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

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202324786)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324786

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

25 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of anti-social behaviour.
    2. Reports it disclosed unauthorised information to her healthcare provider.
    3. Request for a new tenancy agreement.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat in a 2-story block from November 2015 to September 2024. The resident suffers from mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
  2. Between 18 and 25 May 2023 the resident reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) incidents to the landlord.
  3. On 14 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said it had changed its name, but it did not send her a new tenancy agreement.
  4. The resident also complained to the landlord on 2 July 2023. She was not happy with its handling of her ASB reports. She made a further complaint on 19 July 2023. She said it had told her GP surgery she was paranoid.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 August 2023. It did not uphold her complaints. It offered £70 compensation for the delay in responding to her complaint. The resident asked it to review the complaint response on 26 August 2023
  6. On 21 September 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It made the £70 compensation offer again.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 19 October 2023. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint.
  8. The resident complained to the landlord again on 25 January 2024. She remained unhappy with how it handled her ASB reports.
  9. On 25 January 2024 the landlord sent another stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It again said it did not uphold her complaint. She escalated her complaint on 29 January 2024.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 19 August 2024. It said it had acted appropriately to support her.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of ASB.

  1. On 18 May 2023 the resident called the landlord. She said there had been ASB in the form of dogs having been let off their leads in the communal areas by her property. The resident reported further incidents by email on 23 May 2018. She said somebody banged on her door earlier that day. She also said a neighbour banged on her wall on 14 May 2023. She told it she had reported the incidents to the police. She asked that the landlord only contact her by email.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as:
    1. conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress to any person.
    2. conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.
    3. conduct capable of causing “housing‐related” nuisance or annoyance to any person (housing related meaning directly or indirectly relating to its housing management functions).
  3. The policy lists examples of ASB:
    1. Harassment.
    2. Using or threatening to use violence.
    3. Bullying or intimidation.
    4. Repeated abusive language or behaviour.
  4. The landlord’s policy states when a report of ASB is made, its staff will use its professional judgement to assess whether it is ASB or not. It says if the query is made by phone call or email the landlord will respond within 3 working days. If the landlord needs more time to investigate the matter its policy says it will agree a response timescale with the resident. 
  5. On 25 May 2023 the resident called the landlord and reported a further ASB incident. She said a woman had kicked her front door and shouted abuse at her. She did not say if it happened that day, or if she was referring to the previous incident. She told the landlord she was going to sleep on the streets. The landlord spoke to the resident the following day. She said she had witnessed an altercation between neighbours, and 1 had a knife. She did not say when it happened. She said she had reported it to the police, who attended the scene.
  6. The landlord spoke to the police on 30 May 2023. The police said the resident had called them many times reporting incidents. They said they did not find any substance to the matters she raised.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 June 2023. It said it was investigating her claims people had banged on her door and shouted abuse. It said it had sent a letter to residents in March 2023 requesting they keep their dogs on leads. It said it could not take action unless a dog was not under control, or it was causing damage or being aggressive. The resident replied the same day. She said she told it one person banged on her door, not people. She said she had not asked the landlord to ask people to keep their dogs on leads.
  8. On 12 June 2023 the landlord received a letter from the resident. She said it had failed to support her regarding her neighbour’s behaviour. The landlord emailed the resident on 13 June 2023. It offered to visit her with the police to discuss the matters she raised.
  9. The landlord received a letter from the resident on 14 June 2023. She again disputed that she told it people were banging on her door. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 15 June 2023. She said she should not have to worry about dogs being off leads in communal areas.
  10. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 June 2023. It asked again if it could meet with her and the police to discuss her ASB reports. She replied on 2 July 2023. She complained about its handling of the incidents she reported. She agreed to the meeting. The resident called the landlord about it on 11 July 2023. The landlord’s officer dealing with the case was on leave, so no action was taken.
  11. On 17 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident. It acknowledged her complaint. It apologised for the delay in replying and said it would respond to her complaint within 10 working days.
  12. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 July 2023. It apologised for not arranging the meeting earlier. On 25 July the landlord asked if it could visit her the following day. She said she wanted a police constable to attend due to the knife incident she witnessed.
  13. The resident and the landlord exchanged emails between 1 and 4 August 2023. It said the police had confirmed they would send a community support officer to the meeting. She said she wanted the meeting to be at the police station with a constable. The landlord forwarded the request to the police. The landlord told her though that a community support officer was allocated to the case, and it could not change decisions made by the police. She said she would not attend the meeting. It told her to re-contact it if she changed her mind and wanted to meet.
  14. The landlord sent its response at stage 1 of its complaint process to the resident on 21 August 2023. It said it had investigated her ASB reports, and it had been in regular contact with her. It said a dog being off a lead was not ASB. It added she reported people banging on her door and walls, but it would need evidence to support her claims. It advised her to record banging noises on a noise application on her phone. It told her to contact it if the problems persisted.
  15. The landlord said the police treated the altercation between neighbours as a criminal matter, as 1 of those involved had a knife. It said it had spoken to the police, but they gave no instruction on the matter.
  16. Analysis of the landlord’s complaint response shows it had considered her ASB reports. It confirmed the dispute between neighbour was an issue for the police, and a dog being off a lead was not ASB. It said it would require evidence to support her claims of banging on her door and wall. The landlord’s response addressed the matters raised by the resident and was reasonable. 
  17. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 August 2023. She said its complaint response contained misrepresentations. She said she did not report there was repeated banging on doors. She asked it to review the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 August 2023.
  18. On 21 September 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It provided details of her ASB reports and said she had raised more than one incident of banging on her door. It apologised if there had been any misunderstanding regarding that. It said it attempted to arrange a joint meeting with her and the police to discuss her ASB reports, but she declined. It reiterated that the resident should contact it if she wanted it to re-arrange the meeting.
  19. Analysis of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response shows it reviewed its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. It apologised if there had been any misunderstanding regarding her reports, and it offered to arrange a meeting again if she wished to discuss the matters. The landlord’s response to the escalated complaint was reasonable.
  20. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 19 October 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint.
  21. The resident called the landlord on 17 January 2024. She said she wanted it to arrange a meeting with her and the police to discuss the incident where a neighbour had a knife. The landlord tried to call her about it on 23 January 2024, but it was unsuccessful. The resident complained to the landlord on 25 January 2024. She said it had been obstructive when she tried to report the incident with a knife.
  22. The landlord sent a further stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 January 2024. It said she told it about an altercation involving a knife, but it was not clear when the report she was making happened. It added that knife incidents were dealt with by the police. It again offered to arrange a meeting with her and the police but said it could not say where it would take place or what grade of police officer would attend.
  23. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 January 2024. She said its complaint response was abusive. She said she wanted to escalate the complaint.
  24. The landlord sent a further stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 19 February 2024. It said that it had handled her ASB reports appropriately. It provided a link to contact a community safety partnership group if she was still unhappy about ASB.
  25. In summary, the resident made ASB reports to the landlord in May and June 2023. As the landlord needed to gather more information, it tried to arrange a meeting with the resident to discuss them. She declined to meet with them. The landlord also discussed the matters with the police, who said they found no substance when she had reported the incidents to them. In its complaint responses the landlord said dogs being off their leads was not ASB. It also said she could record proof of people banging on her wall and door for it to investigate. The landlord’s response to those reports was reasonable considering the information the resident had provided.
  26. The landlord said the incident with the neighbour who had a knife was a matter for the police, and it tried to arrange a meeting to discuss it, but she declined to attend. The resident continued to complain about its handling of the report after the landlord had sent its stage 2 response. Although the landlord would not normally re-investigate a complaint after sending its stage 2 response, in this instance it is understandable that the landlord was attempting to make the situation better in trying to address a matter that continued to concern a vulnerable resident. The landlord’s handling of the ASB reports was reasonable in the circumstances.
  27. We are satisfied that the landlord took appropriate action during its investigations into the resident’s ASB reports and has determined there was no maladministration.

The resident’s reports the landlord disclosed unauthorised information to her healthcare provider.

  1. The landlord spoke to the resident on 26 May 2023. She told it she had been hearing voices, she slept in a field the previous night, and she suffered from PTSD. She confirmed she was under local authority care and said she had been waiting for months for help from her GP. The landlord recorded she agreed it could contact the local authority about supporting her. The landlord contacted the local authority the same day. It said it had concerns about her mental health.
  2. Social landlords have a responsibility to consider residents care and support. The landlord’s safeguarding policy states it will share information with different organisations if it has safety concerns regarding an adult.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 9 June 2023. It said it was concerned about her behaviour. The resident replied the same day. She said she did not give it permission to contact her GP.
  4. After further contact between the landlord and the resident about her ASB reports, the landlord emailed the NHS mental health team on 30 June 2023. It said it was concerned about her behaviour. The mental health team wrote to the resident’s GP surgery on 18 July 2023. They said the resident appeared to have some paranoid ideas regarding others residing in the residential block.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 July 2023. She said it had implied she was insane rather than dealing with the issues she raised. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 1 August 2023. She said she was unhappy it told her GP she had paranoid ideas regarding others. She said it had exploited her vulnerabilities.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 21 August 2023. It explained it had contacted the mental health team, who in turn contacted her GP. It said had not implied she was insane, and it did not believe her vulnerabilities had been exploited.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained that it was the mental health team that contacted her GP surgery. It said it believed its response was reasonable and addressed the matter raised by the resident.
  8. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 26 August 2023. She said the landlord’s response was inaccurate and uncaring.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 September 2023. It said it had previously addressed her complaint about her claiming it implied she was paranoid and insane. It told her it had contacted the local authority with her consent. It said it had handled her reports and concerns appropriately.
  10. In summary, there is no evidence that the landlord told the resident’s GP surgery she was paranoid as was alleged by the resident. The landlord referred the matter to the NHS mental health team, who in turn contacted the GP surgery. The landlord explained this sequence of events in its complaint responses.
  11. We are satisfied the landlord took appropriate action when it had concerns about the resident’s mental health in line with its safeguarding policy. There was no maladministration from the landlord on this matter. 

The resident’s request for a new tenancy agreement.

  1. The landlord received a letter from the resident on 14 June 2023. She complained that the landlord had changed its name, but it had not sent her an updated tenancy agreement.
  2. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 21 August 2023. It said its name had changed, but there was no requirement for it to send a new tenancy agreement. It told her she could request it terminate her existing agreement and start a new one, which would have the new name of the landlord. However, it also said a new tenancy agreement might contain different rights, and she could lose those currently in place that she had in her original agreement. It said she could seek independent legal advice on the matter.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response was reasonable as it addressed her complaint about requesting a new tenancy agreement and gave her the appropriate options, should she wish to have an agreement with the landlord’s new name upon it.   
  4. There is no evidence the resident requested a new tenancy agreement following the landlord’s complaint response.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 August 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 September 2023. It said she had complained about it not updating the tenancy agreement. It did not offer any further comments following its stage 1 response.
  6. In summary, the landlord addressed the complaint about updating the tenancy agreement in its stage 1 response. It said that she could request a new agreement, but it warned her it might not be beneficial to her, and it suggested she seek legal advice on the matter. The landlord’s response was reasonable and fair to the resident.
  7. We are satisfied the landlord took appropriate action to consider the resident’s complaint about requesting a new tenancy agreement. There was no maladministration by the landlord. 

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Its policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 14 June 2023. It did not reply. She sent a further complaint to the landlord on 2 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 July 2023. That was outside of its complaint policy response timescales and was unreasonable. It apologised for the delay in replying. It said it would respond to her complaint within 10 working days.
  3. The resident made a further complaint on 1 August 2023.
  4. The landlord sent its response at stage 1 of its complaint process to the resident on 21 August 2023. That was over 2 months after she had initially complained. The landlord’s failure to reply within its policy timescales was unreasonable. It apologised for the delay in replying to her complaint and offered £70 compensation. That was in line with its compensation policy.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 31 August 2023. She declined the compensation offer on 8 September 2023.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 September 2023. That was within its complaint response timescales. It again offered £70 compensation for the delay in replying to the stage 1 complaint.
  7. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord about its handing of ASB reports on 25 January 2024. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 28 January 2024. That was within its complaint policy response timescales.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged it the following day. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 19 February 2024. That was within its complaint policy timescale.
  9. In summary, the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaints at stage 1 of its process. The landlord recognised that in its stage 1 response and offered £70 compensation. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy. The landlord reiterated the offer in its stage 2 complaints response, which was sent within its policy timescales. The resident continued to complain to the landlord, so it started a new complaint in January 2024. It responded at both stages within its policy timescales.
  10. It is recognised that the landlord began a second complaint process for the same issue and that this is not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, it is acknowledged the landlord did this as an attempt to help a vulnerable resident and that no detriment occurred as a result of it deviating from the normal process.
  11. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was in line with an amount considered appropriate by us to provide remedy for the failures that were present in the circumstances. As such, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress, in that the landlord has made an offer which put things right for the resident for the failings in its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. 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 ASB.
  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 it disclosed unauthorised information to her healthcare provider.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a new tenancy agreement.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling.

 

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended the landlord provide the sum of £70 in compensation to the resident as offered in its internal complaints process.