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

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202328253)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328253

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

24 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 resident’s reports about the landlord’s handling of;
    1. Issues within the communal areas including repairs to the entrance gates and alleged antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The associated service charges.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy of a flat with the landlord since 15 August 1994. Under the terms of his tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for paying a variable service charge to cover services, including repairs and maintenance for the common parts. The common parts include a car park with an electric entrance gate which serves other blocks of flats that belong to the landlord.
  2. Between April and June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord at least 3 times about the electric gates to the car park not working properly. He said that the gates had been working intermittently for a long time and consequently there had been ‘security issues’ over the last 2 years. He said these issues included flats being broken into and items being stolen.
  3. The resident raised his dissatisfaction about the gates not working to the landlord on 14 and 23 August 2023. Then on 20 September he raised a formal complaint. He said his recent service charge statement had shown that the price for the repairs to the electric gates had increased, yet the gates had not worked for 3 years. He said the landlord had failed to consult with him and attend meetings with the other residents about the repairs and charges, and other community and safety issues.
  4. The landlord gave its first response to the resident’s complaint on 17 October 2023. It said;
    1. It had been unable to attend a meeting on 18 May 2023 at 6pm as no staff were available at this time. It apologised as it realised that it had not communicated this to the resident at the time.
    2. It had given guidance on forming a residents group. It would attend formal meetings if it was given advanced notice and if the meetings took place during working hours. If it was unable to attend, it would respond to any actions or queries raised if the resident provided the minutes of meetings.
    3. Staff had previously attended community events at the site, including a ‘clean-up day’ in July 2023.
    4. The gates were operational and it would continue to repair and maintain them. If the resident wanted to formally consult about the replacement or removal of the gates it would consider his proposals and refer this to the relevant team.
    5. The cost of the repairs to the gates for the period 9 May 2022 to 20 March 2023 was £4,297.97. It had not failed to maintain and repair the gates. There was no evidence that the gate had been out of use for a significant period of time to justify a partial refund of the service charges.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s first response. He said that he thought the landlord was ignoring the complaint as the gates were still broken. The landlord gave its stage 2 response on 15 November 2023. In summary, it said;
    1. It had responded reasonably and engaged specialist contractors to carry out repairs to the gates. It suggested the problems may have been caused by damage or misuse of the gate rather than any defect in the mechanism.
    2. It would consider the resident’s alternative proposal about the gate, but changes may trigger a review of the service charges it collected.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to this Service. He alleged that the landlord had said that residents may be responsible for the damage. He said he had contacted the local authority’s (LA) antisocial behaviour (ASB) team because he had previously asked for CCTV footage from the landlord and it had failed to provide it.   
  7. Following the stage 2 response, the resident raised further dissatisfaction to the landlord. He said the gates had broken again, the communal lighting had not been fixed in a timely way and ASB issues had not been addressed. He also alleged that he and other residents in the estate had been treated “less favourably” than other tenants of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised concerns about the reasonableness of the service charges that have been applied in relation to his tenancy. Under paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme we may not consider complaints about the level of variable service charges. These matters are better suited to the First Tier Tribunal. The resident is advised to seek advice about challenging the fairness of the service charges should he wish to pursue this. Whilst this report does not cover the reasonableness of charges we have considered the landlords communication of them within this investigation.
  2. Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, we may not consider complaints that the resident has made prior to having exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. In this case the resident has raised issues of dissatisfaction which were not raised prior to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. In the interests of fairness the Ombudsman must allow the landlord an opportunity to put matters right for the resident. Where new issues are raised after the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, the resident is advised to make a new complaint if he remains dissatisfied about these matters.
  3. The resident said that he had been raising issues about the gates not working for over two years and had complained back in May 2022. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise and escalate 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, which 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 all evidence, this report will focus on the events leading up to the resident’s complaint that he made in September 2023.

 

 

The resident’s reports about the landlord’s handling of issues within the communal areas including repairs to the entrance gates and alleged ASB

  1. The landlord’s website outlines its repair priorities and target response times. It says it will carry out ‘urgent repairs’ within 5 working days. It defines ‘urgent repairs’ as “when a situation is causing a tenant discomfort, inconvenience and nuisance and it is likely to lead to further deterioration if the problem persists”. In this case, as the issue was causing an inconvenience and nuisance to the resident, this Service would expect the issues to be resolved within its urgent policy timescale of 5 working days.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 April 2023. He expressed his dissatisfaction that the electric entrance gates to the car park had been open for the majority of the week. He said the landlord was not informing him what was wrong with the gates. The landlord replied to say it had been out numerous times to inspect the gates. It said it would be at the site the following day with its contractor and it would be willing to meet with the resident. However this Service does not know whether the parties met.
  3. The landlord did not provide evidence of it logging the resident’s repair he reported on 3 April 2023 on its repairs log. However it provided an invoice to show that a contractor had attended the site on 4 April 2023. The invoice said that parts were needed and the contractor sent a quote to the landlord for these on 14 April. The landlord did not raise a works order until 7 days later on 21 April. Then on 24 April the repairs log shows that another resident reported the gates not working (job reference 3917980).  The repairs log shows that the landlord fixed the gates on 25 April.
  4. It was positive to note that the landlord had attended the site promptly, as it was the day after the resident reported the repair. However the landlord did not demonstrate that it fixed the repair within its policy timeframes. It is appreciated that it had needed to order parts and it was waiting on its contractor to supply a quote. However the landlord did not demonstrate that it had recorded the resident’s report of the repair on its log and it did not demonstrate that it had communicated with the resident to keep him informed of its progress and the reason for the delay.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 May 2023 to say that the gates were not working and had been left open. It is clear from this communication that the resident was concerned about the security of the site as he said flats had previously been broken into. He also expressed his annoyance at members of the public using the car park as it was close to public buildings.
  6. The landlord did not demonstrate that the resident’s repair he reported on 8 May 2023 was recorded on its repair log. However it provided an invoice from its contractor which confirmed works were carried out to secure the gate posts on 19 May. The evidence was unclear however as to whether this temporarily fixed the issue. Nonetheless, this repair was outside of its policy timeframe and the landlord did not show that it had informed the resident about the delay.
  7. Landlords are expected to keep robust records of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It was noted that whilst the resident’s emails requesting repairs were actioned, the landlord did not show that these were included on the repair log it provided to us. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. 
  8. The landlord did not provide evidence of a prompt reply to the resident’s email of 8 May 2023. It replied on 5 June to say it had taken a while to find the fault and it would complete the works as soon as possible. It said that the pedestrian gate would have a coded keypad and the vehicle gate would remain on a fob system. The resident replied the same day and asked the landlord what was wrong with the gates. It is noted that this was the second time he had asked this question.
  9. It would have reasonable for the landlord to have given the resident an explanation of the faults with the gates, as this was paid for by the resident’s service charges. It would also have provided him with reassurance and transparency as to the landlord’s position on this issue. However at this stage it did not demonstrate this.
  10. On 12 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again to ask when the gates would be fixed as he said they remained open and were causing a security issue. He said that he had seen a potential thief checking all the doors in the courtyard. The landlord replied the same day and said that the works were scheduled for 14 June and it would be on site to monitor the progress and to provide the key code to the residents. This was an appropriate and timely response from the landlord.
  11. The landlord provided invoices from the contractor dated 14 June 2023 which demonstrated it had arranged for works to be carried out to the gates. However the resident contacted the landlord on 19 June to say that there was a fault on the gates again as they remained open. It was positive to note that the landlord responded the same day and agreed to put mesh around the button of the pedestrian gate. It said this was so that members of the public could not reach it.
  12. The resident alleged that a member of the landlord’s staff was causing the problem with the gate. It is expected that where issues of alleged staff misconduct are raised that landlords will gather more information from the resident. If there are concerns it should interview its staff to establish the facts and take appropriate action if needed. In this case there is no evidence it acknowledged the resident’s concerns of staff misconduct. Nor did it demonstrate that it had spoken with its staff about the allegation.
  13. Emails were exchanged between the resident and the landlord on 3 July 2023. It is positive to note that the landlord was working with the resident to resolve the issues. This was evidenced by the resident commending the staff member dealing with the issue for fixing the gate and for personally attending the site. In an email to the landlord the resident said he thought that the sensors must have been causing the problem. He said since the sensors were changed the gates were operating as normal and the issues seemed to have been fixed.
  14. On 19 July 2023 the landlord’s operative at the site reported that the gates were not working again. He asked for a contractor to attend. An invoice from the landlord’s contractors showed they attended on 24 July, which was within the landlord’s policy timeframe. It said that the motor on the gearbox was faulty and recommended that it be replaced. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether it temporarily fixed the gate at this point. It is noted from the landlord’s repairs log that a resident who lived at the site had reported that the gates were broken again on 28 July. The landlord provided evidence that it fixed the gate on 31 July (job reference 4093881).
  15. On 14 August 2023 the resident complained that an abandoned car that had been on the site for 3 years had not been moved. He said that on a ‘clean up’ community day the landlord had removed bikes and litter but had not removed the car. It did not show that it responded to the resident about this matter until 14 November. It said that there had been some confusion between it and the local authority (LA) and it was having to ‘restart the process’. It said that it would arrange for it to be removed. It was positive to note that the landlord was taking steps to address the issue. However it did not demonstrate it had responded to this matter in a timely way.
  16. When the resident had contacted the landlord on 14 August 2023 he said that the gates were still not working. The landlord provided proof that it had raised another job to attend to repair the electric gates. On 18 August the contractor attended the property and said it needed another engineer to attend to rectify the fault. It is noted that on the contractor’s certificate where a question asked if the issue had been caused by vandalism, this field had been left blank.
  17. The landlord did not provide evidence of it fixing the gate within its urgent timescales since the resident had reported the issue on 14 August 2023. Nor did it demonstrate that it had communicated with the resident to keep him informed of any delay. A contractor’s invoice shows that works were carried out to the gates on 21 and 23 August 2023. It is further noted from invoices and email exchanges between the landlord and contractor that parts were ordered and works were carried out on 12 September. It was confirmed on a contractor’s invoice that works had been completed on 22 September. This was over a month after the resident had reported the issue, which was outside of its policy timeframe. 
  18. In his complaint on 20 September 2023 the resident said the gates had not worked properly for 3 years. In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses the landlord said that it was satisfied that repairs had been handled reasonably and in accordance with procedure. It said that there was no evidence it had failed to maintain and repair the gates or that they had been out of use for a significant period of time. It said that it had instructed specialist contractors to carry out repairs. 
  19. It is appreciated that overall the landlord had arranged for contractors to inspect the gates in a timely way. However on occasion, works to remedy the issues were delayed and this had seemingly occurred due to waiting for the necessary parts. This Service has found that the main issue in this case was the landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident. We found that it did not apologise or explain to the resident if it would be unable to carry out a repair within its urgent policy timescale.
  20. The landlord also missed an opportunity within its complaint responses to apologise to the resident for the fact there had been a recurrent issues with the gates. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s time and trouble in reporting the issues. This Service considers that it would have been appropriate to recognise this within its complaints process and to have offered some compensation to the resident.
  21. In his complaint the resident said that the landlord had not responded to his request to attend a residents meeting about the gates and about his security concerns. The landlord admitted that it had failed to respond to the resident’s request to attend a meeting he said was taking place on 18 May 2023. It was positive to note that it apologised for this and said that it would learn from this.
  22. In its complaint response the landlord said that it would consider the resident’s proposals about suggestions for the gate. It said that it would refer the issue to the relevant team for a formal response along with any proposals submitted. It also said that it had given local elected officials guidance on setting up a formal resident’s group and said it would be more inclined to attend formal meetings where they were planned in advance and during ‘normal’ office hours. It agreed to respond to any actions taken from the meeting meetings if it was unable to attend. This was a fair response to these issues.
  23. Prior to the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident’s email dated 29 September 2023 also raised issues of alleged ASB and criminal behaviour at the site, which the landlord was failing to address. He said that the landlord’s picnic benches had been stolen. The landlord’s records show that it reviewed CCTV footage in April 2023 but it was unable to identify the perpetrator. The landlord referred the theft of the benches to the police, but there was insufficient evidence to investigate further. It is noted that the landlord said it had opened an ASB case and there was a Community Trigger in place. It said it had included the issues with the gate to the ASB case. Despite this issue forming part of the resident’s complaint the landlord failed to demonstrate what actions it had taken to resolve the reports of ASB within its complaint responses.
  24. In its final complaint response the landlord suggested that the problem with the gates may have been caused by damage or misuse of the gate. This was also inferred by the contractors notes, as it had left the field blank (on 2 occasions) when the question on the form asked if the issue could have been caused by vandalism.
  25. The landlord’s website says that it will “investigate the anti‐social behaviour complaints as fully as possible, without pre‐conceptions as to the outcome. Where necessary we will seek ways of independently corroborating or refuting allegations by interviewing other witnesses/local neighbours; using sound recording equipment/applications; requesting information from other agencies etc”. The Ombudsman expects that where issues of ASB are raised, the landlord will fully investigate the issues. The landlord’s policy says that, where appropriate, it will use a Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) to determine the impact of ASB on victims and witnesses, to ensure it appropriately responds. The policy says the landlord will consider what is causing the ASB.
  26. In this case the landlord has failed to show that it appropriately investigated and took actions to address the issues related to the damage/misuse of the gates. Its appropriate actions might have included writing to all residents to explain how to operate the gates and to ask them to come forward if they witnessed anyone deliberately misusing them. Another action might include reviewing its CCTV footage of events taking place prior to the faults with the gates being reported, to establish if the cause was ASB.
  27. The landlord’s policy says that it will “work in partnership with a wide range of agencies both strategically and operationally to prevent and tackle anti-social behaviour in our neighbourhoods. We recognise that where those causing anti-social behaviour are known to several agencies, we can tackle the issues more effectively by working in partnership”. The landlord appropriately investigated the theft of the picnic benches and referred the matter to the police. However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking similar action in relation to the damage/misuse of the gates.
  1. The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the issues within the communal areas including repairs to the entrance gates and alleged ASB. The landlord did not show that it maintained a comprehensive record of its repairs to the gates. It delayed in its communications with the resident at times. It did not demonstrate that it always repaired the gates within a reasonable timeframe. It failed to show it had taken appropriate steps to address any damage/misuse of the gates. If it did take action, it did not demonstrate to this Service that it had fully communicated its actions to its residents.
  1. The landlord is ordered to provide compensation of £200 for the resident’s time and trouble taken in reporting the issues. The landlord is also ordered to explain to the resident what actions it has taken, or intends to take, to monitor any future damage/misuse of the gates. It is also recommended that it writes to all of the residents at the site to outline the steps it has taken (or intends to take) to address any damage/misuse of the gates. It should also consider asking the residents at the site if they want to enter into a formal consultation about the future of the electric gates.

The landlord’s handling of the associated service charges.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement says that a weekly service charge is payable by the resident. It says this is for a fair proportion of the costs incurred, or to be incurred, for services and for any reasonable provision for replacement or renewal of equipment and furniture. It says that the service charge is reviewed annually and any under or overpayment is taken into account when assessing the costs for the next accounting period which begins the first Monday in April.
  2. On 30 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that the service charge would increase from 3 April. Within this correspondence it gave a breakdown of what the annual service charges were for. They included costs for the day to day repairs and maintenance to the electric gates which were budgeted at £2,000 for the following year. This would be apportioned, along with the other costs, by all of the residents whom the car park and gates served.
  3. The landlord said that the resident’s total service charge contribution for the year 2022/2023 was £809.56 and this equated to £15.57 per week from April 2023. As aforementioned, this Service is unable to consider the level of service charge as this matter is better suited to the First Tier Tribunal. However this Service found that if the resident’s contribution was correct at £809.56, then the landlord’s calculation of this at £15.57 per week over 52 weeks was correct.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 September 2023. It said that the actual costs for the period 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023 had increased and were over what it had budgeted. It said that the total cost of the repairs to the gates for the period was £4,297.97, and this was over its budget of £2,000 by £2,297.97. The landlord had reiterated this figure in its complaint response.
  5. The landlord said that its total overspend for the year was £1,986.46. It said this meant that it had undercharged the resident by £31.31 for the year. It said this equated this to an extra 60p per month that the resident would be liable to pay from April 2024. Based on the £31.31 figure being a correct calculation, the landlord’s calculation of 60p per month was a correct equation for the period.
  6. The Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s communication of the service charge. It had given advanced notice to the resident about the increase in service charges and explained why the charges had increased. It is appreciated that within his complaint the resident was complaining about the reasonableness of the service charge based on the recurrent repairs. However we are unable to consider this as this matter is outside of the scope of this investigation. The resident is advised to seek further advice should he wish to challenge the fairness of the charges as the landlord correctly advised within its complaint response. 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) contains guidance that landlords were expected to follow at the time of this complaint. It says that a complaint is defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. It is positive to note that the landlord has adopted this definition as per its policy.
  2. In this case, the resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord about its handling of the repairs and community safety issues on 3 April, 8 May and 14 August 2023. However the landlord did not offer to record the resident’s issues as a complaint. It missed an opportunity to attempt to put things right for the resident at an earlier stage.
  3. The landlord’s policy also adheres to the response timescales in the Code. It says:
    1. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a full response will be provided within 10 working days. It may extend up to an additional 10 working days, but will provide reasons why.
    2. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a full response will be provided within 20 working days. It may extend up to an additional 20 working days, but will provide reasons why.
  4. It is positive to note that when the landlord did accept the resident’s complaint on 20 September 2023, it responded within its policy timescales. It extended its stage 1 response and responded as promised on 17 October and responded at stage 2 on 15 November. This complied with the Code and its own policy.
  5. The resident raised further issues on 29 September 2023, which was before the landlord’s stage 1 response. He said benches and bikes had been stolen from the site and he did not think the landlord was doing enough to work with the local police. He said that the padlock on the bike shed had been replaced and the key code had been shared with non-cyclists.
  6. As aforementioned, the 2022 version of the Code was relevant at the time of the complaint. It says “Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued”.
  7. In this case the landlord did not acknowledge all of the resident’s issues within its complaint responses. It did not address the resident’s reports about bikes being stolen. Nor his issues with the padlock on the bike shed and his allegation that the landlord was not working with local police concerning the alleged ASB.
  8. It is noted within internal emails on 10 October 2023 that the landlord said that it had reviewed CCTV in respect of benches being stolen and had not found any evidence. However it missed an opportunity to inform the resident of this finding within its complaint response. 
  9. The Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint as it did not adhere to the Code and its own policy. It delayed in its initial acceptance of a complaint, and it missed elements of the resident’s complaint from its complaint responses.
  10. The landlord is ordered to compensate the resident by making a payment of £100 in recognition of its failures concerning the handling of the complaint. The landlord is also ordered to contact to provide a written apology to the resident for the failures in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of issues within the communal areas including repairs to the entrance gates and alleged ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the service charges (relating to its communication of them).
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Order and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to;
    1. Contact the resident to explain what actions it has taken, or intends to take, to monitor any future damage/misuse of the gates.
    1. Pay compensation of £200 for the resident’s time and trouble in reporting the issues within the communal areas, including repairs to the entrance gates and alleged ASB.
    2. Pay compensation of £100 to the resident for the handling of the associated complaint.
    3. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report about the handling of the complaint.
  2. The landlord is ordered to confirm and evidence compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

 

 

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts all of the residents at the site (whom pay the relevant service charges) to outline the steps it has taken (or intends to take) to address the damage/misuse of the gates. It should also consider asking the residents at the site if they want to enter into a formal consultation about the future of the electric gates.