distress and inconvenience and cost her time and trouble chasing the landlord.
  3. The perpetrators of ASB repeatedly glued the lock of the communal door which caused the resident distress. In an internal email dated 6 December 2022, a member of staff asked why it could not install a fob door entry system which would remove the need for a key and lock to stop this. However, we have seen no evidence that this query was followed up. Had the landlord considered this option at this stage it would have removed the need for it to continue to replace the locks on a frequent basis and alleviated the distress caused to the resident.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 December 2022 to ask why the door fob system and magnetic door lock was not being fitted as expected that day. While we have seen no evidence that the landlord had committed to providing these measures, it replied to say that it had forwarded her query to its repairs and complaints team. However, we have seen no evidence that either of these teams emailed the resident back. This communications failure meant that the landlord did not keep the resident informed.
  5. Considering the security issues at the block and the continual reports of ASB including threats and intimidation, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to install as robust a door and entry system as possible. There is evidence that the resident had an expectation that the door would be upgraded which raised her hopes. The landlord failed to manage her expectations regarding the fitting of these measures and it also did not explain its reasons for not fitting them. This communications failure caused the resident further distress and inconvenience because she was living with a door that she felt was insecure for a longer period.
  6. Due to the landlord’s failure to provide keys, manage expectations, or provide an explanation why it would not upgrade the door locking and entry system to provide more security, there was maladministration in its handling of repairs and an upgrade to the communal front door. Therefore, we have made an order for it to pay £300 compensation to reflect the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience this caused. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

ASB

  1. It is evident from speaking to the resident that this ongoing situation has been very distressing for her. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the nuisance reported by the resident amounts to ASB. It is also not our role to determine whether any ASB reported took place. Our role in such cases is to consider the evidence available to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably, and in accordance with its policies and procedures, in response to the reports made.
  2. The landlord re-opened an ASB case in February 2022 when the resident informed it that the ASB had started again. It responded each time the resident contacted it, fitted noise recording equipment in a neighbouring property, and obtained an injunction to stop the neighbour carrying out certain ASB. As a result, the neighbour left the property in May 2022. The landlord therefore took reasonable action, within a reasonable timeframe, to remove the alleged perpetrator from the block.
  3. However, this did not resolve the situation because the resident continued to report that associates of the original alleged perpetrator were causing ASB and threatening and intimidating her.
  4. The new alleged perpetrators were therefore not tenants of the landlord. This would limit the action the landlord could take. However, the landlord’s ASB policy and procedure says that where this is the case, it will “consider and promote the implementation of legal action enforceable by other agencies”.
  5. The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure also states that it will agree action plans with customers. However, we have seen no evidence that it completed any in this case. Had the landlord followed its policy, it could have informed the resident what action it could take in the circumstances. While it gave some indication of what it could do in its complaint letters it should have put this in writing and provided more advice at an earlier stage. This failure meant that the resident did not have full clarity on what the landlord could do to assist and what her best course of action would be. It also meant that the landlord did not manage her expectations which was a failing that caused her further distress and inconvenience.
  6. The ASB policy also states that the landlord recognises that it can be more effective if it works in partnership with other agencies to tackle ASB. It also says that it will support and contribute with a variety of agencies in community safety partnership meetings.
  7. There is evidence that the landlord liaised with the police on several occasions while the case was ongoing. However, we have seen no evidence that this involved meeting with them to discuss a joint approach to tackling the issue, or that it made attempts to escalate the case within the police system once the alleged ASB became more serious. This failure to follow its own policy caused the resident further distress. Had the landlord liaised more closely with the police and other agencies and communicated the outcome of this to the resident, she would have felt better supported by it.
  8. The ASB policy also says that the landlord will use a risk assessment matrix to identify the impact the behaviour is having on the resident’s life and that it will tailor support accordingly.
  9. While the landlord’s system notes indicate that it completed some risk assessments, we have not seen copies of these. The policy says that based on the risk assessment it will consider referrals:
    1. To specialist support agencies,
    2. To in-house tenancy support services.
    3. For security measures such as target hardening.
  10. The emails and telephone calls from the resident to the landlord clearly showed her distress and indicated that she needed support with the situation. However, we have seen no evidence that it referred her to any of these support services or advised her why it did not feel it was appropriate to do so. This failing caused her further distress.
  11. The landlord installed CCTV at the property, which was an appropriate action to take. However, there is no evidence that it made a referral for other target hardening measures. The resident advised us that the alleged perpetrators stand outside in the communal garden of the block and shout abuse and intimidation up at her window and that they know personal information about her and her movements.
  12. The resident has also advised us that the gate to access the communal rear garden has no lock and that there is no security lighting in the garden. Had the landlord made a referral for target hardening and communicated the outcome of this to the resident, she would be better informed of the options available or if there are reasons why further measures cannot be put in place. Its failure to do so has caused her further distress and inconvenience.
  13. In summary, due to the landlord’s failure to follow its policy, its lack of communication about the action it can take, and failure to demonstrate that it has worked closely with other agencies to tackle the issue, there has been maladministration in its handling of the residents reports of ASB. Therefore, we have made an order for it to pay £600 compensation to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience this has caused. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time said that complaint handlers should consider all information and evidence carefully. It also said that “landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.”
  2. The resident complained about both the insecure communal door and the ASB. However, in the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord focussed solely on the issues with the communal front door. In the stage 2 complaint response, it mentions the ASB but does not fully explain what its responsibilities are, the actions it has taken and what it can do to remedy the issue in the future. This failure to follow the Code meant that the landlord did not use the complaint process to investigate its actions fully and to ensure that it had followed all its policies. This resulted in the resident having to escalate the case to this Service, costing her time and trouble.
  3. Due to the landlord’s failure to follow the Code and provide a full explanation into its complaint investigation of the ASB, there has been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, we have ordered it to pay £75 compensation to the resident to reflect the time and trouble this caused.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs and upgrade to the communal front door.
    2. Handling of her reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. A senior member of staff must apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord must pay compensation of £975 directly to the resident, comprising:
    1. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused to her due to the failures in its handling of the communal door repair and upgrade.
    2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of her reports of ASB.
    3. £75 for the time and trouble caused to her by its complaint handling failure.
  3. The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her vulnerabilities and ensure that it records these on all relevant systems. This is to ensure that it makes any reasonable adjustments necessary to the services it provides in the future.
  4. The landlord must meet with the resident to get an update on the current ASB situation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  5. Following this meeting the landlord must, within 10 weeks of the date of this report, put in writing its position regarding:
    1. The actions it can take to assist the resident with her reports of ASB moving forward.
    2. Any barriers that exist to resolving the reported issues.
    3. How it will work with other agencies providing an explanation if this is not appropriate.
    4. Any support referrals it can make.
    5. Any further target hardening measures that it can make to the block including consideration of extra lighting in the rear garden and a lock to the gate. If these are not appropriate it should provide an explanation for its reasoning.
    6. The current issue with the CCTV camera positioning and functionality.
    7. Any actions the resident can do to help alleviate the issues.
  6. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.