Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (201910414)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910414

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

28 January 2021


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 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 complains about the landlord’s response to his requests for CCTV footage.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident reports that on 7 July 2019 his car was vandalised outside of his property, with £650 worth of damage being caused. He reported the incident to the police, and emailed the landlord stating that the police would want to view the footage from its CCTV cameras that would have captured the incident. The following day the resident verbally reported the incident to a member of staff who happened to be in the area. The resident states that the staff member advised that they would request the CCTV footage. When the footage was not forthcoming the resident made a formal complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating complaints, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; put things right, and; learn from outcomes.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a two–stage complaint process. At stage one the complaint will be acknowledged and then responded to within ten working days. If more time to investigate is needed the resident will be informed. 
  3. At the second, review stage the landlord aims for the review to take place within one month from accepting the review request, and the response sent to the resident within ten working days of this.
  4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 31 July 2019, describing the events surrounding the request for CCTV footage, and said that he had now been informed that the footage was not available. He noted that the CCTV was paid for via the service charge and was concerned that that it was not working. The resident asked the landlord to compensate him £650 for the damage to his car, stating that he deserved this as he now “…had no recourse with the perpetrators because the CCTV was unavailable.” There is no indication that the landlord acknowledged this as it should have done, in line with its complaint policy.
  5. The resident chased this up on 5 August 2019 and the landlord sent an acknowledgment on 15 August 2019. The landlord provided a stage one response dated 30 August 2019. Again, this was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord which, in line with its complaint policy, should have responded to the complaint within ten working days.
  6. In its response, the landlord explained that any request for CCTV footage would be subject to data protection criteria and would have to be submitted as a formal request directly from the police. As this had not happened, the landlord was unable to provide the CCTV footage. It apologised if this was not made clear when the resident made his request, and acknowledged that it should have made arrangements to preserve the CCTV footage in the event that the police required it. The Ombudsman understands that the footage was by this time unavailable, as after so many days it was no longer kept. In light of the complaint, the landlord said that it had updated the call centre scripting to reflect the correct procedure.
  7. The letter concluded that there was no service failure as it had not received a formal request from the police, but did acknowledge procedural errors and apologised for these. It declined to pay compensation for damage to the resident’s car.
  8. It is clear from this response that there was a failing on the part of the landlord to provide the correct information to the resident when he requested the CCTV footage, which was clearly frustrating for him. In light of this, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take action to put things right and learn from outcomes, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
  9. The stage one response had already gone some way towards this by acknowledging failings and apologising for these, and setting out what action had been taken as a result. This was a suitable response to the issues that the resident had raised.
  10. The resident was dissatisfied with the response, as he set out in his                    1 September 2019 email. In this he said that he made it clear when he first reported the matter that preservation of the CCTV was vital, and that the staff member he spoke to on site had said that he was going to request the CCTV himself. The resident concluded that it was not only the call centre staff that were unaware of the procedure for this, but other staff members also. He asked whether the CCTV was actually working, and stated that although residents paid for the CCTV via service charges, they had no idea how or who to request CCTV footage as they had never been provided with clear instructions.
  11. The landlord responded to this on 9 September 2019, confirming that there had been a procedural failing which it had taken learning from. It had been raised with the relevant senior manager as well as the call centre scripts being updated. It confirmed that the CCTV was working: it was the procedural error that led to the footage not being provided. In relation to residents not knowing how to request CCTV footage, the landlord again referenced the updated scripts, which would mean that when a resident made contact they would be provided with the correct advice. As an apology for the distress and inconvenience caused it offered £50, but explained that it would not compensate the resident £650 for damages to his car, and advised him to contact his insurance company in this matter. 
  12. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord provided this response in line with the timescales set out in its complaint policy. It again acknowledged its mistakes, confirmed that the matter had been raised with the senior manager, and the call centre scripts had been updated. This demonstrates that it had ‘learned from outcomes’. It perhaps would have been better had the landlord more specifically responded to the resident’s concern that tenants did not know how to request CCTV footage, rather than just reiterating its comment that the call centre scripts had been updated. Having said this, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord had already explained to the resident in its first response that any request for CCTV footage would have to be submitted as a formal request directly from the Police.
  13. The Ombudsman considers that the offer of £50 compensation was proportionate to the failings identified and the impact these had on the resident, with him experiencing time and trouble in pursuing the matter. The landlord was not responsible for damage to the resident’s car, and paying the £650 requested would have been a disproportionate. The lack of CCTV footage did not prevent the resident from making a claim against his car insurance. Therefore, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord took appropriate action to ‘put things right’ with the offer of £50.
  14. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaint procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged its failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 55(b) the landlord offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord handled matter in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles by acknowledging its mistakes, explaining that for CCTV footage to be provided the request must be made by the Police, and updating its call centre scripts. It offered reasonable redress of £50.
  2. While there were some shortcomings in the complaint handling, these were not so serious as to warrant a finding of maladministration.

Recommendations

  1. The resident has mentioned in his complaint to this Service that the landlord provided the wrong address for him to send his correspondence to the Ombudsman. The landlord should ensure it uses the correct details when signposting to this Service.