Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202234888)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234888

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

20 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to his gardens.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 11 April 2017. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident however, his daughter has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
The property is a 2 bedroom house at the end of 3 terraced properties. The property was a new build at the time the resident’s tenancy commenced.
On 27 June 2018 the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that it believed there was an issue with the existing drainage system. This was because it could not cope with the volume of surface water. It intended to “take further remedial action to address the drainage problem.”
During August 2019 the landlord fitted French drains at the property to try to resolve the problem. In March 2022 the resident reported that issues with the drainage were ongoing. The landlord inspected the gardens during that same month.
On 24 March 2022 the resident called the landlord to report that the gardens continued to be waterlogged. He said he had not heard anything further following the inspection. The landlord informed the resident it would respond within its complaints process.
Following our intervention the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023, as follows:
1. It set out which elements of the complaint were outside the scope of its complaints policy.
2. It had listened to the resident’s phone calls with the landlord during April and May 2023.
3. It was correct to treat the resident’s enquiry as a service request rather than raise a formal complaint.
4. During the telephone calls it had said it was investigating the issues raised by the resident and would provide him with an update. It passed the query to its development team.
5. There was no evidence of failure to provide a service and the complaint was not upheld. Therefore, it would not agree to the resident’s request for compensation.
6. It agreed to carry out another assessment of the gardens and said the resident would be contacted in due course.
On 30 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with its response. This was because he did not feel it had responded to all the points raised in his complaint.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 17 July 2023. It said it had reviewed the response and was satisfied that it had responded to each of the points. It considered its offer to carry out a further independent assessment of the garden to be a reasonable response to the complaint. A document was attached setting out its individual response to each of the resident’s 23 points.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 10 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to set out the outcome of the drainage investigation works which took place on 30 October 2023. It was satisfied that both gardens had “sufficient depth of permeable material.” No further works or investigation were required, apart from backfilling and reinstating turf to the open excavation. It said it had “more than fulfilled” its repair obligations and provided a link to its repair responsibilities which said garden flooding was the resident’s responsibility.
The resident contacted us on 10 November 2023 to report his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. It had been going on for 6 years without “expert examination.” The complaint became one we could investigate on 23 May 2024.
On 3 May 2024 the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response about unrelated repairs. It used the letter as an opportunity to provide a further update to the resident about the drainage in the gardens. It confirmed that following the drainage survey in November 2023 it had reinvestigated the issue. It concluded that it was satisfied it had made “reasonable attempts to assist with drainage issues.”
Following a case review the landlord sent a further update to the resident on 11 September 2024, including that:
1. It acknowledged it had failed to “fully investigate the cause of the ongoing problem.” This was because it only considered that additional drainage had been installed as opposed to why there might still be an ongoing issue. During the complaints process it failed to consider if the additional drainage works were adequate.
2. It had considered our remedies guidance and offered £2845 compensation, comprised as follows:
  1. To recognise “the problem existed from when the property was built” it offered compensation based on £250 per year for failure of service and time and trouble raising matter. This amounted to £1750 for the duration of the tenancy.
  2. £1000 to recognise the impact on the resident.
  3. £95 to meet the costs of visits by the resident’s lawn care specialist over the past 12 months.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

A landlord’s repairing obligation is set out under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior of the building including drainage. It also requires landlords to satisfy themselves that a repair is or is not its responsibility.
The repair responsibilities set out on the landlord’s website says that the landlord is responsible for pipes and drains. Residents are responsible for garden flooding.
Its Complaints Policy says:
1. It will not normally accept a formal complaint (or parts of a complaint) where:
  1. Complaints have previously been fully investigated in line with its policy.
  2. Where the issue took place 6 months ago.
2. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
Its Compensation Policy states that it may compensate residents where its failure has caused the resident to suffer loss or incur costs. This includes unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation.

Scope of the investigation.

Both parties agree that the drainage issues date back to the start of the resident’s tenancy in 2017. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from March 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The resident has advised us that he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to events that occurred after its final complaint response of 17 July 2023. As set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme we cannot consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore the resident may wish to raise any issues that have occurred within the last 12 months with the landlord as a fresh stage 1 complaint.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the garden.

On 24 March 2022 the resident put the landlord on notice that his gardens remained waterlogged and he had not heard back after the inspection. As set out below the landlord confirmed it would respond by way of its complaints process. However, it then declined to accept the complaint.
Having decided not to accept the complaint the landlord failed to consider the resident’s contact as a request for service. It therefore failed to consider whether there might be an issue with the drains it installed in 2019. Consequently it failed to fully consider its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which was unreasonable.
During a call with the resident on 19 April 2023 the landlord agreed to make further enquiries and said it would update him. It called the resident on 26 April 2023 to advise that its enquiries were ongoing. During a call with the landlord on 10 May 2023 the resident advised he was “unhappy” with the length of time it was taking to get an update.
On 10 May 2023 the landlord requested that the officer from the development team contact the resident on the basis that they had been involved with the resident’s complaint previously. During a further call on 11 May 2023 the resident expressed his surprise at contact from that officer because it was a different officer who dealt with the complaint. He referred to the correct officer having written to him in 2022 however, the landlord said it was unable to locate the letter.
With that being the case, there is no evidence that the landlord considered how it might progress the resident’s enquiries. This was inappropriate and once again it failed to provide a service in respect of the ongoing repair request. It was only when it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023 that it set out next steps.
While it was positive that it agreed to carry out a further assessment of the garden it then took 4 months to arrange the survey. The reason for the delay is unclear and therefore it was inappropriate.
Overall the landlord delayed investigating the issues for a period of 19 months between 24 March 2022 and 30 October 2023.
The evidence shows that during that period the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for a response on the substantive issue. He was caused inconvenience, time and trouble trying to reach a resolution. Furthermore its inaction caused uncertainty and distress.
During telephone calls with us on 28 April and 7 May 2025 the resident described the impact the situation had on him and his daughter. He felt the landlord had not listened to him and thought he was lying. This caused distress which due to the length of time impacted on his health. His daughter has ADHD and was impacted because she could not play in the garden due to it being waterlogged.
It was positive that the landlord continued to review its response to the substantive issue. Furthermore, it is acknowledged that the landlord’s review letter of 11 September 2024 identified that its response was below its standards. However, the review letter was issued 14 months after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure on 17 July 2023. Therefore, it was outside its internal complaints process and therefore its offer of compensation was not made as part of its complaint response.
The landlord’s reasons for the amount it offered towards the resident’s lawncare costs were reasonable.
It offered compensation of £250 per year for the duration of the tenancy. It also offered a further £1000 for inconvenience which equates to £143 per year. This adds up to a total of £393 per year. This equates to approximately £589 for the period assessed in this report which was 19 months in duration.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Outcomes Guidance states that a finding of maladministration should be made where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. This includes the landlord not responding, failure to provide a service over a period time, put things right or learn from outcomes. While the landlord’s letter of 11 September 2024 identified some learning it was limited and did not cover some of the issues identified in this report. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance sets out that compensation of £600 to £1000 should be considered where there was maladministration and where the failure had a significant impact on the resident. This investigation considers that the delay of 19 months was unduly long. The landlord failed to recognise its failures or try to put things right.
The landlord’s failures had a significant impact on the resident and the amount of compensation offered by the landlord is not considered proportionate to the failings identified by this report. Therefore, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1000 compensation. It may deduct the £589 it has offered if this has already been paid.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2022 to raise concerns about drainage in the garden. The landlord’s file note dated the same day confirmed that following an internal discussion it would respond within its complaints process. It noted that it had informed the resident accordingly and had sent an email to complaints. However, there is no evidence that the landlord progressed the complaint which was inappropriate.
This caused the resident inconvenience when he emailed the landlord to chase on 28 March and 7 April 2022. In his email of 7 April the resident asked to raise a complaint in line with its complaints policy. The landlord replied to the resident on the same day to say it had investigated the issue previously in 2018 and would not reinvestigate. The resident replied to say there were “fresh issues” which needed investigating and required a “constructive response.” The resident’s request was reasonable.
On 15 May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident referring to a conversation between them on 24 March 2022. It said it attached a screenshot not seen by this investigation. It also copied into the email an excerpt from an internal email chain dated 29 March 2022. This said that the resident had received a stage 1 complaint response in 2018 which he did not request to escalate. Therefore, it would not investigate the same issue again.
The only file note seen by this investigation dated 24 March 2022 is set out above. It says the resident was told it would investigate the complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted him to advise that it had changed its position following further internal discussion on 29 March 2022.
It is correct that the landlord’s Complaints Policy says it will not reinvestigate the same issue however, its application of the policy was inappropriate. This is because its decision to not investigate a complaint made first 4 then 5 years later about more recent events related to the same substantive issue was unreasonable. Its delay protracted the complaints process and ultimately delayed the resident’s ability to refer his complaint to us for investigation.
The landlord’s response caused time and trouble to the resident who contacted us on 6 June 2023 to ask for assistance to resolve his complaint. We wrote to the landlord to request that it respond by 27 June 2023. A file note dated 9 June 2023 confirmed the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident that day.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 June 2023 to acknowledge and set out the definition of his complaint. It confirmed that his complaint was about:
1. Its response to his reports of water logging in the garden.
2. Works carried out to the gardens in 2018 which did not appear to have resolved the situation.
3. The garden being littered with construction items which should have been removed.
4. Its failure to progress complaints he tried to raise in March and April 2022.
5. Its failure to progress the complaint he tried to raise “approximately 3 months ago.”
It advised it would not investigate the complaints set out at a. to d. because they had not been raised within 6 months in line with its Complaints Policy. It said it would provide its response by 23 June 2023.
On 23 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it needed to extend its complaint response deadline to the following week. The resident replied on the same day to agree the change. While it was positive that the landlord contacted the resident it was an apology for not having done something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 28 June 2023 which was appropriately in line with the new timescale agreed with the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to confirm in clear, plain language the decision on the complaint and the reasons for any decisions made.
The stage 1 response extended to 14 pages, was excessively complex and contradictory. It sets out again the elements of the complaint which fall outside its Complaints Policy. However, it said “if I can provide part response from the information I have available to me I am happy to do so.” Elements of its response referred to events as far back as 2017 which it maintained were outside its Complaints Policy. It is therefore unclear why this information was included.
It provided a response to the resident’s complaint about his attempt to raise a complaint 3 months prior. While it appropriately set out its decision on this element of the complaint its account of its investigation was not succinct. Furthermore, it failed to identify that its decision to treat the resident’s contact as a request for service had failed to provide a resolution through its own inaction.
It is acknowledged that despite not upholding the complaint the landlord offered to carry out further investigatory works in the garden. It is positive that it used the complaints process to take steps to progress the substantive issue.
On 30 June 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord provided its response on 17 July which was appropriately within time.
It is noted that the landlord’s letter of 11 September 2024 reflected on its complaint handling. While this was positive it was well outside of its internal complaints process.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200 compensation which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1200 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to provide a service in response to the resident’s request for repairs to the garden. It may deduct the £589 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to conduct a review of the failures identified in this report. It should set out its learning from the complaint and what it will do differently. A copy should be provided to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks