Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202217419)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217419

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

18 January 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:
1. Condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
2. Landlord’s handling of repairs including a leak, damp, and mould.
3. Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she did not have heating and hot water for 13 weeks from the start of the tenancy.
4. Landlord’s handling of the viewing and sign-up including the behaviour of a member of its staff.
5. Landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
On 9 January 2023, after the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman but before this investigation had commenced, she issued a claim against the landlord in the county court for disrepair. This claim covers the issues of the condition of the property when it was let, the landlord’s handling of repairs, and the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of not having heating or hot water.
Under paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given. The Ombudsman also may not consider a complaint which the resident had the opportunity to raise as part of legal proceedings under paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme. Therefore, the resident’s complaints about the condition of, and repairs at, the property (as detailed at points 1(a) to (c) above) are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are not considered further in this report.
As the Ombudsman can only investigate the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the viewing and sign-up including the behaviour of a member of its staff, and its handling of the formal complaint, the summary of events below is not a full account of all communications and events between the parties.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
The resident says that she is disabled, has a sight impairment and is vulnerable. She also has 2 young children. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a visual impairment and a mental health condition.
Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as installation for the supply of gas, electricity, water, and heating. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The tenancy agreement also states that the resident must move into and live in the property from the tenancy start date. When signing the tenancy agreement, the resident must “acknowledge that the property is in good and tenantable condition as at the date of possession”.
The landlord’s allocations policy states how it lets its properties, through either choice based letting or direct schemes. It sets out the eligibility criteria and priority banding criteria. It also sets out when the landlord can “refuse and possibly suspend” an applicant for housing. These include former arrears, antisocial behaviour, criminal offences, abandonment, previous eviction, and unreasonable refusal by the applicant. The policy says, “applicants still have the right to refuse a property for reasons that [were not] made clear on the property advert or for reasons they could not have known at the time of bidding”. However, unreasonable refusal could include “requests for repairs that would exceed [the landlord’s] published lettings standard.” The policy says suspension from being housed for unreasonable refusal will be for one year.
The landlord has a contact strategy which sets out how it handles contact with residents online, by telephone and in person. The strategy says the landlord has a call centre which answers incoming calls and makes call back requests for residents. The strategy does not contain any information about call recording.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Under its complaints policy it defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of actions by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” The landlord will try to resolve complaints at first contact but, if it cannot, it will raise a stage 1 complaint. It will then respond within 10 working days. If it cannot, it will tell the resident why and give a new response date. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can ask for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. An independent member of the landlord’s staff will review the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days. If it cannot meet this timeframe, it will tell the resident why and provide a new response date.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out how a landlord should respond to complaints. Under paragraph 5.1 a landlord should respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The landlord should escalate the complaint if asked to do so by the resident (paragraph 5.10) and should respond within 20 working days (paragraph 5.13). It should address all elements of the resident’s complaint within its response (paragraph 5.16).
The landlord has a compensation policy which allows it to offer compensation for significant inconvenience because of its service failure. Compensation will be “appropriate and proportionate to the severity of the service failure”.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it does not have a policy on sign-up and viewings, and it does not have a vulnerable residents policy.

Summary of events

The landlord called the resident on 16 August 2022 to offer to let the property to her. The resident called the landlord on 19 August 2022 and asked for a call back about the offer. The landlord’s records state its call centre called the resident back and then transferred her to the relevant member of staff. Following the call, the resident and the landlord exchanged further emails about the offer. In these emails the landlord said:
1. If the resident refused the property when viewing it, and it was considered an unreasonable refusal, she would be ‘deferred’, or suspended, from the housing list.
2. At the viewing the resident and the landlord could “pick up on any issues” to be rectified and the resident would not be responsible for these.
3. The resident had been referring to an old allocations policy when she believed she could refuse 3 offers before being suspended from the housing list. The landlord referred to sections 69 and 70 of its allocations policy, which set out unreasonable refusal.
4. It would have expected the resident to have saved for the rent payment due in advance as she had been registered for a move since 2018 and if she could not pay, she could not sign the tenancy agreement.
The resident viewed the property on 23 August 2022 with a friend and the landlord, paid the rent in advance, and signed the tenancy agreement. She also raised concerns about the condition of the property, repairs and items left inside the property and the garden.
On 25 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to make a stage 1 complaint that:
1. She had been bullied or coerced into signing the tenancy agreement for the property because:
  1. The landlord had offered her the property without a viewing, and she felt pressurised into accepting the property that day without having seen it.
  2. She had been told that if she refused the property at the viewing, she would be suspended from the housing list “due to new policies”. She said the landlord made it clear that, if it disagreed with her reason for refusal, it could suspend her.
2. The landlord was unreasonable in demanding 2 weeks’ rent in advance, did not consider her circumstances, and its approach was unsympathetic.
3. She had raised various concerns about the condition of the property, and these were not fully resolved. She said she was told repairs, and anything left in the property, would be her responsibility and that she still had to sign the tenancy agreement if she did not want to be suspended.
4. The landlord had taken a larger rent payment than it had asked her to pay at sign-up.
5. The landlord had not considered her disability, mental health, or the fact she was a single parent reliant on benefits and that she was in a vulnerable position. She felt like she had no choice but to accept the property and sign the tenancy agreement that day.
The landlord emailed the resident the same day to acknowledge her complaint. It also called her on 30 August 2022 and sent a letter by email to acknowledge her complaint. It defined the complaint as: “You feel that a member of staff used bullying behaviour towards you when having to accept the property…You are concerned with the staff members handling of the 2 weeks rent in advance. We have charged you more rent than stated in your tenancy agreement when signing for the tenancy (difference of £27).”
The following day the resident emailed the landlord and said that it had called her from its contact centre’s telephone number and so it should have been recorded. The landlord replied to say that it would investigate the complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response by email on 21 September 2022. In its response it said:
1. “The property was not to the usual let standard and some works should have been carried out before she was offered a viewing.”
2. Its discussions about accepting the property were not intended to make her feel bullied, but it was important that it explained the repercussions of an unreasonable refusal.
3. “Refusing a property on grounds of repairs/condition when it is ready to let is considered as an unreasonable ground to refuse.” However, the property was not in the “best condition”, and it should have discussed this internally before considering if it would have been reasonable to refuse the property based on this.
4. In relation to the rent, it did “make reference to” the resident having been on the waiting list for housing since 2018. In relation to a recording of the call between the landlord and the resident this was not recorded as “the call was made from a desk phone…which…presents [from the landlord’s telephone number] …calls are only recorded if they are made and received directly into the contact centre.”
5. It had made an error in collecting more rent than it should have and apologised for this. The resident should deduct the difference from her next rent payment.
6. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It had raised the issues within the complaint as part of “wider business learning” and around what it should do if it has concerns about a property prior to sign-up.
7. It would credit the resident’s rent account with 4 weeks’ rent and offered additional compensation of £100 for time and trouble.
8. The resident could escalate her complaint if she was not satisfied and it provided a copy of its complaints policy.
The resident contacted her MP, who emailed the landlord on 23 September 2022 and said that the resident wanted to escalate her complaint. The landlord emailed the resident on 5 October 2022 to ask if she wanted to do this.
On 11 October 2022 the resident replied to the landlord and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said she had not been provided with a copy of the landlord’s allocations policy which it had promised to send her. She also said her reasons for escalating her complaint included that she did not ‘feel’ she had, but had, been coerced into accepting the property even after she had raised concerns about its condition. She said the landlord should not have made comments about her financial situation when discussing the rent in advance. She felt bullied into paying in advance or risk losing the property, even though nowhere in its policy did it say this was a requirement. She also said that she was called from the call centre and so the call should have been recorded. She did not accept the £100 goodwill compensation offer.
The resident’s friend, who also attended the viewing, emailed the landlord on 11 October 2022. She submitted that the landlord had said at the viewing that the resident would be liable for all property repairs. She also said that the landlord made it clear refusing the property would mean the resident was suspended from the housing list, so she had no choice but to accept the property. The friend also made comments about the member of the landlord’s staff’s manner and attitude.
On 13 October 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her escalation to stage 2. It provided its stage 2 response on 1 November 2022. In its response it:
1. Provided a copy of its allocations policy.
2. Repeated that only calls made to and from its contact centre were recorded and said that if the resident wished she could make a subject access request under data protection legislation.
3. Offered additional compensation of £102.19 to cover 4 weeks’ council tax in addition to its stage 1 offer of £100. It said if the resident accepted this it would credit £202.19 plus 4 weeks’ rent to her rent account which was in arrears.
4. Said the resident could contact this Service and gave details within its attached complaints policy.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the viewing and sign-up including the behaviour of a member of its staff

The resident is a single mother of 2 children, one of whom was a newborn baby in August 2022. The resident has told both the landlord and this Service that she is vulnerable, has a vision impairment and mental health condition. She had been on the housing waiting list since 2018 when she was offered the property in 2022. There is no evidence to suggest that she had been offered or viewed a different property prior to this offer or that she had refused a property previously.
The landlord has told the Ombudsman that it does not have a policy on sign-ups or viewings and only has an allocations policy which states who it offers properties to. The landlord is not able to say how it does, or should, offer its properties, whether it ordinarily offers a viewing or how it conducts this or its sign-ups. This is a procedural failing and it would have been helpful if the landlord had had a policy in place detailing such processes.
The resident has said that she was offered the property during a call on 16 August 2022 and that she had to decide that day. There is no independent evidence of this call and so the Ombudsman cannot say whether this was what happened or not. However, the resident called the landlord again 3 days later to request a call back about viewing the property, which was reasonable.
There is disagreement between the landlord and the resident about this call; the landlord says it was not recorded as it was not made by its call centre and the resident says it was. The landlord’s records state that the call was made by the call centre and then transferred to the relevant member of the landlord’s staff. Based on this it would be reasonable to presume that the call should have been recorded, although the Ombudsman cannot say whether the call having been transferred could have prevented this.
Within its emails to the resident following the call the landlord was clear in its statements about the consequences of the resident refusing the property. It did not define what an ‘unreasonable refusal’ would be, but this was clearly for the landlord to decide. The consequence would be suspension from the housing list, which the resident had been waiting on for 5 years. She also had to pay 2 weeks’ rent in advance or be suspended.
When the resident questioned the landlord’s policy on refusal and suspension, she was told she had been referring to an old policy. The landlord has provided to this Service a copy of its allocations policy which was in use from September 2021 until October 2022. By referring to sections 69 and 70 within its email on 19 August 2022 the landlord was referring to its policy from September 2021. The landlord has also told the Ombudsman that this policy was in use in August 2022. However, at the time the resident did not have a copy and was only provided with one as part of the landlord’s stage 2 response.
During the viewing the resident raised concerns about the condition of the property. While in its email the landlord said issues would be picked up and that she would not be responsible, the resident says the opposite was said during the viewing. The resident’s account was corroborated by an email sent to the landlord by her friend. While the landlord did record issues with the property and reported these back, the resident said it gave no guarantees that these would be resolved. It is difficult for the Ombudsman to say what was said during the viewing, as the resident and the landlord have given varying accounts. While the resident’s friend also gave an account this cannot be considered as independent evidence.
Within its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that the property was not to the usual letting standard. The full details of the condition of the property have not been set out within this report, due to this being outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction (as detailed above). Considering the evidence, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have had concerns about accepting the property in the condition in which it was viewed. After considering the landlord’s lettings standard, objectively, the resident’s refusal would not have been unreasonable, as she was not requesting “repairs that would exceed [the landlord’s] published lettings standard”. However, the landlord did not explain this at the viewing and there is no evidence that its lettings standard had been published or provided to the resident prior to or during the viewing. The resident had a genuine belief that she had to accept the property or risk being suspended from being offered another property, for at least another year.
At the end of the tenancy agreement, just above the place for signature, the agreement states the person signing “acknowledges that the property is in good and tenantable condition as at the date of possession”. Based on the resident’s complaint, made 2 days after signing the tenancy, and the evidence considered by the Ombudsman, this was simply not correct.
It is not uncommon for housing associations to have lettings targets. While a property is empty it is not generating any income from rent. It is not known whether the landlord had such targets, but its allocations policy does say its aim is “prompt lettings and minimal void loss”. The resident was offered the property on 16 August 2022, viewed it, and signed a tenancy agreement one week later on the day of viewing. Considering the issues raised by the resident, the landlord should have considered raising and rectifying the issues, or confirming these had all been raised, before requiring the resident to sign the tenancy agreement, and effectively accept the property in the condition it was in. The landlord did not act fairly but took advantage of its position of power over the resident.
Regarding the resident’s complaint about having to pay 2 weeks’ rent in advance it was not unreasonable for the landlord to request this as it is common practice amongst social landlords. However, as it had no policy on this it would have been incorrect to make this a condition on penalty of being suspended from the housing list. Further, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident’s financial situation being dependent upon benefits. It should not have presumed she would have been able to save money in anticipation which was a naïve view for it to have had.
The landlord failed to respond to these elements of the resident’s complaint at stage 2, which is considered further below. While it did offer compensation, this was related to the condition of the property only. In relation to the failures identified here, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord did accept that the property was not in the best condition, and that repairs should have been completed before viewing. However, it did not say that it understood the implication of this on the resident, after it effectively told her she could not refuse the property as it would consider this unreasonable. The resident was left with an impossible choice; accept the property in the condition it was in, with no guarantee that everything would be put right, or be suspended and wait a further year or more for a property which she desperately needed for her family. She had to make this choice there and then and pay rent in advance. There was maladministration.
The resident was distressed, worried, and inconvenienced by the landlord’s handling of the viewing and sign-up. She also had to go to further time and trouble, from the start of her tenancy, in making and pursuing her complaint. To reflect the impact on the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £700 compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 25 August 2022 and the landlord positively acknowledged it the same day. It also proactively called her within 3 working days to make sure it understood her complaint and provided a written complaint definition.
However, it then provided it stage 1 response on 21 September 2022 which was 18 working days after the resident had made her complaint. This was in breach of its complaints policy timeframe and paragraph 5.1 of the Code. The landlord had not requested an extension of time, or explained the delay, which it should have done, and it failed to acknowledge its failing within its stage 1 response.
The landlord responded fully to the resident’s complaint at stage 1, accepted there had been service failure and apologised for this. It correctly said how it would learn from the complaint and offered compensation, which was a solution focused approach.
Following the resident contacting her MP, and the MP emailing the landlord, the landlord again proactively contacted the resident about her complaint, asking if she wanted to escalate it. The landlord demonstrated that it encouraged complaints as an opportunity to learn, which was the correct approach. When the resident asked to escalate her complaint, the landlord acknowledged this within 2 working days.
The landlord provided its response within its 20-working day timeframe and in compliance with paragraph 5.13 of the Code. However, it failed to respond to all the complaint elements as required under paragraph 5.16 of the Code. Specifically, it did not address the resident’s complaint about being bullied or coerced into accepting the property, that its call should have been recorded and about comments made about her financial situation. These were important elements at the heart of the resident’s complaint, which should have been investigated and responded to at stage 2.
Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord had delayed in its stage 1 response and more significantly had failed to fully investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. The purpose of a 2 stage complaints process is that stage 2 complaints are investigated by a member of the landlord’s staff who was not involved with the stage 1 complaint. This is to ensure that 2 different members of staff fully investigate the complaint to ensure its overall investigation is thorough and fair.
In failing to investigate central elements of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 the landlord is unable to demonstrate that its actions were fair in all the circumstances, which undermines the purpose of the landlord’s internal complaints process. This led to the resident having to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman, causing further inconvenience, time and trouble to her. In recognition of this, an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Viewing and sign-up including the behaviour of a member of its staff.
2. Formal complaint.
In accordance with Paragraphs 41(c) and 42(e) of the Scheme, the following elements of the resident’s complaint are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The condition of the property when it was let.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs including a leak, damp, and mould.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she did not have heating and hot water for 13 weeks from the start of the tenancy.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the viewing and sign-up as the landlord failed to fully explain what would amount to an unreasonable refusal based on the condition of the property. It did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, housing, or financial situation when it required her to accept the property it the condition it was in and pay rent in advance.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint as it did not provide its stage 1 response within its 10-working day policy timeframe and in beach of paragraph 5.1 of the Code. It also failed to respond to all the complaint elements within its stage 2 response in beach of paragraph 5.16 of the Code.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology from a senior member of its staff to the resident for failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident further compensation of £1,000 made up of:
  1. £700 to reflect the impact on the resident of its failures in handling the viewing and sign-up.
  2. £300 to reflect the impact on the resident of its complaints handling failures.
3. Pay, or confirm it has paid, the £202.19 and 4 weeks’ rent offered within its stage 2 response.
4. Write a report to consider introducing a policy covering sign-ups and viewings. The landlord is to detail whether it will or will not introduce a new policy, with reasons, and provide a copy of this report to this Service.
5. Consider whether the member of staff who is to conduct a property viewing should be part of the sign-off process following any void works, or whether they should view the property prior to agreeing to conduct a viewing with an applicant. This order can be included within the report for the above order.
6. Organise training for staff involved with lettings and sign-up to cover what would and would not be considered an unreasonable refusal based on the condition of the property at sign-up. This training is to include how to discuss this with the applicant.
7. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord provide a copy of its allocations policy and lettings standard, whether on paper or digitally, to all applicants for housing before they view one of its properties.