Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202218543)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218543

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

26 March 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 around:
1. The condition of the property when the resident moved in.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. The property is a two-bed terraced house on a development of similar properties. The tenancy began on 4 July 2022. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the tenant or her son.
The resident bid on the property in April 2022 and the application was accepted due to her priority banding. The resident did not view the property prior to the tenancy starting on 4 July 2022. After viewing the property, the resident raised a complaint that the property was in a state of disrepair.
The landlord responded to the complaint and carried out works at the property during the internal complaint process. However, the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the complaint.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repair policy utilises four different job priorities and details the kind of repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs – Up to 24 hours – These are repairs that pose an immediate risk to health and safety of residents or a risk of serious damage to the building structure.
2. Urgent repair – Up to 5 working days – These are faults or defects which cause the resident discomfort, inconvenience and nuisance and will likely deteriorate if not addressed.
3. Routine repairs – Up to 15 working days – Repairs that are not causing an immediate discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance, with no risk of deterioration.
4. Non routine repairs – Up to 90 working days – Repairs that do not fall into other categories.
The landlord’s website details “The standard of our homes” and says that “when one of our homes becomes empty, we carry out refurbishment works to ensure it meets our agreed relet standard”. It says that “most works are completed when the property is empty” and that it will “offer a moving in decorating package” with decorating vouchers being offered.
The landlord’s complaint policy utilises a two-stage process as follows:
1. Stage one – A response should be provided within 10 working days. If this cannot be achieved, the landlord should keep the resident informed.
2. Stage two – A response should be provided within 20 working days after the review is accepted. If this cannot be achieved, the landlord should keep the resident informed.

Summary of events

The property was advertised in March 2022 and the resident placed a bid for it. Due to her priority banding, the resident’s bid was successful and the landlord contacted her on 11 April 2022 to offer the property.
The property became vacant in May 2022 following a slight delay in the previous tenant leaving the property. Void works were completed by the landlord when it became vacant.
The tenancy began on 4 July 2022 but the resident did not move into the property straight away.
Internal landlord emails from 25 July 2022 show that void photographs were shared for the living room, kitchen, two bedrooms, bathroom, stairs and landing. The emails supplied by the landlord provide no context behind those emails.
The resident said that the landlord attended on 27 July 2022 and treated mould at the property.
A works order was raised on 28 July 2022 as the resident asked for the guttering to be cleared at the property. This works order was marked as completed on 17 August 2022 and a further works order was raised to clear the guttering at the back of the property.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 August 2022. This was around the condition of the property, the service provided by the landlord and a claim of discrimination. The resident expressed concerns around the following:
1. Cleanliness of the property when she moved in.
2. Mould on the walls.
3. Leaks – Under the kitchen sink and a radiator.
4. Front door sticking.
5. Overgrown guttering.
6. Cracked walls.
7. Damaged floorboards.
8. Missing handrail on the stairs.
9. Loose toilet and smell from the surrounding area.
10. Condition of the garden.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 August 2022 and reported “toilet bowl moves and rusted nails, water sitting around the fitting outside of the toilet and not flushing”. She also reported that the bedroom wall was missing plaster and very fragile.
Internal landlord emails from 23 August 2022 show the landlord arranging attendance to inspect the reported works from the day before. Works to the toilet were completed that day.
The landlord provided an acknowledgement of the complaint on 24 August 2022. It detailed the resolution that the resident had requested and receipt of photographs that the resident had provided. It advised that it would provide a response to the complaint by 8 September 2022.
Internal landlord emails from 24 August 2022 discuss the condition of the properties following the void process. It acknowledged that the void photos show some marks on walls and woodwork. It said that properties were not fully decorated prior to move in, as it offers decorating vouchers to new tenants in order to “complete the void quicker and move the tenant in”. It said the property should be “clean, empty, everything works and its ready to let”.
Internal complaint notes indicate that the landlord attempted an inspection on 24 August 2022 but it was unsuccessful. The resident emailed the landlord later that day and said she had received a voicemail cancelling the inspection for 25 August 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 August 2022 and provided a copy of the correct manual for the alarm in the property. Internal landlord emails show that it requested that further works orders were raised for the repairs detailed in the complaint.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 7 September 2022. The landlord said it did “not agree that the property is in a state of disrepair”. It said that the repairs listed in the resident’s complaint would be considered “minor repairs” and it said it would arrange for those to be completed. It addressed each of the listed repairs as follows:
1. Cleanliness – The landlord said it had reviewed the void photographs and did not consider it “unacceptably dirty or uninhabitable at the point it was let to you”. It said that there was an expectation that the incoming resident would undertake “some cleaning”. However, the landlord agreed to arrange for the property to be cleaned as a “one off gesture of goodwill”.
2. Mould on the walls – It suggested that any mould may be a result of the property being left vacant. However, it agreed to review this, upon inspection of the property.
3. Leaks – Under the kitchen sink and a radiator – It agreed to review this during its inspection.
4. Front door sticking – It agreed to review the condition of the door during its inspection.
5. Overgrown guttering – It agreed to review this during its inspection.
6. Cracked walls – The landlord agreed to review this during the inspection but explained that if they were hairline cracks, it would be expected that residents would repair those.
7. Damaged floorboards – It agreed to review the condition of the floors during its inspection but advised that repairs would only be carried out if they were significant enough, as it would be expected that floor coverings would be hide any minor cosmetic issues.
8. Missing handrail on the stairs – The landlord acknowledged that one of the handrails did not extend to the bottom of the staircase but highlighted that there was one full handrail. It agreed to review this further during its inspection.
9. Loose toilet and smell from the surrounding area – The landlord said it had attended on 23 August 2022 and secured the toilet and replaced the siphon diaphragm.
10. Condition of the garden – The landlord advised that the upkeep of the garden is the responsibility of the tenant.
The resident and the landlord discussed her complaint on 9 September 2022. The landlord provided confirmation of the topics that were discussed by email, these were as follows:
1. The resident said that after being offered the property, she did not hear from the landlord for several weeks. The landlord explained that this was due to a delay in the previous resident moving out. The resident agreed that she had been informed that the landlord would contact her once it knew when the property would become vacant.
2. The resident questioned some of the rooms in the property not being decorated and that she was not offered a choice of decorating vouchers. The landlord said that the property was inspected prior to void works being completed and it was decided that decorating vouchers would be offered. The landlord said that the resident signed to accept the vouchers.
3. The resident expressed concerns around the cleanliness of the property. The landlord said that properties were cleaned prior to reletting. The resident disputed the cleanliness and said that following a visit from the Voids Manager, he agreed that the cleaning was not to the usual standard.
The works order to clear the guttering at the rear of the property was marked as completed on 12 September 2022.
The landlord attended the property on 22 September 2022 and conducted an inspection of the issues raised within her complaint.
On 29 September 2022, the resident confirmed her availability for works to be carried out on 6 October 2022 and 7 October 2022. She asked for confirmation of the agreed works that would be carried out and for information around the voids process works that were carried out at the property. The landlord replied the same day and confirmed the works that it had agreed and indicated that the works were expected to take 1-2 days.
The resident questioned why some works would not be completed at the property and said she was “confused” as to who’s responsibility some of the repairs would be.
An internal landlord email shows that the landlord attended on 6 October 2022 and identified “no fault with the radiators” and explained a function on the boiler to the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 October 2022 and questioned the level of cleaning that would be undertaken at the property, as works were due to start the next day. She asked if it would be professionally cleaned the next day, as she had requested a “deep clean” within her complaint. The landlord responded and said it had not agreed to a “deep clean”. It said it had agreed “the cleaning of the property whilst vacant could perhaps have been a little better” and it agreed “the team would return to carry out some additional cleaning for you” as a “goodwill gesture”. However, it said there was an “expectation that the resident would follow this by undertaking their own clean”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 October 2022 and questioned the standard of the cleaning that had been completed. She said “the complaint response clearly states the home is to be cleaned”. She agreed that the grease under cupboard had been cleaned the day before but she questions further cleaning and provided photographs of it. The resident also asked for “information and everything I will need to know about terminating my contract with the landlord”.
The landlord attended on 6 October 2022 and 7 October 2022 and carried out several works at the property. The resident signed a form to confirm she was “satisfied with the works carried out and issues raised have been addressed”. The works were as follows:
1. Front and read bedrooms decorated – All walls stripped, filled and painted white to ceilings with all woodwork glossed.
2. Leak fixed – New pipework and trap fitted.
3. Areas of bathroom and kitchen cleaned.
4. Carpet grippers removed – Only on stairs as requested by the resident.
5. Catch fitted to cupboard close to stairs.
6. Edging strip stuck back to kitchen base unit door.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 October 2022 and provided a copy of a notice to quit form “to complete to terminate your tenancy as requested”.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 27 October 2022. Within the response, it said that it had attended the property on 22 September 2022 and said “we were satisfied that the house had been prepared to an acceptable standard”. The response said that “some additional works were agreed as a goodwill gesture”. The landlord then commented on the items raised in the initial complaint as follows:
1. Cleanliness – The landlord said it accepted the resident’s “disappointment in the level of cleaning at the property and appreciated it did not meet your personal standards or expectations”. It said it had arranged and completed further cleaning of the property as a good will gesture.
2. Mould – The landlord said that during its inspection, it found a strip of mould less than 1cm wide along the edge of the toilet and agreed to address it. Aside from this, no other damp or mould was found in the property, with all external walls being tested with a moisture meter.
3. Leaks – No leaks were identified at the radiator or under the sink. The landlord agreed to bleed the radiators and, for reassurance, arrange for a technician to ensure the joints were properly tightened.
4. Front door sticking – During the visit, the door was “functioning correctly” and the resident was unable to replicate the issue.
5. Uneven garden slabs – It said that the slabs had been re-bedded by the time of the visit and advised that uneven paving would not have meant the property was unfit to let.
6. Overgrown guttering – The landlord apologised that this had not been cleared prior to her moving in but said it had been “remedied promptly” once it had been brought to its attention. Again, it said this would not have made the property unfit to let.
7. Walls – It said there was “no substantial cracking found” but some plaster damage had been uncovered when the resident removed some wallpaper. The landlord said it would be addressed during the redecoration of the rooms that it had offered as a “goodwill gesture”.
8. Damaged flooring – The landlord said that the only faults were minor cosmetic issues that would be concealed by floor coverings.
9. Missing handrail – The landlord explained that it was not a missing handrail, rather, it was an additional piece of handrail that the previous tenant had installed. It said there was still a standard handrail on the opposite side of the staircase.
10. Garden – The landlord said it had arranged for the garden to be cutback.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around the condition of the property when she moved in.

Void works were undertaken by the landlord prior to the resident’s tenancy starting on 4 July 2022. Photographs show the interior of the property appeared in a reasonable condition, outside of cosmetic and decorative requirements. This was reasonable, as the landlord would provide decoration vouchers to new residents, rather than fully decorating the property prior to letting. The photographs show no evidence of the property being in a state of disrepair, or not meeting the relet standards on its checklist.
The resident questioned the standard of cleaning carried out before she moved in. It is understandable that a resident could question the level of cleaning carried out during the voids process, as standards will vary from person to person. Photographs provided by the resident do show evidence of some surfaces in the kitchen having not been cleaned thoroughly, with the landlord later agreeing upon inspection that these areas were lacking. However, despite the level of cleanliness evidenced, the landlord explained that this would not prevent somebody from moving in. Given that there would always be an expectation that any new resident would carry out their own cleaning upon moving in, this Service is of the view that this was a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
The resident’s complaint detailed many concerns around the condition of the property. Having considered these against the relet standard checklist, the landlord said it was satisfied that it had completed those checks prior to letting the property. The checklist does include a section around damp and mould, which the resident did raise a concern about in her complaint. The photographs taken during the void process, however, show no clear signs of damp or mould on the walls. In view of this, it is reasonable that this was not picked up as a concern during the inspection prior to the resident moving in.
The resident did advise that the landlord treated mould on the walls of the property on 27 July 2022. However, this Service has not had sight of any record of this visit within the repair logs or correspondence from the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this claim in its initial response. It explained that mould can grow in a vacant property due to the lack of ventilation and apologised if this had been the case. As the void photographs did not show clear evidence of mould on the walls, it is reasonable to assume that this was the likely cause of any mould present upon her moving into the property.
After the resident reported damp and mould in the property as part of her complaint, the landlord carried out an inspection on 22 September 2022. During this, it did identify a small strip of mould behind the toilet cistern, which it agreed to treat. It is understandable that this would add to any concern that the void inspection was not adequate. However, given the location and size of the mould that was found, this would not have led to the property being considered unfit for habitation, even if it had been identified during the void inspection.
All other repairs and faults detailed within the resident’s complaint were not items that were parts of the landlord’s checklist. Therefore, these would not have led to it failing to meet the relet standard. The landlord explained this within its complaint response, where it described them as “minor repairs”.
It is evident that following its inspection of the property on 22 September 2022, the landlord put together a plan of works to address any outstanding repairs. These works were arranged with the resident and completed over two days, 6 October 2022 and 7 October 2022, following which the resident signed to indicate that she was satisfied with the works. Overall, it is the view of this Service that the landlord carried out these works in a timely manner, after its inspection.
It did take the landlord around six weeks to complete the repairs after the initial complaint was raised on 17 August 2022. However, the landlord took a reasonable approach by carrying out an inspection of the issues that had been raised, before completing them over a single scheduled appointment over a two day period. It is evident that some of those works, such as decoration of the two bedrooms, were completed as a goodwill gesture, as the landlord was not obligated to complete them.
When considering the resident’s complaint around the condition of the property, it is understandable that several repairs and a disagreement around the standard of cleaning would cause concern around its overall suitability. However, the nature of those repairs and the cleaning concerns raised, did not mean that the property was not in a reasonable condition, or that it would not be fit for habitation. When the resident made the landlord aware of the required repairs and her concerns around the cleaning, it provided a reasonable and timely response to complete these works, in some cases going above and beyond its obligations. When considering the process, there was no maladministration from the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord did not provide its stage one response in the timeframe set out in its policy, as it took 15 working days rather than 10. However, it had made the resident aware of a projected date for the response being issued when it acknowledged the complaint on 24 August 2022. Within its response, the landlord addressed some of the resident’s concerns and proposed an inspection to review other issues raised within the complaint.
Within the resident’s initial complaint, she stated that she experienced discrimination based on her situation and her gender. The resident said that the property offered to her and the condition it was in were influenced by her gender and circumstances. It is recognised that the resident was distressed by what she perceived to be discriminatory treatment. Whether or not the Equalities Act (2010) has been breached by the landlord is a matter that would appropriately be decided by a court, not the Ombudsman. The resident could contact Citizen’s Advice if she needs assistance regarding legal action. In this case, this Service has considered whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s report was appropriate, fair, and reasonable in the circumstances including assessing its response to the resident’s concerns about the conduct of its staff.
In its stage one response, the landlord addressed each of the resident’s claims of discrimination. Although the landlord denied any discrimination, it did so without being dismissive of those claims. Within its response to each claim, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s claim and provided a detailed and considered response to each. It is the view of this Service, that the landlord’s response to these claims was fair and reasonable.
This Service has not had sight of the resident’s request to escalate to stage two of the complaint process. Within the stage two response, the landlord said it attended the property on 22 September 2022 “in advance of receiving your request to escalate”. The stage two response was issued on 27 October 2022, a maximum of 25 working days after the inspection date.
The stage two response provided by the landlord detailed the repair issues that had been considered throughout. These were either explained to have been completed during the complaint process, or that further works were scheduled. The response also addressed other non-repair related elements of the complaint. With several of these issues, the landlord’s response indicated that it was “satisfied” with it’s response at stage one. Although the response at stage one may be accurate, it would have been more thorough to provide further detail, explaining why it agreed with the initial position.
Ultimately, it is the view of this Service that the landlord managed the resident’s complaint in a timely and reasonable manner. Although the responses may have been slightly outside of its timeframes, the landlord remained engaged with the resident throughout. In most areas, the complaint responses fully addressed the resident’s concerns, showing empathy and acknowledging any failings it identified. The landlord took positive steps to address the repairs, carrying out an inspection, providing a plan of works in advance and ensuring completion of all the works over a two day period. Having considered the landlord’s management of this process, there was no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents concerns around the condition of the property when she moved in.
In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Prior to the resident moving in, the landlord ensured the property met the relet standards set out in its checklist. It recorded the condition of the property with photographs showing no clear evidence of disrepair. Although there was a disagreement around the level of cleanliness, the property was still considered habitable. Any minor repairs that were reported, were inspected and then completed in timely manner with the landlord carrying out further works, such as decorating, as a goodwill gesture.
The complaint process did not meet the timeframes set out in it’s policy but the landlord engaged with the resident throughout, with any delays being minimal. The landlord provided detailed responses to the resident’s complaints and ensured that all elements of the complaint were responded to, with appropriate action being throughout.