Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202224401)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224401

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

11 April 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and concerns about safeguarding.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1 bedroom ground floor flat, which is owned by the landlord. The tenancy started in February 2016. The landlord is aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities. At the time of the complaint, the landlord held details of professional third parties supporting him with his mental health.
The resident says he reported various ASB incidents that related to a neighbour’s address since at least 2018. This included reports of hate related incidents, the condition of a neighbour’s property, and nuisance caused by the neighbour’s dog. The landlord opened ASB cases but closed them following its investigations. The landlord’s enforcement action was often restricted as there had been insufficient evidence.
The resident raised dog nuisance reports in April 2022 which included dog fouling. The resident reported feeling anxious when the neighbour’s dog was walked under his window. He explained that he had cats and described how the dog would try to get in through his window. The landlord wrote to the neighbour. It reminded them to ensure that their dog “remained on a short lead and under strict control in all internal and external communal areas.”
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. He lodged a formal complaint addressed to the Chief Executive (CEO) on 25 August 2022. The complaint included a variety of points. This included, but not limited to:
1. He considered the landlord to be under delivering on customer service across various service areas.
2. He felt the landlord was not meeting the needs of vulnerable resident’s.
3. He said there was a “lack of professionalism, compassion, and competence.”
The landlord initially undertook a review of telephone calls. This was in response to the resident’s reports of “unprofessional conduct” of staff members within its call centre. It investigated his claims and provided its findings in a letter on 1 September 2022. The landlord apologised and acknowledged that it had identified training needs. However, it later recognised this had been done outside of its formal complaint process.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement on 15 September 2022. It provided an initial stage 1 response on 29 September 2022 and a further stage 1 response to new issues on 29 November 2022.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses and escalated his complaints on 15 December 2022. The landlord provided a final stage 2 response to cover all matters on 11 January 2023.
Within the evidence supplied to us, the landlord advised that all ASB cases were closed. It advised that the alleged perpetrators had moved out in February 2023 and it had not received any further reports of ASB from the resident.
The resident’s complaint became one we could formerly consider on 23 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Though the resident said the ASB had been ongoing for more than 4 years, our investigation will focus on the events from the resident’s complaint on 25 August 2022. Any reference to previous reports will be made for context purposes. While the Ombudsman is not doubting the information from the resident, it has not been possible to investigate events dating back this far due to the lack of evidence available. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB from 2022.
It is our role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of ASB. This includes the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for ASB. Our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies and procedures, as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. We cannot tell the landlord to take specific action against neighbours.
Within the resident’s communications to us, he described the impact that the reported incidents had on his mental health. While we acknowledge how hard this would be, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to his concerns and how this related to the complaints reported. We have not determined whether the landlord was responsible for any deterioration in health. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. However, where we identify a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The resident raised multiple complaints to the landlord between 25 August 2022 and the landlord’s stage 2 response in January 2023. For the purposes of this investigation we have considered the specific complaint definition agreed with the resident when he first brought his complaint to us and how the landlord responded to his concerns.

Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and concerns about safeguarding

The landlord’s ASB policy states that it recognises the impact ASB can have on victims and witnesses. Where appropriate, it will use a risk assessment matrix to assess the detriment and will tailor its support accordingly. Furthermore, it states it will work in partnership with other agencies to prevent and tackle ASB.
Following reports of a hate incident by a neighbour in July 2019 the landlord completed a risk assessment and informed the resident of the actions it would take. This included contacting the alleged perpetrator and engaging with the police. This was appropriate and in line with its policy to work in partnership with other agencies.
Following discussions with all parties, including the police, the landlord issued a letter to the alleged perpetrator reminding them of their tenancy conditions. As there were no charges made by the police, this was a proportionate response by the landlord and in line with the enforcement powers available to it. At this stage, the landlord recorded monitoring the resident’s welfare and he advised he already had the appropriate mental health support in place. It was therefore agreed to close the case.
The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure statement states that it is committed to responding early to reports of incidents. It says it will agree action plans with residents on how their report will be dealt with. For telephone or emailed enquiries, a resident can expect a response within 2 working days.
On 20 April 2022 there is evidence that the resident reported concerns that his neighbour’s dog was coming up to his window. Although the dog was on a lead, he said that this had been happening for 2 years. The landlord spoke to the resident about his concerns the same day. This was appropriate and in line with its policy to return a call within 2 working days.
The landlord had recorded a similar closed incident in July 2021. It did not feel that the new report met its threshold of ASB. However, there is evidence that it communicated internally about the effect on the resident’s mental health. As such, another team wrote to the neighbour and reminded them to keep their dog on a lead, to keep strict control of it, and give consideration to other residents. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord acting on the resident’s concerns.
There is evidence that the resident reported dog fouling on 12 August 2022. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the report within its 2 working day timeframe. However, it failed to correctly raise a call back request to a member of staff regarding other issues.
As his call had not been returned, it is reasonable that the resident expressed dissatisfaction. However, this included a serious allegation about the member of staff who had not returned his call. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s statement and engaged with the police for safeguarding purposes of both the resident and its member of staff. No action was taken by the police against the member of staff.
Having acknowledged and apologised for the missed call back, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that its member of staff could not return a call that they knew nothing about. The landlord apologised and explained how it would prevent this happening again. It also explained that it had assigned his enquiries to a new member of staff. These steps were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord acknowledging where there had been a failing and its attempts to put things right.
Between 12 August 2022 to 29 November 2022, the resident communicated extensively with the landlord. This included reporting an incident of dog nuisance and that he had reported an assault by the neighbour to the police. He raised a formal complaint on 25 August 2022. During this period there is evidence of the landlord speaking with the resident, police, and supporting medical professionals. This included, but not limited to:
1. Completing a new risk assessment with the resident on 29 August 2022.
2. Discussing safeguarding concerns with the resident and third parties on and around 7 September 2022. During which the resident confirmed that mental health services and the police were aware of his health and supporting him.
3. Agreeing consent for the landlord to refer the resident to the local complex needs panel on 29 September 2022.
4. Issuing a stage 1 complaint response on 29 September 2022.
5. Following the complex needs panel hearing, agreeing to refer all matters raised by the resident through the mental health services.
Having referred the resident to the local complex needs panel, it received guidance on 18 October 2022 to discuss matters with the mental health team as they arose. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord worked with the police and medical professionals at this time. This demonstrated that it was monitoring any safeguarding concerns and working with those best placed to offer the resident the appropriate support.
On 29 November 2022 there is evidence that the landlord notified the resident’s community psychiatric nurse (CPN) that it would be sending correspondence to the resident. This demonstrated the landlord working to the advice it had been given by the complex needs panel. This was a reasonable step to take in the circumstances to assist professional third parties to manage the safeguarding concerns of the resident.
The landlord issued a separate stage 1 complaint response on 29 November 2022. This was a comprehensive response covering multiple issues raised after the 25 August 2022 complaint. Within its response the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns about a welfare call he received on 15 November 2022. He had explained that he had requested calls to be recorded or to be emailed only. He said that this call had not been recorded. The landlord explained that its member of staff had responded to the resident’s reports that he had a knife and had “started to cut runes into his face.” It was therefore satisfied that its member of staff had sufficient safeguarding concerns to call him.
While the resident was upset that this call had been made outside of recent agreements, the landlord’s actions and explanation for the call was reasonable in the circumstances. It demonstrated its duty officer acting promptly to the reports of self-harm and ensured that the resident was safeguarded.
Between November 2022 to February 2023 the landlord continued to communicate with multiple agencies supporting the resident. This was appropriate and in line with the advice it had been given. Following the residents request to escalate his complaints on 15 December 2022, it issued a stage 2 response on 11 January 2022. It apologised for any “negative impression” he had of its services but assured him that it was committed to supporting him.
During this time it continued to work with the resident’s neighbour to secure them alternative housing. It was appropriate that the reasons for this move were not discussed by the landlord with the resident. The move was achieved in February 2023 and the landlord says it received no further reports of ASB from the resident.
It was reasonable of the landlord to undertake a proportionate investigation and weigh up the evidence and rights of all parties. This action demonstrates steps to provide all parties with peaceful enjoyment of their properties. As there was no evidence obtained via the police or other neighbours, the landlord’s investigations were limited. However, while this reduced the landlord’s enforcement options, it demonstrated its concern for the resident’s wellbeing. It wrote to the alleged perpetrator to remind them of their tenancy obligations and remained engaged with the police.
In summary, there is an expectation on a landlord to explore the resident’s claims. It did this on a number of occasions by writing to the alleged perpetrator while also working to move them. It encouraged him to report incidents to the police and advised that evidence was necessary for it to take action. Furthermore, where appropriate, it engaged with the police and external agencies for safeguarding purposes. It responded to the concerns in a timely manner but acknowledged in its complaint responses that it could have improved how it updated him. It was reasonable for the landlord to apologise for this.
While any delay would cause upset, it is reasonable for us to note that the landlord was engaging with multiple agencies. Due to being informed that communication would likely cause distress, it sought guidance on how best to respond and support the resident. Therefore, it is reasonable that some communication was delayed as the landlord was working with partners to minimise this identified impact.
Therefore we find no maladministration. The actions the landlord took were reasonable, fair, and in line with its ASB policy and tenancy agreement. It undertook its actions while engaged with external parties to safeguard the resident while he was receiving support with his health.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a formal complaint on 25 August 2022. The complaint included a variety of concerns that he asked the landlord to address. This included that during a telephone call to the landlord’s call centre, he considered it had failed to safeguard him. He explained referring to feeling suicidal and described that he received no offer of support. The landlord acknowledged his complaint the same day. This was appropriate and in line with the expectations of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s safeguarding policy states that all staff, agency staff, volunteers and contractors are responsible for understanding their role. This includes reporting and sharing information they have collected within their task/functions with regard to the safeguarding of children and/or adults. In this case the landlord acknowledged there had been failings to correctly respond to the resident’s welfare comments. There is no evidence that its safeguarding lead was notified at this stage or asked for assistance by the call handlers.
There is evidence that the landlord acknowledged his concerns and undertook an investigation. This included listening to 3 telephone calls to assess the matters raised within his complaint. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously.
The landlord provided its investigation findings to the resident in writing on 1 September 2022. It informed the resident that it agreed with his concerns and advised that:
1. Having listened to each call, it would be sending each call handler the recordings to review.
2. It had arranged for a specialist adviser to sit with each call handler to provide training.
3. It agreed that each call could have been handled better and how the call handler could have supported him.
4. It advised that it had raised an alert on his account to ensure that his calls are passed to a named member of staff, where he would receive a call back within 2 working days.
While this was an acknowledged failing, the landlord demonstrated taking action to put things right upon receipt of the resident’s complaint. Its investigation and arranged training demonstrated it learning from outcomes. It took a proactive approach to ensure action was taken to prevent similar situations happening again.
At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints process. The complaints policy provided to us states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement of the complaint.
The Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly, and to use the data and learning from complaints to drive service improvements.
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy was non-compliant with the Code. A complaint response should at stage 1 be sent within 10 working days of the complaint being made.
The Code became statutory from 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords will be obliged by law to follow its requirements. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and provide a better service to residents. If it has not already done so, the landlord should ensure that its policy is updated to reflect the new Code. An order has been made below regarding this.
The landlord’s investigation response letter was sent within 5 working days of the resident’s complaint. Therefore within the landlord’s stage 1 response timeframe of 10 working days. However, the landlord later recognised that his complaint had included a variety of points. These included his dissatisfaction with how his reports of ASB had been handled. Therefore, its investigation should have been included within a formal stage 1 response. This was not appropriate and not in line with its policy or the Code.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 September 2022. Due to the initial error to manage its response under its formal complaint handling process, the response was sent 14 working days later than its policy timeframe. This was not appropriate.
The landlord’s relevant complaints policy explains the process when an investigating officer requires more time. It says, “they will always keep the resident informed, along with the reason why and when you can expect a response.”
Ordinarily, the detriment of a short delay would be minimal. However, as there were aggravating factors with the resident’s health, it was not appropriate that the landlord did not evidence speaking with him to discuss and notify of the likely delay. This was not appropriate as this was not in line with its policy and caused the resident distress.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 29 September 2022 was comprehensive and demonstrated taking time to review and respond to the multiple concerns raised by the resident. The investigation apologised, upheld the resident’s complaint, and explained the learning identified. This included, but not limited to:
1. The training undertaken following its investigation of recent telephone calls. This was to improve the level of customer service, including compassion and empathy during calls.
2. That attempts would be made to put his calls through to the required officer. If unavailable, its call handlers would also try the duty officer.
3. If neither were immediately available, it committed to ensure that tasks were correctly raised on its customer resource management system (CRM), where call backs would be made within 2 working days.
4. That it recognised, while it was satisfied that it was appropriately addressing ASB matters raised, its progress could have “possibly been better communicated.”
During October 2022 to November 2022 there is evidence that the resident continued to raise dissatisfaction and attempted to add additional complaint points. These were made to various members of staff including the CEO.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s new complaint in line with its policy and provided a stage 1 response on 29 November 2022. While this response was 7 working days beyond its published timeframes, the landlord remained in communication with the resident and external agencies as welfare concerns remained ongoing.
The resident escalated his complaints to stage 2 on 15 December 2022. This included all matters previously raised. The landlord acknowledged this request on the same day. This was appropriate and in line with its policy and the Code.
The resident said he was dissatisfied with its handling of the neighbour nuisance complaints and its failure of duty of care under safeguarding. Within his request he asked the landlord to correct a misspelling within its stage 1 response letter. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord amended and resent a copy on 20 December 2022.
Under its complaint policy and the Code, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the 2 complaints and address them accordingly under its stage 2 process. However, there is evidence the landlord’s process was initially delayed. There is evidence that it was communicating with multiple agencies, including the police, on how to address the complaints while concerned for the resident’s welfare. The landlord received communication from the resident’s CPN, encouraging contact through them before the resident. It was therefore reasonable that there were delays at this stage.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 11 January 2023. This was appropriate and within its 20 working day response timeframe as set out in its policy. While it said it was sorry that he had “been left with such a negative impression” of its services, it reassured him that its teams were supporting him to resolve his reports of ASB. It was satisfied with its actions and would continue to support him with any incidents he reported.
Generally, the landlord’s complaint handling and responses demonstrated a thorough, investigative approach. It was managing a variety of concerns raised by the resident at different stages, while working with external agencies to support him. It undertook investigations of reported service failings and initiated prompt training to address gaps in knowledge and service standards. These actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it taking the resident’s reports seriously.
In considering complaints, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage1. It offered an apology and took prompt action to provide staff training to address the concerns raised by the resident. This demonstrated the landlord taking steps to put things right and learning from outcomes.
However, while it is clear that the landlord worked hard to manage and address the communication it received from the resident, its policy was not aligned to the Code. Furthermore, it initially failed to address the resident’s complaint in line with its formal complaints procedures. This resulted in a delay that caused the resident distress.
While an apology at stage 1 was appropriate, it did not offer redress to recognise the time, effort and any distress caused. In this instance, the landlord should pay the resident £50 compensation to proportionately reflect the service failure in its complaint handling. This is in line with the remedies guidance available to us when the apology alone was not proportionate to the identified failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and safeguarding concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident £50 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble and distress caused due to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord is ordered to complete and submit its compliant handling self-assessment by 30th June 2024. This to ensure that its policy is aligned to the statutory obligations of the Code as of 1 April 2024. The self-assessment must also be published on its websites so that residents are able to easily access it.
The landlord is ordered to review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers respond and deal with complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure. This should include changes made to the Code as of 1 April 2024. The landlord is ordered to review its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers respond and deal with complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.

Recommendations

The landlord is encouraged to consider specific neurodiversity awareness training to support its officers skills when working with individuals with health and support needs.