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

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202124574)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124574

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

30 April 2024


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s request that it buy back his property.
    2. The resident’s complaint about its handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and bullying.
    3. The resident’s complaint about it asking him to remove a backyard fence and CCTV.
    4. The resident’s complaint about the condition of communal parts of the building, and noise transference between floors and properties.
    5. The resident’s request for service charge information and his dispute of the level of service charges.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The resident’s complaint about the condition of communal parts of the building, and noise transference between floors and properties.

  1. Paragraph 42(l) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which seek to raise again matters which the Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  2. In 2019 the Ombudsman investigated a complaint from the resident about issues relating to sound transference in the property from other flats and tenants. This included issues such as hearing other residents’ washing machines, noise from people using the communal stairs, and uninsulated flooring with no underlay in communal areas and in other properties.
  3. In the complaint being considered in this investigation the resident included the same issues, described in similar ways. Given the structural nature of the complaints, and that no new elements appear to have been raised in relation to them, in line with paragraph 42(l) they will not be considered in this report.
  4. However, the Ombudsman published a spotlight report in October 2022 called  “Noise Complaints: Time to be heard”. The report centres on complaints and problems related to noise transference within properties, which appears to be the heart of the resident’s concerns here. A recommendation is made below for the landlord to consider the spotlight report.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. He owns a ground floor flat in a block. There is a communal garden area, which one of the resident’s external doors opens on to.
  2. In January 2022 the resident informed the landlord he intended to install a fence in the garden to provide security for his home, and that he intended to install CCTV outside his home, also for security. He also reported that the rear garden gate and communal back door were did not close automatically and were being left open by other tenants. He was concerned about the security and safety risks these posed.
  3. The landlord responded to the resident in early February 2022. It explained why he could not install external CCTV or a fence in the communal garden, and why it would not provide consent. It also explained it had passed his comments about other tenants to its ASB team.
  4. In April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord explaining that he had installed the fence. He reported again that the rear gate was broken and/or not secure, and that the rear communal door was still being left open. He also reported ASB and illegal activity by another tenant. He emphasised how unsafe he felt in his home and how this was impacting on his wellbeing. He asked the landlord to install CCTV in hallways in the block, and to consider buying back his share of the property.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s requests and queries in April 2022. It explained there was no option for the resident to sell his property back to it. It explained again why the resident could not fence off part of the communal garden, explained it had understood the rear gate to have been resolved but would attend to inspect and fix it, and explained why it would not install CCTV in communal areas. It acknowledged the resident’s ASB concerns, but said it had previously told him the type of details it needed about the incidents in order to take any action, and he had not provided it. It urged him to do so as soon as he could. The landlord concluded by acknowledging the distress and frustration the resident had said he was experiencing, along with the impact he had said it was having on his mental health, including his references to self-harm. It urged him to speak with his GP, and offered to help him access medical services if necessary. It also said that for safety, it would refer its concerns about his welfare to the emergency services.
  6. There was further correspondence between the landlord and resident in the following months about the same issues, including enquiries by his local Councillor on his behalf.
  7. After the resident approached this Service for assistance we passed his concerns to the landlord in December 2022, asking it to treat them as a formal complaint.
  8. The landlord sent its complaint response in January 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns, and noted that most of the issues in his complaint were the same as had been raised previously. Nonetheless, it explained it had considered the issues further as part of its complaint investigation. It reiterated its earlier explanations about buying back the property, and said the situation had not changed. It also repeated its earlier position about the fence and CCTV, despite the resident’s concerns about safety, as there was no option for the resident to block access to part of the communal garden, and the use of CCTV in a communal area was not something the landlord would agree to.
  9. The landlord addressed the resident’s allegations about ASB by some of his neighbours, including his reports that he was being bullied and harassed. It noted that its last ASB case had been following the resident’s reports in November 2021. It had received noise reports and recordings from him since then, but they had not provided sufficient evidence or information for it to open an ASB case. The landlord addressed concerns the resident had also raised about his service charges, which he was finding it difficult to pay. It acknowledged his concerns, and explained that if he wanted it could provide information about support and advice which might be able to help him. It explained why planned refurbishments to the block were being paid for from the leasehold sinking fund, and how this had been part of a consultation with the leaseholders.
  10. After receiving the landlord’s complaint response the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He repeated the same issues he had raised originally, but provided further information about his ASB concerns. He asked again for the landlord to buy back the property.
  11. The landlord sent its final complaint response. It said it would consider the resident’s further ASB reports and information, and acknowledged his comments about how unhappy he was living in the property. Nonetheless, it said it again there was no option for him to sell the property back to the landlord. It explained that it had reviewed its original complaint response and was satisfied it had addressed the points he had raised appropriately. It confirmed its response was the last stage of its complaints process, and explained how the resident could bring his complaint to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord centred on his concern that his variable service charges were unreasonably high. Disputes about the level of service charges are not usually in the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate. As these are variable service charges, the First Tier Tribunal (property chamber) is the most appropriate organisation to consider a dispute about their level, as that is the Tribunal’s specific role and function. Because of that, this investigation considers how the landlord responded to the resident’s queries about his service charges, not his concerns about their level.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it buy back his property

  1. The landlord’s leasehold management policy states that the landlord will “not invoke its right of first refusal powers on re‐sale or purchase back a property previously sold under the Right to Buy, Voluntary Right to Buy or Right to Acquire schemes.”
  2. The evidence provided by the landlord and resident show that he has asked the landlord on several occasions, including in his complaints, to buy back his property, which he originally purchased as a shared owner, and then increased his ownership to 100%. The landlord explained that there was no option for the resident to sell his property back to the landlord, and that it was not prepared to buy it back from him.
  3. There are, in general, some specific circumstances in which a social landlord might consider buying back part or all of a shared-owner’s lease (sometimes this is called ‘reverse-staircasing’). The landlord’s policy allows for this, but only in specific exceptional circumstances, two of which are that the leaseholder’s efforts to sell the property have been exhaustive and unsuccessful, and that they are the subject of repossession proceedings by their lender. There is no indication in the evidence that reverse-staircasing is an option available to the resident. The landlord’s policy makes clear that it does not buy back properties bought under a right to buy scheme (or similar), but is silent on shared ownership. Nonetheless, there is also no evidence indicating the landlord has an obligation to buy back a lease on request. Because of that, any such decision would be at the landlord’s discretion. In this case, the landlord consistently explained that it was not prepared to do so. In the circumstances, its decision was reasonable.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour and bullying

  1. In his complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman described numerous examples of actions by neighbours which potentially could be described as ASB or criminal in nature. Amongst other things, he alleged that neighbours had attempted to break in to his shed, left access gates and doors open, damaged his car, or whose dog was causing a nuisance. He complained that the landlord had not done anything in response to his reports of these behaviours. It is not apparent from his complaints when these incidents took place. In response, the landlord acknowledged he had made such reports, but explained that he had not provided relevant details which would allow it to investigate his concerns. It also explained that its last open ASB case for him was in November 2021, and because of its age, it would not investigate a complaint about its handling of that case.
  2. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that the landlord opened new ASB cases following reports and evidence the resident made as part of his escalated complaint, and in the subsequent months. Nothing has been seen contradicting its explanation that its last ASB investigation had been in 2021.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that it will not consider complaints which concern issues taking place more than 6 months ago. Because of that, its decision not to investigate a complaint about its handling of the ASB case in 2021 was reasonable and in line with its policy because over a year had passed before the resident raised a formal complaint.
  4. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the new ASB cases it opened after April 2023 it is open to him to raise new complaints with the landlord, and return to the Ombudsman if his concerns are not resolved by the landlord’s investigations of his new complaints.

The resident’s complaint about it asking him to remove a backyard fence and CCTV.

  1. The resident’s lease makes clear that his property does not include the rear garden, which it defines as “common parts”. Nonetheless, it states that he has the right to use the common parts, and presumably the other occupiers have the same right. The lease also states that the resident may not interfere with the outside of the building or make alterations or additions to the exterior of his property. The landlord’s leaseholder policy states that leaseholders can apply for permission to make alterations or additions to their home, but consent may be refused if the work “Encroaches on land/areas/roof spaces not defined within the demise of the lease.” The policy also states that “In the event that a leaseholder carries out unauthorised alterations the Group may request that the property be re‐instated to its original condition within a specified timeframe at the leaseholder’s expense.”
  2. The landlord has explained that while it does not have a CCTV policy relating to leaseholders or tenants, its guidance sets out that it may provide permission for CCTV only “to cover the area solely within or record anyone solely within, the boundaries of the property.”
  3. The resident explained to the landlord that he had installed a fence in part of the back garden because he had safety and security concerns – partly as he has a door which opens on to the garden from a bedroom. The door is made of glass and the fence would provide some protection for it. He explained he wanted to use CCTV in the garden and internal communal areas for similar safety reasons and to help combat the ASB he said he had been experiencing.
  4. Prior to his complaint the landlord explained to the resident that it would not agree to him installing a fence in the communal garden, or installing CCTV overlooking communal areas. He complained about these decisions, as he believed his circumstances and safety concerns meant the landlord should provide its permission. In its responses the landlord reviewed its previous handling of his requests and decisions, and concluded they were appropriate. The resident’s concerns and the grounds for which he wants to make these alterations are somewhat understandable. Nonetheless, the landlord’s decisions were in line with the lease and its policies and guidance. They were therefore appropriate and reasonable.

The resident’s request for service charge information and his dispute of the level of service charges

  1. As part of his escalated complaint the resident raised his concern that major refurbishments to the whole building were being planned by the landlord to be paid for from the leaseholders’ sinking fund. He did not believe this was correct, because he understood the landlord to have said it was paying for the refurbishment.
  2. The landlord had written to the resident on 10 March 2022 following a formal consultation with leaseholders about its plans for the building refurbishment. The letter explains that the funding will come from the sinking fund for the block, with any costs exceeding the fund’s level to be met by the landlord itself.
  3. In its complaint response the landlord explained how the refurbishment was being paid for, and confirmed it was meeting the further costs which had exceeded the money in the sinking fund.
  4. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concerns that he was finding it difficult to afford the monthly service charges. It empathised with his circumstances, and suggested sources of advice and support which it said it would be able to help him with.
  5. The landlord’s explanation and response to the resident’s complaint about the use of the sinking fund is supported by the evidence of its earlier communication with him. A dispute about the actual costs involved in the refurbishment is not in the Ombudsman’s remit, and would be better addressed to the Tribunal. The landlord’s acknowledgement of the resident’s financial concerns and advice in regard to them was relevant and appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its responses to:
    1. The resident’s request that it buy back his property.
    2. The resident’s complaint about its handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and bullying.
    3. The resident’s complaint about it asking him to remove a backyard fence and CCTV.
    4. The resident’s request for service charge information and his dispute of the level of service charges.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s responses to each of the resident’s issues of complaint were in line with its policies and procedures relevant to issue, and/or basic practice.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise, called ‘Noise Complaints: Time to be heard’, contains a range of guidance and recommendations for landlord’s to consider when dealing with complaints about noise transfer and associated nuisance in their properties. Given the apparent relevance to the resident’s ongoing concerns, the landlord is urged to review the spotlight report and consider whether any of its guidance might help it resolve his situation.