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

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202324511)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324511

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

4 April 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 about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and a request to replace the wet room.
    2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy which started on 16 July 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a low-rise block. The property has a wet room with a level access shower. The resident has a young child living with her.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 14 July 2023. She explained that there were multiple issues with her wet room. This included a “poor” layout, damp and mould, and a hole around the stop tap which she said was allowing insects inside. She said the wet room was of “poor quality” and it flooded when in use. The resident said this caused damage to her carpet and skirting boards. She also said this caused her concerns about the health of the household. The resident explained that an inspection had been carried out by the landlord that day. However, she was unhappy with the findings. She said she felt the recommended repairs would not resolve the issues and instead wanted the landlord to replace the wet room. She added she would not have accepted the property if she knew of these issues at the time.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 18 September 2023. It explained that it had completed a second inspection because she disagreed with its initial findings in July 2023. Its inspection in September 2023 found the wet room was in “good order”. However, it noted repairs were required to the flooring and skirting board. It said any works would be “like-for-like” and not to convert the wet room to a bathroom. It said it had also explained this to her on 4 September 2023 while discussing the complaint. It listed the works required to resolve the wet room issues. It also acknowledged its delayed complaint response and offered her £50 compensation for this.
  4. On 18 September 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She said she was “disgusted and astounded” that it had found the wet room to be in good order. She said she felt the repairs would not resolve the issue with the damp and mould and the insects. She added that she would not allow it to install an extractor fan in the bathroom for a fear of a possible electrical fire. She wanted it to resolve the problem fully.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 12 October 2023. It explained the findings of 3 inspections completed between December 2022 and September 2023. It said it did not find the wet room in a “disgraceful state of repair” as she had reported. It said it based this decision on the inspection findings and photos of the wet room. It explained that the design of the extractor fans meant they are safe to be in wet rooms. It said it needed to install the fan to remove moisture in the wet room. It explained it could not remove a functional wet room to install a bath. However, it said it would not unreasonably withhold permission for any alterations that she wanted to make herself.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s decision to not replace the wet room. She also felt the recommended repairs would not resolve the damp and mould issues. The complaint became one we could investigate on 26 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould could have impacted their health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.
  2. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience issues with the wet room and damp and mould. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any new issues before our involvement. The resident has raised a new complaint to address these issues.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould and a request to replace the wet room.

  1. The resident reported damp and mould in the property in November 2022. The landlord inspected the property on 20 December 2022. It found the damp and mould occurred due to condensation. It recommended installing extractor fans in the property, including in the wet room.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy explained that where damp occurs due to condensation, it will take steps to address this. This includes installing ventilation where needed. Its response was therefore reasonable and in line with its policy. However, it was unable to install the fan in the wet room because of a lack of access for the appointments.
  3. On 5 May 2023, the resident reported that the water did not drain away after showering. On 25 May 2023, the landlord cleared the drain outlet and gully. The landlord’s responsive repairs procedure considered “partially blocked drains and toilets” as urgent repairs. It therefore should have completed this repair within 5 working days. However, it took a total of 13 working days to do so. It is a failing that the landlord did not follow its procedure to resolve the issue sooner. It is unknown why the landlord did not attend sooner. However, by not doing so, it understandably caused the resident inconvenience by having to manage the issues herself during this time.
  4. The resident reported further issues with water pooling behind the toilet on 8 June 2023. She felt the flooring did not slope effectively for water to reach the drain in the wet room. It took the landlord 4 working days to inspect this on 14 June 2023. It identified further works needed to assess whether to raise the floor or install shower doors around the shower area.
  5. The landlord raised works on 16 June 2023 to take measurements before installing new shower doors. However, it later could not complete this as the resident did not provide access to the property.
  6. On 10 July 2023, the landlord raised works to inspect the wet room and the damp and mould reported by the resident. It did so on 14 July 2023. This was appropriate to investigate and try to resolve the issues the resident experienced. The landlord’s damp and mould policy explained that it will diagnose and resolve damp and mould in a “timely and effective way”. By inspecting the damp and mould reports within 4 working days, it is evident it acted promptly in line with its policy.
  7. The landlord’s inspection identified works required to the wet room. This included new flooring, renew the boxing in behind the toilet, replace the bathroom door, and install shower doors. The proposed repairs addressed both the damp and mould and the insect problem. However, the resident made her complaint on the same day as the inspection. She said she felt the repairs would not resolve the issues.
  8. On 26 July 2023, the landlord called the resident about her complaint. Its call notes show the resident asked for it to replace the wet room entirely, and to install a bath. It also noted that she had put the current repairs “on hold” due to this. The notes show that it explained the difference between its repair obligations and an improvement. This was appropriate and good practice to help manage the resident’s expectations of what it could do.
  9. Within internal emails, the landlord confirmed that it would only replace the wet room if needed. It arranged to complete a second inspection of the wet room given the resident’s concerns about its initial findings. It explained this to the resident on 22 August 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a second inspection. By doing so, it showed it took her concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for her. It also showed that it considered the impact to the health of the household, as she had noted in her complaint.
  10. On 23 August 2023, the landlord arranged the second wet room inspection for 4 September 2023. However, this did not go ahead as the resident was unwell. It rearranged this for 20 September 2023. It also completed an inspection to other parts of the property on 15 September 2023. At both inspections, it found the works proposed would resolve the damp and mould issues. It confirmed that it did not need to replace the wet room.
  11. The resident raised concerns about the safety and suitability of the repairs proposed. The landlord acted appropriately to explain that the extractor fans are safe within wet rooms and around water. Its offer to install shower doors around the shower was also appropriate. This may have helped to ease her concerns about the spread of water too.
  12. The landlord’s damp and mould policy explained that it will communicate clearly about any actions to resolve such issues. Throughout the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the landlord explained its findings and the repairs it needed to complete. It therefore acted in line with its policy in doing so.
  13. The resident was unhappy that the landlord repeatedly told her she had accepted the property with a wet room. She said she would not have accepted the property if she knew of the issues with the wet room. The landlord explained its position that it would complete any necessary repairs “like-for-like” rather than replacing the bathroom. Its position was reasonable and in line with its responsive repair’s procedure. This explains it will retain and maintain any “non-removable” adaptations. This would reasonably include wet rooms.
  14. In line with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to repair and maintain the property. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to advise it would complete repairs to the wet room, as required. We understand the resident was unhappy with this. However, there is no obligation on the landlord to replace this with a bathroom. The landlord also explained it would not unreasonably withhold permissions for her to make alterations to the bathroom herself. While this was not the resident’s preferred outcome, it was good practice for it to offer this solution too.
  15. The resident’s reasons for declining to provide access are noted. However, in line with the tenancy agreement, the resident must allow access to the property, with reasonable notice, as and when required. This includes access for inspections, repairs and maintenance. However, based on the evidence provided, the landlord acted reasonably to try to address her concerns.
  16. Overall, the landlord took positive action to address the resident’s concerns. It inspected the wet room and proposed repairs which it believed would resolve the damp and mould. As the landlord could not gain access to the property, it was unable to carry out the required works in a timely manner. Therefore, we cannot find the landlord at fault for all the delays that occurred in completing the repairs.
  17. However, we have found service failure for the landlord’s response to the reports of the drainage issues in the wet room in May 2023. Its response at the time was not in line with its repair timescales. The delay in completing the repair also understandably caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident. As such, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation. This is an appropriate award in line with our remedies guidance. This is for minor failures which did not have a significant impact on the overall outcome for the resident.
  18. We understand that the landlord completed repairs after its final complaint response. The resident has told us that she is currently experiencing further damp and mould issues within the property. We recommend the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the ongoing issues related to damp and mould.

The associated complaint handling.

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days. It must provide its response within a further 10 working days. Landlords must also respond to escalation requests at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with the Code.
  2. The resident made her complaint on 14 July 2023. The landlord contacted her about the complaint on 26 July 2023. It apologised for the delay in investigating her complaint and explained this was due to a backlog of complaints. Following this, the resident asked for updates on 3 occasions between 2 August 2023 and 18 August 2023. On 22 August 2023, the landlord contacted her to explain again about the delay caused by its backlog of complaints.
  3. It was appropriate for the landlord to update the resident about the delay in considering her complaint. However, it should have agreed a date of when to expect its response. There is no evidence that it provided her with such a date. Therefore, it did not act in line with its policy or the Code.
  4. On 1 September 2023, the landlord apologised again for the delay in investigating the resident’s complaint. On 4 September 2023, it formally acknowledged her complaint. It said it would provide its response within a further 10 working days, which it later did.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 18 September 2023. It therefore took 46 working days for the landlord to respond to the complaint. This was a further 31 working days beyond the period set out in the Code and its policy. By not responding sooner, it understandably caused the resident time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates. This was a failing.
  6. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged it had not acted in line with its policy. It offered the resident £50 compensation to address its delayed response. The landlord’s offer was in line with our remedies guidance. The offer was an appropriate award for a failing which had no long-term or adverse impact on the resident.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the following day. It then provided its stage 2 response on 12 October 2023. It took the landlord 18 working days to respond, which was in line with its policy and the Code. This was appropriate.
  8. Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with its policy and the Code in responding to the stage 1 complaint. However, the landlord acknowledged this and made an offer of compensation which was proportionate to the failing identified. We therefore have found the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould and a request to replace the wet room.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress that satisfactorily puts right the complaint handling failures in this case.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, we order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation. It should pay this directly to the resident and not her rent account. This is for its response to reports of damp and mould and a request to replace the wet room.
  2. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance with the order within the period set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident £50 as previously offered for its complaint handling, if it has not already done so. This is because we found reasonable redress on the basis that it paid this.
  2. We recommend the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the ongoing issues related to damp and mould.