Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202227491)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227491

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

26 November 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice in his property and the associated repairs.
2. The landlord’s handling of a neighbour nuisance complaint made by the resident in 2021.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour in the car park.
4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association and his tenancy began on 17 September 2007. The landlord has stated that it is unable to evidence any specific vulnerabilities, however, it confirmed that the resident has expressed emotional and mental distress because of the reported matters.
The property is a 2-bedroom, first floor flat in a low-rise block of flats.
The resident advised the landlord in October 2022 that he had heard mice under his bed making scratching and scraping noises. He also said he had seen evidence of mice activity in his bathroom and kitchen. He asked the landlord to carry out a survey of the building. The resident later repeated on various occasions that he had first advised the landlord about the rodent problem in 2015.
The landlord’s pest control contractor attended on 15 November 2022 to carry out a treatment for the mice. A joiner also attended on the same day and blocked a hole near the boiler in the kitchen.
The landlord visited the property on 15 December 2022 and advised the resident on 20 December 2022 that it would seal the areas around the soil stack in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord advised the resident that at that stage it did not consider it necessary to remove the kitchen units.
The resident made a stage one complaint on 6 February 2023 and attached a photo of a dead mouse he had found in is kitchen that day. He disputed the landlord’s view that the bathroom was the main source of the mice problem because he said he had seen mice in his kitchen. The resident wrote to the landlord on the following day and asked the landlord to include the following matters in his complaint:
1. He said that the landlord had not acted on his reports of mice in August 2015.
2. He said the landlord had not acted on his complaint of neighbour nuisance logged in May 2021.
3. He said the landlord had failed to ensure the car park was restricted to tenants only, which had led to ASB.
4. He said that the kitchen needed to be taken apart (to seal any entry points for mice).
5. He also asked for the landlord to remove his old cooker, to waive the 2 months’ rent arrears on his rent account and to pay for new bedroom flooring.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 2 March 2023 and the resident replied on the same day to confirm he was dissatisfied with the response, particularly because the landlord had refused to investigate the resident’s reports of mice dating back to 2015.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 29 March 2023 and reiterated its decision that it would not go back as far as 2015 to investigate the resident’s reports of mice. Its view was that the resident’s reports of mice did not show there had been a continuous problem, but rather there had been incidents of mice. The landlord said in the stage 2 reply that following advice from its pest controller, it had arranged to remove the kitchen base units to seal any gaps behind them. The landlord confirmed it had no plans to install gates to the car park, it would not write-off the resident’s rent arrears and that the cooker was his responsibility to remove.
The resident wrote to this Service on 7 February 2023 and stated that the landlord had not taken any action in relation to his reports of mice until November 2022, even though he had first reported the matter in 2015. He also wrote to the Ombudsman on 28 March 2023 and 25 April 2023 and explained that the presence of mice had caused him severe mental and emotional distress. He said that he wanted the landlord to write-off the 2 months’ rent arrears on his rent account and to pay for new flooring and the redecoration of his bedroom.
The landlord’s records show that the rodent issue was resolved in August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, 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”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of a neighbour nuisance complaint made by the resident in 2021 falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident included the matter in his email dated 7 February 2023, which was sent as part of his stage one complaint. He said that the landlord had failed to act properly on the neighbour nuisance complaint he logged in May 2021, which he said led to him losing his job. As the resident formally complained on 7 February 2023 about his report of neighbour nuisance made in May 2021, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it was not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period.

Relevant policies and procedures

The landlord’s website confirms that it is responsible for pest control. Its pest control procedure states that when it receives a report of rodents in a resident’s property or in the communal area, it will arrange for an external pest control contractor to carry out treatment. The contractor will also advise the landlord about any follow-up work such as blocking potential access points.
The landlord’s complaints policy states:
1. The landlord will send a response to stage one complaints within 10 working days of its formal acknowledgement of the complaint. However, if more time is needed, the landlord will keep the resident informed and will state the reason for the delay and when the resident can expect a response.
2. The landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from accepting the review and if more time is needed the landlord will keep the resident informed.
3. There are some circumstances where the landlord will not accept a formal complaint. Such circumstances include where the issue took place more than 6 months ago.

Scope of investigation

The resident advised the landlord on various occasions, including in his stage one complaint, that he had reported to the landlord in 2015 that there were mice in his property. He provided the landlord with supporting emails dating back to 2015.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. 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. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from October 2022. Reference to the events that occurred prior to October 2022 has been made in this report to provide context.
The Ombudsman is aware that part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord was that it should have investigated its handling of his reports of mice dating back to 2015. The Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s decision to investigate the reports of mice from 2022 is considered below.
The resident sent several emails regarding events that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 29 March 2023. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The resident wrote to this Service on 28 March 2023 and stated that the continuing problems with mice had caused him severe mental and emotional distress. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option. While the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence or impacts on health, this Service will take this into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 March 2023 and stated that he believed the landlord’s failure to deal with the rodent problems since 2015 was due to “deep seated racism”. The Ombudsman cannot make a finding of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and the Ombudsman has no legal powers to decide whether a landlord has breached the Human Rights Act. These are legal matters that would have to be determined by the courts.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice in his property and the associated repairs

The resident contacted the landlord on 22 and 31 October 2022 to report that he had mice in his property. The resident explained that the issue was affecting his mental health and advised the landlord that pest proofing work was needed to seal the points of entry for the mice.
The landlord raised an order on 26 October 2022 for its pest control contractor to attend. The resident confirmed on 31 October 2022 that an appointment had been made for a pest control contractor to attend on 2 November 2022 to carry out treatment for the mice. He also confirmed on 15 November 2022 that the pest controller had also attended on that day. The landlord had therefore arranged for its pest controller to attend twice within a reasonable timeframe after the resident had reported the rodent problem.
The resident confirmed on 15 November 2022 that one of the landlord’s operatives had attended that day and had filled in a hole near the boiler in the kitchen to stop mice entering. On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would speak to the pest controller for a copy of his report. It was appropriate that the landlord had arranged for an operative to attend within a reasonable period to seal up a possible entry point for the mice. This was in line with the landlord’s pest control procedure, which states that it will carry out work to block potential access points for pests.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 December 2022 and stated that it wanted to visit the property to look at how it could resolve the pest issues. The visit took place on 15 December 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to visit the property to carry out its own assessment of works needed to pest proof the property. The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 December 2022 and stated that based on the pest controller’s recommendation and information from the resident, it would seal the gap around the soil stack in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord stated that at that stage it did not consider it necessary to remove the kitchen units.
Therefore, in making his decision the senior manager in question had visited the property and the evidence indicates he had considered the views of the resident and the pest control contractor. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings and the decision taken by the senior manager, despite the resident consistently asking the landlord to remove the kitchen units during November and December 2022.
The evidence shows that there was a delay in the landlord completing the work to seal around the soil pipe because the resident was unable to provide access due to his work commitments. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 January 2023 and advised that the work had been booked in for 14 March 2023. The evidence therefore shows that the landlord made reasonable efforts to arrange the work of sealing around the soil pipe.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 6 February 2023 after finding a dead mouse in his kitchen. He stated that he had seen mice in his kitchen. The landlord wrote to him on 9 February 2023 to confirm that it had raised an order for the pest control contractor to attend. This was reasonable as the resident had reported seeing the dead mouse a few days earlier. The landlord confirmed that a gas engineer would also attend with a joiner on 14 March 2023 as the resident had expressed concerns about gaps near the boiler. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for a gas engineer to attend regarding the gaps near the boiler as this would ensure that any repairs were carried out in accordance with the gas safety regulations.
The evidence shows that the appointment that had been booked for 14 March 2023 was brought forward and the operatives attended on 15 February 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord had brought the appointment forward at the resident’s request. Although he had initially agreed the appointment for 14 March 2023, he had then asked the landlord on 6 February 2023 to bring the appointment forward after he had found a dead mouse in his kitchen.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 February 2023 and provided a photo of a dead mouse in the kitchen. He requested that the landlord remove the kitchen units so that any gaps could be sealed. The landlord’s records show that the pest control contractor attended on 20 February 2023 to carry out further rodent treatment. The contractor therefore attended within a reasonable timescale following the resident’s further report of mice.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 February 2023 and agreed to remove the kitchen base units. The landlord also confirmed this to the pest control contractor on 24 February 2023 and asked the contractor whether he had identified any holes or access points in the kitchen.
As the resident had presented evidence of further rodent activity in the property, it was appropriate that the landlord had reviewed its position regarding the removal of the base units. It was also reasonable that the landlord checked with the pest control contractor whether it had identified any mice entry points in the kitchen. The contractor confirmed its view that the landlord should remove the kitchen units and seal any holes/gaps.
The work to remove the kitchen unts and seal the access points was booked to take place on 13 and 14 March 2023. However, the resident wrote to the landlord on 13 March 2023 and stated that he was away from the property and could not return in time for the appointment. The appointment was therefore cancelled despite an operative attending and trying to obtain access on the day. The resident subsequently agreed a new appointment for 24 and 25 April 2023 as he had other matters to deal with. The landlord had therefore taken reasonable steps to arrange the appointment to remove the kitchen units and to seal any gaps behind them. The work was carried out on 24 April 2023.
One of the themes in the resident’s correspondence to the landlord was why it had not acted on his reports of mice in 2015. The landlord advised the resident on 10 February 2023 that it would not be able to investigate his reports going back to 2015. In its stage 2 reply dated 29 March 2023, the landlord provided a further explanation for its decision. The landlord explained that its decision not to investigate the reports of pests as far back as 2015 was in line with its complaints policy, which stated that it would only investigate incidents dating back 6 months.
The resident confirmed in an email to the landlord and the pest control contractor on 22 October 2022 that there had not been any rodent activity since July 2021. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that there had not been a continuous problem with mice dating back to 2015. Consequently, based on the landlord’s complaints policy, it was reasonable for it to advise the resident that it would not investigate incidents as far back as 2015. As there had not been any rodent activity since July 2021 until October 2022, it was also reasonable for the landlord to use October 2022 as its starting point to investigate the resident’s complaint about rodents.
The resident requested on various occasions that the landlord should disconnect and dispose of his cooker. For example, he requested this on 2 December 2022 and on 7 February 2023. The landlord consistently advised the resident that the disconnection and removal of the cooker was his responsibility and therefore it would not carry out this work. For example, it advised him of this in its stage one reply. The repair responsibilities shown on the landlord’s website confirm that residents are responsible for arranging the disconnection and removal of cookers. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident of this.
On 7 February 2023, the resident had also requested that the landlord should pay for new flooring and decorating materials for the bedroom and should write off 2 months’ rent arrears on his rent account. The landlord refused each of these requests in its stage one reply on the basis that the resident was responsible for floor coverings and redecorations and was responsible for payment of rent.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s website and can confirm that under the repair responsibilities residents are responsible for floor coverings and internal decorations. Therefore, the landlord’s advice that the resident was responsible for these was appropriate. The landlord helpfully agreed on 20 December 2022 to replace the kitchen flooring once the resident had removed the cooker as it was considered badly worn.
In terms of the resident’s request to write off 2 months’ rent arrears, the landlord stated in its stage one reply that the payment of rent and any arrears was the resident’s responsibility. As the resident is responsible under the tenancy agreement for the payment of rent, the landlord’s advice to the resident was appropriate.
The resident referred on various occasions to a report from the pest control contractor following his visits in November 2022. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that it could not find a report. However, it confirmed that the contractor had provided information to the landlord regarding the visits it had carried out. The evidence shows that, for example, the contractor provided brief comments and recommendations on 24 February 2023. It was a shortcoming that the contractor had not provided a more comprehensive report that could be shared with the resident following the visits in November 2022. The Ombudsman has not identified this as a significant service failure because there is evidence that the landlord was in contact with the contractor and took the contractor’s findings into account.
The correspondence shows that the resident was clearly very keen to receive a report setting out the contractor’s findings.
Overall, the evidence shows that the resident found the presence of mice in his property to be very distressing. The Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the reports of mice was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case. In this case, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s response from October 2022 to March 2023, when it sent its stage 2 reply, was reasonable because:
1. The landlord acted promptly to raise orders for its pest control contractor to attend to carry out treatments for rodents.
2. The pest control contractor attended in a timely manner, for example, in November 2022 and February 2023.
3. The landlord visited the property to assess the works needed to resolve the problems on 15 December 2022.
4. The landlord arranged for operatives to attend to carry out pest proofing work on 15 November 2022, 15 February 2023 and 24 April 2023.
5. The landlord clearly explained its reasons for not investigating the reported rodent problems as far back as 2015 and the explanations given were in line with its complaints policy.
6. Although the landlord advised the resident that he was responsible for the replacement of floor coverings in the property, it agreed to replace the kitchen floor covering as a gesture of goodwill.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour in the car park

The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 December 2022 regarding various matters, including misuse of the car park by non residents. He stated that they continued to use the car park as a drive-through and non-residents used it for disposing of rubbish, urinating and other anti-social behaviour. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 7 February 2023 to provide further information regarding his stage one complaint. Although the focus of the complaint was about mice in his property, he also stated that the landlord had failed to restrict access to the car park to residents only. The landlord replied on 10 February 2023 and asked the resident whether he had reported the matter to the landlord previously.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about unauthorised use of the car park following his email of 15 December 2022, which was inappropriate. The resident had clearly raised concerns about anti-social behaviour and the landlord’s email dated 10 February 2023 suggests that it had not investigated the matter or acted in relation to the issues raised by the resident. The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure states that it will investigate ASB complaints as fully as possible. It goes on to say that it is committed to responding early to complaints and agreeing action plans with residents on how their complaint will be dealt with.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 February 2023 and, as requested by the landlord, he provided additional information about the reported ASB in the car park. He stated that non-residents were parking in the car park, smoking, leaving litter, urinating, dealing drugs and using the area for sexual activities. Despite the resident providing this clarification, the landlord’s stage one response focussed on whether it should install gates to the car park. This was inappropriate as the resident had clearly reported that non-residents were using the car park for various acts of ASB and some criminal activities, such as drug dealing. Therefore, the landlord’s focus on whether it should install gates in the car park showed a lack of adequate investigation into the resident’s concerns.
On 2 March 2023, the resident replied to the landlord’s stage one response and again referred to strangers parking in the car park and carrying out acts of ASB. However, the landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it was satisfied it had fully answered the resident’s concerns at stage one of the process. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to consider the resident’s concerns properly and review how it had dealt with his report of ASB and criminal activity in the car park. Having accepted that the matter would form part of his complaint, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not used the complaints process to investigate the resident’s concerns fully regarding the reported ASB in the car park.
The Ombudsman has found there was a service failure by the landlord for its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB in the car park. This is because the landlord did not provide the resident with evidence that it had fully investigated his concerns. For example, the landlord did not contact the resident to agree on the action it would take to investigate the reported ASB. Such action might have involved the landlord contacting the police regarding the reported criminal acts or, in line with its ASB policy, advising the resident to do so.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to contact the resident so that it can investigate the reports of ASB in the car park in line with its ASB policy. The Ombudsman has also ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to the resident to put things right in terms of failing to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns expressed to the landlord in December 2022. The amount ordered is within the range of sums recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The resident made a stage one complaint on 6 February 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 February 2023, which was 5 working days after receiving the complaint. The timescale of 5 working days for the acknowledgement was consistent with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and was appropriate.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 2 March 2023. The landlord therefore took 13 working days to respond from the date of the acknowledgement. This was slightly longer than the 10-working day target shown in its complaints policy, however, during the intervening period the landlord was in contact with the resident and wrote to him on 24 February 2023 to apologise that it was unable to respond to his complaint on that day. It reassured him that the outcome of the complaint investigation would not affect any ongoing visits or agreed works. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord replied to the stage one complaint within a reasonable timescale.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2023 and said he was dissatisfied with the stage one reply. The landlord therefore progressed the complaint to stage 2 of its process and sent its stage 2 response on 29 March 2023. The landlord therefore took 19 working days to reply, which was an appropriate timescale as it was within the 20-working day timescale prescribed in its complaints policy for responding to stage 2 complaints.

Determination

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 mice in his property and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a neighbour nuisance complaint made by the resident in 2021 is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour in the car park.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for its response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour in the car park.
2. Pay the resident £100.
3. Contact the resident to investigate the reports of ASB in the car park in line with its ASB policy.