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

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202400224)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400224

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

16 January 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 response to the resident’s rehousing application.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom first floor flat in a low-rise block that is owned and managed by a housing association landlord. The property was let under an assured tenancy agreement in October 2016. The landlord records that the resident and her family, consisting of her and her partner and their 2 children, have multiple health conditions.
  2. The resident submitted a rehousing application to the landlord on 11 June 2021. The landlord’s response to her rehousing application were the issues regarding which she made a formal complaint to the landlord. She submitted a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 12 February 2024, in which she said:
    1. a named staff member had visited the property in October 2022 following the provision of medical evidence about the family’s disabilities and needs;
    2. the landlord had not attended an online meeting with her son’s school, following its request to arrange this and the school’s invitation to it to attend;
    3. she had provided further medical information about her daughter’s medical diagnosis and her son’s needs;
    4. she had done everything the landlord had asked her to do since she had been awarded priority band 1 in October 2022. This included bidding on suitable available accommodation weekly and applying for accommodation to 10 other housing associations;
    5. a named staff member had not done anything to help during the preceding 15 months, despite making it clear that the property was not suitable for her children’s needs;
    6. the level of service from the landlord had been disgusting and it had a duty of care for all of its residents, especially those with disabilities where properties were not suitable;
    7. she had received the same generic response that there were not enough properties available when the landlord responded to the resident’s circumstances;
    8. she had arranged 2 online meetings with her son’s school following the advice from the landlord, but the landlord did not attend these with their other professionals, who attended to discuss the needs of the family;
    9. the property she lived in was no longer habitable for her family’s needs, and the landlord had stated 15 months previously that the property was not suitable, but that she was still living in the property;
    10. she had looked into adaptations, but these would not work on the property in light of her and her household’s disabilities;
    11. she required a 3-bedroom property, and she did not believe that the landlord had taken seriously the medical evidence the professionals supporting the family had provided.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 19 February 2024, and it sent a stage 1 response to her on 4 March 2024 in which it said:
    1. it would be unable to investigate the resident’s comments about matters that had taken place over 6 months previously, as it could only investigate incidents that took place within the most recent 6 months;
    2. it had assessed the resident’s medical needs and awarded her with the highest priority band 1 on 6 October 2022;
    3. following a meeting held on an undisclosed date in September 2022, it received letters of support for a move based upon medical grounds;
    4. it was not uncommon for households to grow, but it would allocate one bedroom to 2 children of either gender up to the age of 10, and one bedroom to children of the same gender up to the age of 16;
    5. it was not uncommon for a residents physical or medical needs to change over time, and the family had been assessed and the rehousing banding priority was increased to band 1;
    6. it was sorry that she had not been successful in securing an alternative property where there was high demand for family homes;
    7. it had over 1500 applicants in band 1 and received over 400 bids on each available family home using a choice based lettings scheme;
    8. it could not provide a timescale for when the resident may receive an offer, but it advised her to continue to bid weekly;
    9. its previous responses had always answered her enquiries where definite answers were possible, but sometimes it had to provide generic responses;
    10. she could approach a named advice organisation for support, as well as other housing providers in the area by following an internet link it provided;
    11. it had not found any service failings in its handling of the rehousing application and therefore it did not uphold the complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 4 March 2024. She said:
    1. she did not agree that the complaint investigation should be limited to the most recent 6month period;
    2. the stage 1 response did not address her concerns that the landlord had not attended meetings with other agencies, and it had missed the opportunity to hear about the impact of the housing situation on the family;
    3. she had been in band 1 since October 2022, and she was concerned that the landlord had not appropriately reviewed the medical evidence she had provided, which confirmed that the children required separate rooms;
    4. she did not think the complaint had been fully considered because it had referred her to the local authority for further information, despite her confirmation that she had already contacted them. Additionally, because it had not referenced the resident’s referral to the Ombudsman for advice;
    5. she considered that she did not have a safe and habitable home, as her children were having accidents when using the stairs to the property.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 2 acknowledgement letter to the resident on 4 March 2024, and it sent a stage 2 response to her on 3 April 2024. It said:
    1. it wished to apologise that its letter acknowledging the stage 2 complaint had contained an error relating to the date the response was due;
    2. it was sorry to read that the resident did not consider her present home to be safe or habitable for her family, and that her children had frequent accidents when using the stairs;
    3. it had revised its policy since the stage 1 complaint and extended the investigation time period for complaint investigations to 12 months. It had used its discretion to consider information going back to 6 October 2022, when the application was awarded band 1 priority;
    4. the resident shared a 2-bedroom first floor flat with her partner, an 8 year old son, and a 5 year old daughter. Its allocation policy and housing legislation assumed that 2 children under the age of 10 were able to share a bedroom without it being overcrowded;
    5. it had noted that the tenancy agreement stated that the permitted number of occupants was 3. However, it counted children aged under 9 as “half a person” in its calculation;
    6. it had been unable to locate a record of a member of the landlord’s staff requesting a meeting with the resident’s son’s school. If it had required additional information or a discussion with the school or another agency, it would usually seek the resident’s consent to approach the agency itself;
    7. it had received evidence from a number of professionals working with the family in support of a move. Furthermore, it had taken into consideration the information despite being unable to attend the above meeting;
    8. it had increased the resident’s rehousing priority to band 1 due to the household’s medical conditions, which was the likely outcome if it had attended the meeting;
    9. it acknowledged a preference for the children to have separate bedrooms, and it had registered the transfer application to reflect this. It considered this to be a reasonable adjustment that recognised the family’s needs;
    10. it summarised its obligation to offer a proportion of its empty properties to the local authority, and the high demand it had on available property;
    11. it was required to take other families’ needs into account to ensure all applications were treated fairly. Awarding additional preference to the resident’s application would disadvantage others in similar circumstances;
    12. it summarised the number of 3-bed properties it had available, as well as the number of bids the resident had made since being awarded band 1 priority;
    13. it encouraged the resident to continue bidding for properties and to consider widening her areas of choice or making applications to other landlords;
    14. it could not confirm when a bid would be successful, but that her application was being considered fairly and in accordance with its allocation policy;
    15. it referred the resident to mutual exchange as an alternative rehousing option, and it shared a link to an external matching website;
    16. it had managed the rehousing application fairly and therefore there was no failing on behalf of the landlord. It could not offer any additional priority to the application or make an offer outside of its allocation policy.
  6. The resident requested the Ombudsman investigate the complaint on 3 April 2024. She explained that she wanted the landlord to put the matter right by providing the family with a bigger property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In an email the resident sent the landlord on 21 March 2024, she said that her children were being caused physical injury, which had a detrimental effect on their mental health, due to the location of her upstairs property. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s reports about how the above matters have affected her household. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude whether damages to health from this were caused by the landlord’s actions or omissions that it was liable for, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might.
  2. Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are best placed to deal with this as a personal injury claim. They will have the benefit of an independent medical expert that will set out the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. For this reason, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy to this via the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she should seek independent legal advice. We have instead considered whether the landlord’s actions or inactions likely caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that, in an email dated 21 March 2024, the resident has alleged that the landlord “discriminated” against her and her family, due to their disabilities and its failure to take the medical evidence she had provided as seriously as it should have. We cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal determination which only a court can decide. It is not clear if the resident has contacted the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) about this. The EASS are the appropriate body to assist in dealing with allegations of discrimination. This investigation will instead look at whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded in a reasonable and competent manner in relation to the resident’s rehousing application and formal complaint about this.

 

 

Rehousing application

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy sets out that applicants can access alternative accommodation via its own rehousing waiting list and the allocations scheme of the local authority, where it has available housing stock. It explains that it uses a banding framework, whereby it assesses applications into one of 3 priority bands based upon their needs and housing circumstances. It sets out that up to 50% of the available empty properties in the areas in which it operates will go through its rehousing allocations scheme.
  2. In responding to the resident’s rehousing application the landlord:
    1. requested supporting medical information on 17 June 2021 to support the resident’s statement of 11 June 2021 that the property was not suitable, and the children required their own bedrooms. It requested this information from the resident within 6 calendar days of the rehousing application being submitted in keeping with its allocation policy, which says it would assess an applicant’s housing needs at the point of registration. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to have taken;
    2. assessed the medical evidence the resident provided on 30 June 2021 and registered the rehousing application in priority band 3 on 12 July 2021, noting that the resident could bid for 3-bedroom properties. It notified the resident of this on the same day. The landlord’s allocation procedure says that it would usually allow children under the age of 10 to share a single bedroom. However, its recognition that the family would benefit from separate bedrooms in response to the medical conditions of the children was appropriate under the circumstances. Furthermore, this was a reasonable adjustment for it to make to respond to the resident’s needs and circumstances, in accordance with its obligations to do so under the Equality Act 2010;
    3. sought to manage the resident’s expectations and understanding about the bidding process. In its emails dated 30 September 2021 and 23 October 2023, it explained its allocation procedures. It set out that it used an allocation system that made offers to applicants that had bid with the highest priority band, and to the rehousing applicant that had been registered the longest. It said that it could not provide a timescale for when an offer would be made because each property received a different number of bids. Furthermore, this was because applicants could be in a different position on each property depending on how many other applicants had placed bids on the advertised property. It also explained that the most popular areas could attract bids from several hundred applicants, and the least popular areas could receive bids from over 100 applicants. The information the landlord provided about its allocation procedures was sufficiently detailed and clear, which was appropriate;
    4. responded to the resident’s various requests for information and updates, as well as her stated concerns about the bidding and allocation procedures within reasonable timescales and usually within 10 working days;
    5. did not attend an online multi-agency ‘early years’ meeting that it had been invited to attend on 12 September 2022. While there was no obligation on the landlord to attend the meeting, this was a missed opportunity for it to have rebuilt the resident’s confidence in its housing services. Notwithstanding this, the landlord apologised to the resident for not attending the meeting in an email it sent to her on 6 October 2022. The landlord’s recognition that it should have represented the resident’s needs at the meeting was reasonable under the circumstances;
    6. attended the resident’s property on 6 October 2022 to discuss the resident’s rehousing options. Additionally, it reassessed the resident’s rehousing band on the same day upon receipt of further supporting medical evidence about the welfare of the family following the multi-agency meeting. It awarded the application the highest priority band 1 in keeping with its allocation policy. Its policy says it would award band 1 in circumstances where the accommodation contributes to a serious threat to the wellbeing of a child, and the risk is so critical that a move is the only reasonable option to safeguard the child. This was appropriate under the circumstances and further evidences that the landlord had due regard to its obligations to respond to the disability and medical needs of the family, in keeping with Equality Act 2010 legislation.
  3. The landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s rehousing application in its complaint responses of 4 March 2024 and 3 April 2024, in which it clarified the steps it had taken to register the application and review medical evidence of the family’s medical needs and disabilities. It clearly explained its allocation procedures along with information about the bids that the resident had placed, and the availability of suitable accommodation. The landlord apologised that the resident had not yet been successful in bidding for a property. It said that it managed the rehousing application fairly and it did not uphold the complaint.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident’s housing circumstances are challenging and understands the distress caused to the family on a daily basis. However, the landlord was challenged with meeting the medical needs of the family by the limited amount of available suitable accommodation it had available to let. Additionally, it was challenged by managing the expectations of the family, who are understandably desperate to move, along with a number of other families who have a similar or comparable rehousing need. It is evident that the landlord has appropriately assessed the household’s medical needs and eligibility for a move within the framework of its allocation policy.
  5. Furthermore, the landlord has taken steps to provide information about its allocations scheme to the resident, and it explained how, in some situations, it is unable to provide more than generic responses. Such as in response to questions asked about the expected waiting time for a bid to successfully lead to an offer of accommodation, or when suitable properties might become available. The Ombudsman cannot see how the landlord can locate and offer suitable alternative accommodation under its allocations scheme without unfairly disregarding the needs of other families waiting for alternative accommodation. The landlord’s explanation of this in its complaint responses was reasonable and, while this may be frustrating, this was accurate.
  6. The landlord operates a management move procedure, which is in place to address rehousing applicants that fall into one of 5 different categories, which it assesses on the merits and circumstances of an applicant. It is evident that the landlord can consider cases that pose an extreme urgent medical or welfare need, such as cases awaiting a hospital discharge where their property is not suitable. The landlord would not be expected to consider every band 1 rehousing application under this procedure.
  7. However, if the resident had submitted a request to be for a management move, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the merits of the resident’s application. Notwithstanding this, it is unclear to what extent the landlord would have assessed the needs of the resident’s family as having met the urgent medical or welfare criteria under the management move procedure. This is because the examples listed in the procedure as meeting the only criteria management moves should be offered for described different circumstances to the resident’s. Taking all matters into account, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing application.
  8. Since the landlord’s final complaint response the resident has submitted a request for the landlord to consider her rehousing application under the management move procedure. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not ordered the landlord to do so. 

Complaint handling

  1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
    1. did not issue its response to the resident’s complaint of 12 February 2024 until 4 March 2024 which was 5 working days later that the landlord’s 10-working-day complaint policy target timescale;
    2. did not inform the resident that there would be a delay in providing a response to her complaint, in keeping with paragraph 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of this complaint;
    3. issued a stage 2 acknowledgement letter on which it incorrectly said the complaint response would be provided by 29 March 2024, instead of 3 April 2024, taking into account the bank holidays;
    4. did not notify the resident of the correct response due date until after she had chased the landlord for the response on the stage 2 response date it had said was due on 29 March 2024. The additional time and trouble the resident incurred pursuing the response could have been avoided.
  2. When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it had provided. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider the impact of its complaint handling delays and recognise that they had caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident.
  3. An award of £50 has therefore been ordered below. This level of compensation is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for instances when, as here, there have been minor failings by the landlord, which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident, but caused her to incur time, trouble, and delays in pursuing a response to her concerns. Additionally, we have ordered it to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s rehousing application.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its complaint handling failings.
    2. Pay the resident £50 for any time and trouble that may have been caused to her by its complaint handling failures.