From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202320937)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320937

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

4 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 landlords handling of the residents reports of toxic smells and gases in her property.

Background

  1. The resident occupies her 1 bed ground floor flat under an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident which included osteo-arthritis in her spine, rheumatoid arthritis in her hands, COPD, and depression.
  2. The resident reported to have been experiencing problems with an obnoxious smell, mist, and hissing sounds in her property. This was accompanied by a sticky substance, as well as discolouring and rusting of her property and belongings. The resident believed that this issue was also affecting her health, she had to attend A&E on an occasion on advice from her GP.
  3. On 24 March 2023, the resident made a formal complaint. She said having tried to resolve the issue without success the problem was becoming intolerable. She highlighted an incident where a substance was leaking through a hole in the wall of the understairs cupboard, which caused coughing and breathing difficulty. A neighbour above also seemed to be experiencing the same difficulties at the same time. As a gas safety inspection had not traced anything she was of the opinion the problem was drug manufacturing in the flat above. She wanted an assessment of her property and the residue as well as the neighbour above investigated.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had carried out a gas check, to ensure there were no gas leaks in her home, over- hauled all fans and vents cleaning them in the process and removed plinths in her kitchen to assess low level services. No repairs issues were found. There was no medical evidence that the residence symptoms were linked to the property. Investigations were undertaken with the neighbour and liaison with the police and there was no evidence to substantiate the resident’s concerns.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint as she felt it was reasonable for the landlord to  conduct scientific testing in order to determine the presence of toxins and pollutants within her property.
  6. The landlord reviewed the complaint and it said, following discussions with the local environmental health team (EHT), who could not suggest any further checks or testing that the landlord could carry out, without knowing what it was looking for. It was satisfied that it had exhausted all options from a property perspective, and it had also appropriately investigated the neighbour concerns reported, as a possible cause of the issues.

Post Internal Complaint Procedure (ICP)

  1. We are aware a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV)  unit was approved following reports of further smells, in April 2024.
  2. Post ICP information, has also identified that a further assessment has been undertaken by the EHT. Information from the assessment suggests, they are now of the view that there is an underlying issue in the property and have recommended that the landlord carry out further surface testing. The resident says the landlord is not engaging with the EHT on their more recent findings.
  3. The EHT were also of the view that the PIV unit could alleviate the problem and were hopeful once installed the resident could move back in.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident has said that living in the property has had a negative impact on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt her views on this issue, however, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability. It cannot establish whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, neither can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. The resident may take independent legal advice on this matter if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint.
  2. The visits and the report from the EHT were completed after the ICP. The Ombudsman scheme (p42a) says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This is because the landlord must have an opportunity to respond to a complaint before this Service can get involved.  The residents complaint about a lack of a response from the landlord to the EHT’s more recent findings, has not been through the landlords ICP, and it has not had an opportunity to comment. As such this part of the complaint cannot be included in this investigation. The resident may raise a new complaint to the landlord about this issue, if she remain dissatisfied with its service.

The landlords handling of the residents reports of toxic smells and gases in her property.

  1. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. The Act states that properties must be free from hazards at the most dangerous category 1 level, as assessed using the HHSRS, which would include pollutants.
  2. The resident first reported a smell, possibly gas to the landlord on 1 March 2023, it called out the gas company the same day to inspect the gas which was appropriate. A gas leak was not detected however, to be safe the meter was disconnected, and a request was made for the landlord to check the boiler. This was attended to the same day, no faults were found, and the meter was uncapped, causing minimal disruption to the resident, and meeting its emergency response policy timescales, which was reasonable.
  3. On 27 March 2023 the resident reported a smell from the storage cupboard, which she said had caused her medical problems. The resident advised she was staying with her daughter as a result. As the property had been recently checked for gas leaks, the landlord arranged a surveyors inspection for 3 days’ time, which was appropriate and within the responsive repair times set out in its repairs policy timescales.
  4. The landlord said its inspection found no evidence of a smell. There was slight discolouration to certain objects in the property as well as rust to the cooker and certain other metal objects. Gas could be ruled out as the gas company had inspected and this was followed up with a landlord gas safety inspection. The surveyor visited the 4 surrounding properties and found nothing relevant to the issue including the flat above, that the resident had concerns about. No other residents were experiencing problems with a smell or residue.
  5. Having inspected the property and found no smell present and no obvious need for a repair identified, there was little the landlord could have reasonably been expected to do, it had adequately met its statutory repairing responsibilities.
  6. The resident complained in June 2023 about the lack of progress, and felt the landlord should do more, particularly with the resident above, who she believed was manufacturing drugs in the property which was responsible for toxic fumes and residue in her property.
  7. In response the landlord’s surveyor and another member of staff, returned to the property with an electrician and a carpenter to further investigate. Attendance at the property found no evidence of a noxious smell. The electrician did a complete overhaul and clean of all the extractor fans in the property. The carpenter removed kitchen unit plinths to inspect “lower services” and points of access.  These further investigations were reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord was meeting its obligations to assess the property for risks and hazards as required by the Housing Act 2004.
  8. At the same appointment the landlord’s staff approached the resident above and gained access to his flat which was appropriate. It completed an inspection of the premises, including storage cupboards and found no evidence of drug manufacturing and found no property or service faults that could be impacting the residents property. The landlords neighbourhood services team also liaised with the police regarding the allegations of drug manufacturing and dealing, the police also made their own enquiries but found no evidence to support the allegations.
  9. The landlord committed to investigating any further reports of anti-social behaviour from the neighbour above, but without any evidence to substantiate the residents complaint and no further reports made, it was not un-reasonable that no further action was taken by the landlord.
  10. However it is noted that the job order for the electricians attendance that day, stated that this visit was to “overhaul all fans and possible PIV unit”. Positive input ventilation (PIV) units are often considered when condensation problems are present. They replace stale, moist air inside a home with fresh, filtered air. As the resident did not have a PIV to overhaul, this order indicates that the landlord was looking to install one. There was however no further mention of this following this inspection which was not reasonable. If a PIV was a possible solution and had been ruled out, an explanation should have been provided to the resident to explain why this was considered but not progressed.
  11. Furthermore, post ICP information, has determined that following a further surveyors inspection, a contractor specialising in PIV units was called in to assist in April 2024. A PIV unit was recommended, even though no damp or mould was identified, which indicates this was to assist with the smell. As a solution to the problem, it is not reasonable that it was not progressed a year earlier, especially as the resident has been too frightened for her health, to return to the property for the past year. This is considered to be a service failure by the landlord.
  12. It was evident the landlord did also consider testing the residue, but it did not have a procured contractor that could complete this analysis. It did consider specialist testing, but took the decision that without evidence available of a direct correlation between the resident symptoms and the property, it was not appropriate. A social landlord is required to make the most effective use of its limited resources for the benefit of all its residents, as such it was within its rights to make this decision.
  13. Before closing the residents complaint, the landlord did approach the local environmental health team (EHT) for advice. This was reasonable and what the Ombudsman would expect from the landlord, as EHT are the experts in pollutants and hazards.
  14. The EHT explained the difficulty in diagnosing issues such as this, they said that although they do test in some scenarios, ideally, they need to know what they are testing for and in the residents case this was unknown. On an overview of the actions the landlord had taken, the EHT agreed it had responded appropriately and could not suggest anything further they could explore. It agreed to provide further assistance should anything more conclusive be provided from the resident.
  15. In conclusion at the time the landlords ICP was completed, it is the Ombudsman view that, overall the landlord had responded appropriately, in complying with its policies and in accordance with its legislative repairing obligations. It was however a service failing that a PIV unit, was not progressed earlier, but it is noted this has since been approved.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlords handling of the residents reports of toxic smells and gases in her property.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
    1. Apologises to the resident for not progressing a PIV unit sooner.
    2. The landlord contacts the resident, if the issues are still ongoing, to consider what else it could do to alleviate the problem, which should include liaison with EHT and consideration of fitting the PIV if not already fitted. Provide details of the outcome to this service.
    3. Contact the resident, and investigate the resident’s concerns regarding a nearby tree and its roots which may have caused damage to the pipes under the property.
    4. Pays the resident the sum of £100 compensation in addition to the £30 it previously offered the resident for complaint handling failure (total £130) for the delay in progressing the PIV unit.