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 (202327207)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327207

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 the landlord’s handling of reports that the resident’s windows had not been cleaned for 2 years.

Background

  1. The resident was the assured tenant of the property from 2016 to 18 August 2024. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a flat within a converted cotton mill.
  2. The landlord contracts a window cleaning company to clean all exterior windows of the building, including the property. The window cleans occur every 3 months. During his tenancy the resident paid a service charge, including £1.33 per week for window cleaning.
  3. In June 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that his windows had not been cleaned. The landlord visited the resident in August 2023, along with the contractor, to inspect the windows. It found there was some residue on the window and informed the resident particular attention would be paid to it at the next scheduled clean in October 2023.
  4. The resident complained on 27 September 2023 and requested a refund of his service charge for the past 2 years, as he did not believe his windows had been cleaned in that time. In its stage 1 response of 4 October 2023 the landlord provided evidence that the windows had been cleaned as scheduled and offered the resident £25 as a gesture of goodwill.
  5. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 1 November 2023 and the landlord responded on 8 November 2023. It maintained its position that the windows had been cleaned.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to us as he is seeking reimbursement of his service charge for window cleaning for the past 2 years.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s June 2023 report was correctly passed to the caretaking team, which inspected the property on 29 August 2023. There has been no evidence of communication between June and August 2023 provided to us, so we cannot assess how quickly the landlord responded to this. However the fact the landlord visited the property, along with the contractor, was positive action to inspect the resident’s windows and gather facts.
  2. At the visit, the landlord noted there was greasy residue on the window, which appeared consistent with something like food being thrown at it. The contractor explained to the resident that, due to methods used to clean the windows because of the building type, it is difficult to apply a lot of pressure. Also, if the grease was present at the last window clean, it may not have been visible to the operative. The contractor committed to paying particular attention to the affected windows on the next cleaning date in October 2023. This was a fair and proportionate response, with an agreed action plan.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to deal with the issue as an enquiry/service request outside of its complaints process at this stage. The action it took with the home visit was appropriate and addressed the resident’s report. It was compliant with its complaint policy which states the landlord will try to resolve first expressions of dissatisfaction quickly and informally outside of the complaints process.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 27 September 2023 about the same issue. Internal communication showed the landlord’s complaint team querying who had dealt with the resident so far. The member of staff who had visited the property gave an update from their visit in August 2023, with the plan that had been agreed. The same staff member visited the resident again on 27 September 2023 to see what had prompted his most recent contact. This was appropriate and responsive, giving the resident the opportunity to voice his concerns and have face to face contact with the landlord. The resident said he wanted a refund of 2 years service charges for window cleaning, as he did not believe the windows had been cleaned during that time.
  5. As the resident had now formally complained and asked for a resolution beyond the normal cleaning service, the landlord correctly acknowledged his complaint on 29 September 2023 and sent him a copy of its complaint policy. It then issued its stage 1 response on 4 October 2023, within its 10 working day target. In this the landlord said it had liaised with relevant staff and reviewed internal records. It explained that, due to complications with accessing the windows, the contractor is required to access the roof area to secure equipment. This means a permit has to be issued by the landlord for each visit, which provides an accurate record of the dates of each visit. The landlord was satisfied the contractor had visited as agreed and found no evidence to support the resident’s claim that his windows had not been cleaned for 2 years. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude this based on its records.
  6. In its response, the landlord outlined the findings from the home visit in August 2023 and reiterated that the contractor would pay particular attention to the resident’s windows in its next scheduled visit on 16 October 2023. The landlord asked to be informed if the resident did not see an improvement after this. It offered a goodwill payment of £25 for inconvenience. This was reasonable and appropriate given the landlord had said it would address the issue by focusing on the next window clean and the time had not yet passed for it to do this.
  7. On 11 October 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident, who remained unhappy with the window cleaning service. He declined the offer of the £25 goodwill payment and declined his complaint being escalated to stage 2. He said he intended to sue the landlord for the 2 years’ window cleaning payments.
  8. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 1 November 2023, which was appropriate given the resident was not happy with the stage 1 outcome. The senior manager reviewing it contacted the resident to introduce herself and give timescales for a response. Although the resident had not requested a review it was helpful to give him a point of contact and manage his expectations.
  9. The landlord asked the resident on 8 November 2023 whether he was happy with the window cleaning that occurred in October 2023. It was positive for the landlord to follow this up, to ensure it was addressing the issue. The resident said his windows had been cleaned but there was some dirt missed so he remained dissatisfied. The landlord asked for videos of this, which the resident sent. The videos showed some dirt at the top of the panes, different to the marks that had been there previously. It was not possible to state whether this dirt had been missed by the clean or whether it had appeared since.
  10. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it was satisfied from the evidence that it had provided a window cleaning service as scheduled. It accepted the standard of cleaning could have been better but, from the resident’s videos, it was unable to conclude how or when the dirt had appeared. This was a reasonable conclusion. The landlord correctly stated it could only act when informed of an issue and it did so following the resident’s report in June 2023. Following the scheduled visit in October 2023, the resident confirmed his windows had been cleaned.
  11. Regarding the dirt visible on the video, the landlord noted there had been particularly bad weather and there should be reasonable allowance for this between cleans. It was satisfied the dirt should be removed at the next scheduled clean. This was a fair assessment as it is not realistic for external windows to remain spotless between 3 monthly cleans. The landlord believed the £25 good will payment offered at stage 1 was appropriate given the resident had paid £1.33 per week for window cleaning since he reported the issue in June 2023. This was a fair and reasonable resolution given the evidence and circumstances.
  12. There was no evidence to support the resident’s complaint that his windows had not been cleaned. The landlord took reasonable steps and evidenced the window cleaning took place. There was, therefore, no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that his windows had not been cleaned for 2 years.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled reports that the resident’s windows had not been cleaned for 2 years.