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 (202420615)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202420615

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

14 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s response to her reports regarding damp and mould in her property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived at the property, described as a 2-bedroom, mid-terrace house, since 2020. 
  2. The landlord has advised it is unaware of any vulnerabilities affecting the resident’s household. However, it noted the resident had reported her children had developed breathing issues due to the reported damp.
  3. On 29 January 2024 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. In her email she said:
    1. She had rung “several times…regarding mould/damp/condensation” in her home. Surveyors had been out to the property, but she was “sick” of being told there was no mould in the property, “just condensation”.
    2. She said she was not prepared to live in those conditions any more and had 2 children who had been hospitalised with chest issues.
    3. Her belongings had been damaged by mould and had not been replaced. She had had “no help” from the landlord regarding this.
    4. Her living room wall was “drenched” and the new flooring that had been laid was “wet and damp against (an) exterior wall”. She also said the side of her house that backed on to an alleyway got “waterlogged” and saturated the brickwork. She believed this was the cause of the damp issues.
    5. While a window was soon to be replaced, she still had issues with damp and was having to wipe down mould every 2 days with bleach. This was not convenient with a baby in the room and every morning she had to “wipe down every window in the house due to masses of condensation”.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2024. It understood the complaint to be about its “handling of the repairs to resolve the damp and mould” in her property and that, to resolve the complaint, the resident wanted the damp and mould issue solved. It said that under its complaints policy, it would usually only look at events which took place in the 6 months prior to the complaint. However, in this case it would look at the repairs history from February 2023 “in order to better appreciate the background” to the complaint. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. It summarised its responses to the resident’s repair reports between 7 February 2023 and 16 January 2024. It said 3 different surveyors had carried out 5 damp and mould inspections.
    2. In 4 of the 5 inspections, the surveyor determined that there was no damp present in the property and any mould was caused by condensation. On more than one occasion, the resident was provided with the landlord’s Damp and Condensation advice leaflet to help her “manage condensation”.
    3. On the other inspection, carried out in July 2023 following the resident’s reports of “black mould…present behind (her) kitchen units”, the landlord identified “affected areas in the kitchen had breached the existing damp proof course (DPC)”. It recommended “remedial damp repairs”, which included the injection of chemical DPC “to the full kitchen, plastering (and) renew backs in all the kitchen units”. It also recommended a refit of the whole kitchen. Records indicate works were completed in August 2023 and the kitchen flooring was also renewed in September 2023.
    4. When the resident reported that damp and mould had returned to her kitchen, the landlord carried out a further inspection. The surveyor advised the DPC had only just been injected and “the adhesive (was) still drying out”. It said the contractor had also been back out to the property to provide similar advice. It also raised works to fix a radiator leak and patch an area of plastering in the resident’s lounge.
    5. Other repairs it raised included for a new bedroom window in November 2023 after the resident reported it let in a draft and there was a gap, and fitting a new bathroom extractor fan unit in January 2024 after the resident had reported it was not working.
    6. The landlord said the resident should follow the advice in its Damp and Condensation leaflet, such as avoiding drying her clothes on radiators and using adequate heating and this would “prevent condensation and mould”. It said that having reviewed its responses to the resident’s reports, it had not identified any service failure. It did not uphold the complaint.
  5. The resident responded a day later to say she remained dissatisfied. She said her furniture was “going furry” due to damp and her blinds had been ruined. She was not prepared to continue living in such conditions with 2 children.
  6. On 7 March 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It said it had “considered the evidence” it used to provide its stage 1 response and “further reviewed the repair records” for her property. It considered it had carried out an inspection “each time (she had) reported concerns with damp and mould” and “any works deemed required have been completed”. It noted the inspecting surveyors had determined that any mould growth was “condensation led and no further works are required at this time”. It said she had been issued with advice on managing condensation in the home but acknowledged “it can be difficult to balance adequate levels of heating and ventilation”. It provided links to its own energy advice and damp and mould advice web pages and said its complaint process had now been concluded.
  7. Since the conclusion of the complaint procedure, the landlord has advised the resident made further reports regarding damp and mould. It said it had attended “following each report” but still concluded that the mould was “condensation led”. It advised the following repairs had been completed:
    1. A new mechanical extractor fan was installed in the kitchen in October 2024.
    2. A mould wash was applied to newly plastered walls in November 2024.
    3. Following an inspection carried out on 6 December 2024 (when mould was again deemed to be condensation led) the gable end kitchen wall was opened up and an area of cold bridging was identified. It said this was cleared; debris was removed, and an air brick was removed.
    4. It also identified the kitchen sink waste pipe was misaligned into the drain, which meant “water was running behind where there was missing mortar”. It said mortar was applied to missing joints, spoilt bricks were replaced, and the waste pipe was fixed so it ran into the drain correctly. The resident was again provided with advice and a Damp and Condensation leaflet.
    5. In January 2025, further investigation of the walls behind the kitchen units was carried out, and the units renewed. A further job had been raised for February 2025 to inspect the brickwork inside the alleyway and “investigate the cavity”, as well as checking “the drain under the paving at the front”.
    6. It had considered installing a passive air vent in the resident’s lounge but believed this would not help as it would make the house cooler and “an imbalance between heating and ventilation” had already been identified.
    7. Following input from its Healthy Homes Team, it had gifted the resident a dehumidifier and 2 hygrometers “to assist with reducing the moisture levels within her home”.
  8. The landlord advised this Service that, as of February 2025, there were “no damp related repairs outstanding” and no further repairs were outstanding.
  9. In an update provided just prior to this determination, the resident advised the damp and mould had “eased off” but noted the recent dry weather. A wall in her living room had not been “wet” since the dehumidifiers were provided. She said that works remained outstanding in her kitchen, as units had not been re-sealed following their removal during an inspection in January 2025.

Scope of investigation

  1. We note that, in her complaint and correspondence, the resident has repeatedly raised concerns about the effect the reported damp and mould may have had on her young children. In particular, she has advised they have both been hospitalised with chest issues. While the obvious distress this has caused is acknowledged, we are not able to consider this aspect of the complaint. This is because the courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury or illness. Independent medical experts can be appointed to give evidence and indicate whether there is any causal link between a landlord’s action or inaction, and any reported health concerns.
  2. We can, however, consider any distress or inconvenience that was caused because of any inaction or failings by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

  1. In its complaint responses to the resident, the landlord considered it had responded reasonably to her reports of damp and mould. From the information we have seen, the landlord’s repair records are clear and comprehensive. They provide a good picture of the repair history, the reports it received and how it responded on each occasion. Records show it attended in a timely manner and carried out regular surveys of the property when the resident raised concerns about damp and mould. This aspect of the landlord’s response was reasonable. It demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously.
  2. On 4 of the 5 inspections carried out between February 2023 and January 2024, the landlord’s surveyors (it was not the same surveyor attending each time) determined the mould was “condensation led” and there was no damp present in the property. Records show the walls were tested and humidity readings were taken in the property. Although it said no further action was necessary following some of the inspections, and provided advice on how to manage condensation, when repairs were identified as necessary – including injecting a new DPC, renewing the kitchen and replacing a window – these were raised promptly and completed them within reasonable timeframes.
  3. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its surveyors regarding the cause of the damp and mould and it is noted that they were consistent in their findings across the period this investigation has looked at. However, in its complaint responses, the landlord maintained the damp and mould in the resident’s home was caused by condensation. This is despite the fact it had identified structural issues and ordered “remedial damp repairs” after its July 2023 inspection, which it referred to within its complaint responses. That these works were significant – including a refit of the whole kitchen after the DPC had been breached – casts doubt on the landlord’s assertion that, up to that point, the damp and mould had always been “condensation led”. The landlord’s own evidence indicates other causes may have contributed to the damp and mould (at least prior to July 2023) and it should have recognised this. That it did not do so treated the resident unfairly and would have left her feeling unheard. 
  4. We also note that, after the conclusion of the complaint procedure, the landlord has advised it carried out further inspections of the property, after the resident made further reports regarding damp and mould. It undertook further repairs after identifying cold bridging. However, in its update to this Service it again referred to the mould as being “condensation led”. It did not mention or refer to the possibility that any structural issues – which it had itself identified and tried to remedy – could have been a factor. It is of concern the landlord has consistently determined the cause of the mould was solely down to condensation, despite on at least 2 occasions identifying structural issues within the property which would likely have also contributed.
  5. In the circumstances, having received multiple reports from the resident, even after the DPC and kitchen works were completed, we would expect to see that the landlord had considered whether a full damp and mould survey, possibly carried out by an independent contractor, was appropriate. We have not seen evidence it did so. This represented a missed opportunity for the landlord. It could have either established any additional contributing factors at an earlier stage or otherwise given the resident further reassurance regarding the cause(s) of damp and mould in her home. It would also have better informed its position if an independent survey mirrored the findings of its own surveyors.
  6. However, throughout the case it was positive that the landlord responded to the reports it received in a timely manner. It carried out further repairs when the need was identified. We note the resident contacted this Service in February 2025 to advise damp and mould was still occurring and provided photographic evidence of apparent black mould. Since then, the landlord has advised it provided the resident with a dehumidifier and liaised with its Healthy Home Team. This was positive. It has said the resident reported this had improved the situation, which she confirmed to the Ombudsman. However, it is of concern that the resident has reported her kitchen units have not been re-sealed after they were removed in January 2025, whereas the landlord considers no repairs are outstanding. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to contact the resident and set out its position regarding this repair. If works are required, it should provide a timeframe for completing them.   
  7. It was also positive that the landlord did not use the word “lifestyle”, when referring to the cause of the damp and mould, which was a key recommendation from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (It’s Not Lifestyle, published October 2021). However, the term “condensation led” could be seen as simply replacing the term “lifestyle” and the landlord’s internal correspondence indicates it believes the resident’s actions are causing the issues. In the repair records seen, the landlord’s surveyors and operatives at times recorded that the resident was drying clothes on radiators or using the heating “intermittently” and this made the condensation worse.
  8. While its correspondence was careful not to directly apportion blame on the resident, we would have liked to see the landlord take a more holistic approach. It should have shown greater recognition that her use of the property was not something she could reasonably be expected to change, particularly regarding drying clothes, as she had 2 young children in the home. There is no indication the landlord considered where else she may dry clothes other than indoors, or if she had the means to do so. There were several missed opportunities to work with her at an earlier stage to find solutions and show support that went beyond providing her with the same advice leaflet on several occasions.
  9. Having noted the resident only used the heating sporadically, the landlord did not appear to consider whether heating costs were problematic for the resident until it provided a weblink to an advice page in its stage 2 response. It missed an opportunity to ascertain at an earlier stage whether the resident may have needed support to manage heating costs and heat her home, which its own advice suggested would have alleviated some of the condensation.
  10. The landlord could have given greater consideration as to whether the resident needed any further support to manage the condensation in her home. Additionally, its stage 2 complaint noted the resident had also raised concerns about furniture and blinds being “ruined” by the damp and mould, yet its response failed to address this. Internal correspondence shows it considered the resident would need to make a claim on her own contents insurance – if she had a policy – as it had not found evidence of any repair liability.
  11. It is not clear whether the landlord ever relayed this to the resident. Having noted her concern in its complaint summary, it should have gone on to refer to this. It should have gone further to establish whether the resident had a policy on which she could claim, or otherwise it should have signposted her to its own insurer. That it did not do so meant it did not address all the concerns raised and this did not treat the resident fairly or provide her with a full response.
  12. As noted above, we acknowledge the landlord did respond promptly to the resident’s reports and made efforts to inspect the property whenever it received contact from her. Repairs raised were appropriate and completed in a timely manner. However, due to the failings identified above and missed opportunities to either further investigate or consider the resident’s circumstances, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
  13. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident compensation that reflects this failing and the inconvenience it likely caused. It is also ordered to contact to the resident and discuss her concerns regarding her damaged items in more detail, including making a referral to its insurer if necessary.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports regarding damp and mould in her property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £300 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its response to the damp and mould reports.
    2. Contact the resident to discuss her concerns regarding personal items damaged by damp. It should ascertain whether there is any support it could offer regarding this, or whether it is appropriate to refer the matter to its own insurer if the resident does not have a contents insurance policy.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to set out its position regarding the re-sealing of her kitchen units. If the works remain outstanding, it should provide the resident with a timeframe for when they will be completed.
  2. If the landlord receives any further reports from the resident regarding damp and mould, it should consider arranging a full damp survey of the property, to be carried out by an independent damp surveyor.