Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202431673)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431673

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

26 June 2025

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

2. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

4. The landlord conducted a survey of the property in June 2021. This was following a housing disrepair claim made by the resident, through her solicitors and received by the landlord on 17 February 2021.
5. The survey report dated 29 June 2021 identified various repairs such as a mould wash, repairs to windows, handrail, toilet leak, garden paving stones, roof covering and gutters. The landlord also agreed a schedule of works for the repairs. The landlord said the claim was settled including costs to the resident’s solicitors.
6. The landlord communicated with the resident and her solicitor between April 2022 and February 2023 regarding the scope of works and suitable times to complete the repairs. It noted in its internal records and communications with the resident and her solicitor that it was unable to carry out the repairs due to access issues. The resident’s solicitor advised on 7 February 2023 that it no longer represented her.
7. The landlord attended the property on 30 May 2023 for a pre–arranged appointment with the resident. It said the operatives were unable to start works at that time, as the resident had not cleared items away. It noted the resident’s concerns that she was unable to move any items due to mobility issues.
8. The landlord sent a letter before legal action to the resident dated 28 March 2024 through its solicitors. The letter outlined concerns about the difficulties the landlord had been experiencing with access and that this continued to hinder the repairs that had been agreed. It advised the resident to make contact within 10 working days to avoid legal proceedings for an injunction. It also asked the resident to provide details of her medical condition so it could consider any reasonable adjustments. The letter stated that failing to provide access to the landlord meant the resident was in breach of the tenancy.
9. Following a pre-arranged visit to the property on 10 April 2024 the repairs manager reported that the resident wanted to consult her solicitor before any repairs could be conducted. Subsequently, the landlord wrote to the resident on 15 April 2024 that it would progress legal action and apply for an injunction to ensure access is provided.
10. The resident made a formal complaint on 27 April 2024. She said the landlord’s staff had falsely reported (following their visit on 10 April 2024) she would not allow access for works. On 7 May 2024 the resident said she had sought legal advice and would like to arrange some repairs with the landlord. She said her solicitor would follow up her concerns about damp separately.
11. In its stage 1 response on 4 June 2024 the landlord said:
    1. It did not agree its staff gave false information following their meeting with the resident.
    2. It would proceed with an application for an injunction if the resident did not make contact by 19 June 2024 to arrange an appointment for the repairs.
12. On 6 June 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. In a telephone call to the landlord on 26 June 2024 she said it had breached the ongoing disrepair claim by carrying out repairs to the roof.
13. In its stage 2 response on 2 July 2024 the landlord said:
    1. It had found no evidence of a service failure in its handling of the resident’s repair requests.

Events after the complaints process was exhausted

14. The landlord obtained an injunction order on 27 November 2024 for access to carry out repairs in the property.
15. The landlord wrote a letter before legal action to the resident on 12 March 2025 through its solicitors. It said evidence provided by the resident did not support the need for her and her family to be decanted for planned works.
16. The landlord advised the resident to make contact by 25 March 2025 to agree a date for planned works. It said failure to do so would result in legal action without further notice to enforce the injunction order or recover possession of the property.

Reasons

17. Paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
18. While the landlord commenced legal proceedings to obtain an injunction for access, we have seen from the evidence that the resident made the grounds under which she would allow access known to the courts. This included her request:
    1. To receive notice of appointments by text or mobile number or email.
    2. For contractors attending the property to wear protective shoe coverings whilst inside the property.
    3. For the landlord to consider whether a decant is required whilst any repairs in respect of damp and mould are completed in the property, upon provision of suitable medical evidence.
19. The landlord also made submissions of steps it had taken to try to resolve the repairs in the property. Upon the injunction hearing, the court ordered the resident must allow the landlord and its employees:
    1. Access to the property upon the landlord delivering a written demand for access upon giving at least 24 hours’ notice for the purposes of inspecting and or any remedial works undertaken and or if necessary, any works in default.
    2. Further access for the carrying out of any necessary works to such installations and or appliances on such dates and times as the landlord shall notify by letter delivered to the property not giving less than 24 hours’ notice of the appointment.
    3. Access to the property for the purpose of carrying out inspections and or repairs and or improvements to the property or to neighbouring properties or to shares areas.
20. The court further ordered that:
    1. If the resident fails to comply with the orders she will be in breach of the order, regardless of whether her preferences above are complied with by the landlord.
    2. The order shall remain in force for as long as the resident and landlord remain respectively landlord and tenant of the property, unless before such time it is revoked by a further order of the court.
21. The complaint that the resident brought to us was about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. Before making her complaint, the resident had issued a letter of claim under the pre-action protocol and a schedule of works had been agreed by the parties. If the resident disputed the nature and extent of the works agreed at this point, she had an opportunity to progress the matter using the pre-action protocol, and ultimately to the court if she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s position.
22. It is clear that the parties have different positions on the issues around access and we have seen that the landlord obtained an injunction for access. The landlord’s ability to complete the repairs that both parties have agreed in the schedule is dependent on it having access. Therefore the Ombudsman cannot fairly consider the landlord’s handling of the repairs without also considering the arrangements around access to the property.
23. While we are an alternative dispute resolution service to the courts, we are unable to overturn the court’s decision. For this reason this complaint is not within our jurisdiction to consider further. The resident should seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this matter.
24. In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs in the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.