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

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202014614)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014614

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

17 December 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.             The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents’:

  1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) from their neighbours between 2018 and 2021.
  2. Reports of ASB from their neighbours in 2022 and 2023 and the level of support given.
  3. Associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

ASB between 2018 and 2021

2.             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.

3.             Paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states – “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising”. Based on the evidence that is available, the residents’ complaint about the landlord’s response to their reports of ASB from their neighbours between 2018 and 2021 is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

4.             It is noted that the residents have been reporting ASB from their next-door neighbours since 2018. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the residents raised concerns with the landlord about its handling of their ASB reports in 2020. The landlord issued a formal response; however, the evidence does not demonstrate that the residents escalated their complaint at the time. As such, their complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

5.             The residents subsequently contacted us in March 2021 as they remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of matters. We provided advice about exhausting the complaints procedure and added that the resident should provide evidence of the landlord’s final response if this had already been issued. The next contact from the residents was in August 2022. Given the passage of time, we advised them to raise a new formal complaint with the landlord. The evidence we have been provided with shows that the residents subsequently complained to the landlord in April 2023.

6.             The residents have informed this Service that they did not raise a complaint sooner as they were told that they needed to wait for the ASB case to be completed. It is unclear who provided the residents with this advice. In addition, the residents have not provided any other evidence to support their comments. It is not necessary for a landlord to have concluded an ASB case before it can accept a complaint about its handling of the matter. Indeed, our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states at 1.42 – “A complaint response must be provided to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed”.

7.             The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that it has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.

8.             While it is acknowledged that the residents had raised some concerns about the response of their reports in 2020, the complaints procedure was not exhausted at that point in time. A further complaint was not raised until April 2023. It follows that the complaint about the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of ASB between 2018 and 2021 is outside of our jurisdiction. We have considered the landlord’s handling of the residents’ ASB reports in 2022 and 2023, and the level of support that they were provided with at the time. Any events that pre-date 2022 have been referred to for the purpose of context only.

9.             We recognise this is likely to be a disappointing decision for the resident. Jurisdiction can be complex and, in this case, a thorough consideration of the facts was needed.

Background

10.        The residents, a a married couple, are assured tenants of the landlord. The property where the residents lived when they were reporting ASB had 2 bedrooms.

11.        In early 2021 the landlord began proceedings for a possession order against the residents’ neighbours. The case was adjourned several times in 2022 and 2023. During this period the landlord encouraged the residents to continue to report occasions of ASB. It also communicated with different agencies, including the police.

12.        The residents were subsequently moved by the landlord under its managed move scheme. They later complained to it in mid-April 2023. They said they were unhappy that:

  1. ASB was continuing for 5 and a half years and that this was, in part, due to the landlord not believing their accounts for the first 3 years.
  2. The landlord failed to evict the neighbours even after one of them was convicted of harassment.

The residents asked for compensation related to costs incurred in moving.

13.        The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had reviewed the ASB case file, which was still ongoing, and had found that:

  1. It had given support to the residents in the form of:
    1. paying for counselling sessions.
    2. referrals to other agencies, including victim support.
    3. providing regular updates.
    4. a managed move to a new property.
  2. Covering moving costs was not part of its policy.
  3. It was unable to consider a referral to its hardship fund because the residents did not meet the affordability criteria.

The landlord acknowledged the significant distress caused by the ASB reported. However, it concluded that, as it identified no service failings, it was unable to pay compensation.

14.        In their escalation request, the residents said that they disagreed with the landlord’s decision. They added that a police officer had told them the landlord was not doing enough.

15.        While the stage 2 decision, dated 3 August 2023, advised its position on the substantive issues were unchanged, the landlord said it was willing to consider a “good will” payment. The landlord asked the residents to send supporting evidence of moving costs. Finally, it advised it was unable to see that the police had expressed any concerns about its handling of the case.

16.        At present, the ASB case remains open because, according to the landlord, there have been further delays with the proceedings. The landlord also advised that it has not received any further contact or evidence from the residents concerning its offer of a good will payment.

17.        The residents referred their complaint to this Service because they are unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to award compensation. They said they no longer have receipts of moving costs. The residents are seeking compensation for the considerable distress caused and the impact to their health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

18.        In their complaint, the residents said their mental and physical health had been adversely affected by the events complained about. We acknowledge that the circumstances of the complaint were extremely distressing. It is however outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and an individual’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. Rather, consideration is given in this investigation to the landlord’s response to the residents’ concerns and to any distress and inconvenience arising from any service failings identified on the part of the landlord.

ASB between 2022 and 2023

19.        The residents’ complaint was that the landlord did not evict the neighbours, particularly an occupant who is not named on the tenancy agreement.

20.        Records show that the residents asked to be moved to a different property in February 2022. They reported that the ongoing issues were impacting their mental health. At this time, the landlord had already issued proceedings for a possession order and it was waiting for the case to be heard in court. This was one of, if not the, highest sanction the landlord’s ASB policy at the time said it would take where deemed “proportionate” and there was sufficient evidence to support it. Given that the decision on whether to grant a possession order (i.e. to evict someone) lies with a judge, there was little further the landlord could do at this stage. In the circumstances, we would expect to see that the landlord had given the residents appropriate support, in accordance with its policy, and managed their expectations.

21.        In its initial response from June 2023, the landlord said it had investigated all the residents’ reports of ASB and kept them updated. The available records support that the landlord recorded the residents’ reports throughout 2022 and early 2023. It made it clear to them that it was gathering these reports and evidence to support the court proceedings. The landlord also engaged regularly with other agencies, including the local authority who had installed noise monitoring equipment for a period in April 2022. This was in line with its multi-disciplinary approach outlined in the ASB policy. It did also give a verbal and written warning to the neighbours in March 2022 that it would be including evidence of further reports of ASB in the ongoing procedures. This demonstrates the landlord was still taking matters seriously and attempting to stop the reported behaviour, even though the case was now one for the courts to decide.

22.        The landlord also said it had kept the residents updated on the progress of the court case and the reason for the delays. Again, the records show that the residents were kept informed about the case. This included a face-to-face meeting with the residents and the landlord’s solicitor after the third time the court case was adjourned in mid-2022. As it explained in the stage 1 response, the landlord is required to consider its obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018. So, it was appropriate to not disclose everything that was happening with the case and why.

23.        In terms of managing expectations, the contact records show that the landlord advised the residents several times that it was unable to guarantee that the possession order would be granted. It explained the reason was that it was dependent on a judge deciding. While it is noted that the landlord had discussed this with the residents, no similar explanation was provided within the complaint responses.

24.        The residents had raised a complaint as they were concerned about how their ASB case had been handled. It would therefore have been reasonable and proportionate for the landlord to have investigated its own handling and to provide an explanation, in writing, as to whether the advice it had provided around not being able to guarantee an eviction was appropriate. That the landlord did not provide such an explanation within its complaint responses was a missed opportunity to allay the residents’ concerns. There was a departure from the landlord’s complaints policy, which states it will “provide [residents] with a full written response”. The responses were also not in accordance with section 5.6 of the Code (2022) which required the landlord to “address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. As such, we have found that there was a failing in the landlord’s complaint handling amounting to service failure.

25.        It is also noted that the stage 1 response, which the complaints policy said would be issued within 10 working days of receipt, was delayed. It has not been possible to confirm when the landlord received the resident’s handwritten letter, but the available records indicate it was before the resident contacted them for an update in May 2023. While this was a failing, the landlord did apologise to the resident at the time. We have not seen evidence which suggests that the resident was significantly inconvenienced as a result. It is also noted that the landlord did then meet its stage 2 timescale of 20 working days. We are therefore satisfied that the apology for the delay was proportionate in the circumstances. However, the landlord is encouraged to consider taking learning from this.

26.        It was apparent from the residents’ complaint that they felt the landlord had not given an appropriate amount of support. They specified this was that they had not been kept updated, the landlord had not taken reports seriously or assisted with costs of the move. They also said a police officer had told them that the landlord was not doing enough. In the landlord’s responses, it said it had given the residents a range of support, including paying for counselling and a move to a different property. It advised that covering the cost of moving was not something its policies said it would do. Further, it said there was no evidence of the police, who it had worked closely with, raising concerns about its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

27.        The landlord’s ASB policy states it uses a Risk Assessment Matrix to identify the impact of the behaviour and “the welfare, safety, and well-being of the person”. It also says it uses this to “tailor support” for the victim. The landlord did not carry out a risk assessment in the period this report is concerned with. However, there is evidence that it did carry one out in 2021. The records also show that the landlord regularly discussed and recorded the impact the reported ASB was having on the residents, which was appropriate in the circumstances.

28.        The landlord’s ASB policy gives some examples of the support it may provide, including:

  1. Signposting to or making referrals to specialist agencies, such as victim support.
  2. Improving the security of the home.
  3. Working with its Community Safety Partners, which includes the Police.
  4. Temporary or permanent re-housing.

29.        It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord took appropriate actions, in line with its policy. As explained earlier, the records show the landlord gave regular updates, investigated the residents’ reports of ASB, and set expectations. It also gave support that was tailored to the residents, such as counselling for the significant impact on their mental health. Records confirm the landlord worked with the police, who were also gathering evidence to support a criminal case. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that any of the agencies that the landlord was working with during the period this investigation looked at expressed concerns about its handling of the ASB reports.

30.        The landlord also agreed to the residents’ request to move in January 2022. At that stage, they were reporting that their mental health was being seriously affected. One of the criteria for a managed move is where a tenant is at “risk of serious…emotional harm if they remain in their current property”. There were no timescales for how long it would take to move someone, as this is dependent on the availability of properties. However, we have seen the landlord was proactive in looking for properties that were appropriate for the residents and signposted them to other schemes to broaden their options. While it is understood the residents believe the landlord should have also paid for the cost of moving because the decision was driven by the actions from their neighbour, doing so was at the landlord’s discretion and not something the ASB policy compels it to do.

31.        As no failings were identified, the landlord said it could not offer compensation. This is consistent with its compensation policy which states it “may compensate customers where a failure on our part has been shown to cause the customer to suffer loss or incur cost.” This is also consistent with the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on remedies’.

32.        The landlord did though consider if the residents should have been or could be assisted through its hardship fund. This was appropriate given the residents’ report that they had been financially disadvantaged. It said that the residents had been rated “green” in the affordability assessment carried out prior to the move to the new property. It advised that had they been rated as “red” they would have been referred to its hardship fund. The evidence seen supports that the residents were assessed as being financially stable prior to moving. Given the nature of a hardship fund, the landlord’s response to this was reasonable.

33.        While initially the landlord declined to consider reimbursing any costs, the landlord said in its final response from August 2023 that it would as a gesture of goodwill. This was a reasonable response, because none of its policies, that we have seen, require it to pay someone’s moving costs.

34.        In discussion with this Service, the residents said they had not responded to the landlord’s request for evidence because they no longer had receipts to prove the costs. The landlord’s request for proof was reasonable, and in accordance with its compensation policy. It was appropriate, therefore, for the landlord to ask for proofs of the costs the residents incurred. We do though recommend that the landlord considers re-offering its goodwill gesture and, if so, giving guidance to the residents about what evidence they can provide in lieu of receipts.

35.        The Ombudsman recognises that the residents have been caused significant and lasting distress from the reported ASB against them from their neighbours. We have though been unable to link this impact to a failing on the part of the landlord. Based on what we have seen, the landlord provided appropriate support to the residents over what we recognise has been a challenging and complex situation for all involved– particularly the residents. The Ombudsman makes a finding, therefore, of no maladministration.

Determination

36.        In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the complaint about the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of ASB between 2018 and 2021 is outside of jurisdiction.

37.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response the residents’ reports of ASB from their neighbours in 2022 and 2023 and the level of support given.

38.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the residents’ associated complaint.

Order

39.        Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence showing it has complied with our order to:

  1. Consider what improvements it will or has already made to ensure the quality of and timeliness of its complaint’s responses comply with required standards.

Recommendation

40.        The landlord is asked to consider re-offering its proposal of a goodwill payment towards the residents’ moving costs. It should also consider giving advice about what evidence it considers will be sufficient to show the costs incurred from moving properties.