The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202220957)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220957

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

8 November 2023

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the reported condition of the property and rubbish being left in the gardens following the resident’s mutual exchange.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy and lives in a house.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident in relation to her mutual exchange application on 22 June 2022. It stated it was important the resident visit the property she wished to move into and discuss the rent, tenancy conditions and condition of the property with the existing tenant. The landlord advised that if the exchange was agreed, the resident would take over the current tenancy agreement from the existing tenant and she would accept the property as seen in terms of repair, any alterations made by the existing tenant, decoration and cleanliness.
  3. The landlord provided the resident with consent for the mutual exchange on 26 July 2022. It reminded the resident that she would be accepting the property she was moving into (including the fixtures and fittings, any gardens and any common parts etc.) as seen. The landlord advised any arrangements the resident made to leave or remove her own items i.e., white goods, carpets, furnishings etc. would be between herself and the other tenant she would be exchanging with. The landlord stated it would not get involved in any disputes and it would not be responsible for any repairs at the resident’s new home that arose as a result of the move, which would be her own responsibility.
  4. The resident signed a deed of assignment for the mutually exchanged property on 7 September 2022. On 8 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the previous tenant had left the property and garden in a mess. She stated the garden was full of rubbish, brick, rubble and cement. The landlord responded to the resident on the same date to advise that there was nothing it could do because the resident had accepted the property as seen and it did not get involved in disputes between tenants.
  5. The resident raised a complaint on 13 September 2022 because she was unhappy with the condition of the property she had moved into and with the landlord not taking any action about it. She explained the previous tenants had left their belongings in the property and the front and back gardens were not safe and a hazard for her children because they had been left full of rubbish. The resident advised that she had spoken to the previous tenant, who could not afford to pay for the rubbish to be cleared away. She stated the property had been in an acceptable condition when she had previously viewed it and she now felt like she had moved into a dump. The resident provided the landlord with photos of the front and back gardens.
  6. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 5 October 2022. The landlord advised it had reviewed the mutual exchange documents that the resident had been given and had signed during the process. It stated there was a number of references within those documents which detailed that the cleanliness and condition of the property the resident was moving into would be her responsibility following the mutual exchange. The landlord stated it was satisfied the correct policies and procedures had been followed during the mutual exchange process. It advised it was not responsible for clearing the waste and it could not take any action against the previous tenant because the resident had signed the deed of assignment to accept the property in its current condition.
  7. The landlord stated the resident could have delayed signing the legally binding document i.e. the deed of assignment, until the resident was satisfied the property was in an acceptable condition for her to exchange. It advised the resident had read and understood the terms of the tenancy she was taking over, which stated that it remained the tenant’s responsibility to ensure good upkeep and maintenance of the gardens. During the mutual exchange process the resident was also advised that the landlord would not get involved in disputes regarding such matters. The landlord advised it would not remove the waste from the garden and restore the property to the condition it was in when she had viewed it before the mutual exchange.
  8. The resident’s MP, who was acting as her representative, contacted the landlord on 5 October 2022 and asked it to take action to resolve the resident’s complaint. The MP did not think the landlord could disassociate itself from the problem because one of its tenants had left rubbish for the resident to clear away, which was unfair because of the costs involved. The MP asked if the landlord had carried out an inspection of the property.
  9. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 16 November 2022. It outlined the mutual exchange process and the documents the resident was required to read, agree to and sign. The landlord stated that because the resident had signed to confirm she accepted the property in its present condition, it was obligated to advise her that the rubbish left in the garden was a private matter between herself and tenant she had exchanged with. The landlord advised that if the condition of the garden had been brought to its attention before the exchange contract had been signed, it could have provided the landlord with the opportunity to assess whether the issue represented a breach in the other tenant’s tenancy or grounds to deny the exchange. The landlord suggested the resident approach the other tenant with a view of reaching an agreement about clearing the garden. The landlord reiterated that it was satisfied that it had acted within accordance with both legislation and its in-house policies and it had provided the resident with reasonable information throughout the mutual exchange process.
  10. The resident’s MP contacted the Ombudsman in December 2022 because the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to clear the rubbish from her front and back gardens. As a resolution the resident wanted the gardens to be cleared and made safe for use.
  11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 July 2023. It referred to recently speaking to the resident about her complaint and the resident not being able to afford the cost of clearing the gardens. The landlord advised it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and felt it could have handled the complaint better and offered the resident some assistance with her reported concerns. The landlord stated it was satisfied that its complaint responses had reflected the correct advice in terms of the agreements the resident had signed as part of the mutual exchange process. However, the landlord had noted that in the resident’s case it had not carried out a property inspection at the time of the exchange. The landlord advised it was unable to comment with any certainty that if it had carried out a property inspection, whether the resident’s reported concerns would not have occurred. This was because it appeared from the photos provided by the resident, that a lot of the rubbish looked to have accumulated during the moving out process. The landlord felt that in the resident’s case, it could have assisted in some way to help her resolve the issue.
  12. The landlord explained it was not aware of the property’s condition because an inspection had not been carried out and the amount of rubbish left by the previous tenant had been quite exceptional. The landlord advised it had not been carrying out property inspections at the time of the resident’s mutual exchange because of internal changes. The landlord stated it had commenced inspections from October 2022 and any tenancy breaches identified, was highlighted to the tenant and had to be resolved to the landlord’s satisfaction before the exchange could go ahead. The landlord stated it hoped its letter had provided the resident with some reassurance that it would resolve any identified issues that was considered a breach of tenancy before allowing the exchanges to proceed.
  13. The landlord asked the resident to provide it with photos showing the current condition of the gardens and advised it would arrange for them to be cleared. It also offered the resident £350 as a goodwill gesture to acknowledge any inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident.
  14. The resident confirmed with the Ombudsman that the landlord cleared the gardens on 14 July 2023.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, 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 three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Policies and Procedures

  1. Under the heading “Gardens and Communal area” the resident’s tenancy states if the tenant has sole use of a garden, they must, where they are solely responsible, cultivate the garden area and not let it get overgrown or untidy.
  2. The landlord’s mutual exchange procedure states the purpose of the lettings tenancy officer’s visit is to:
    1. Advise the tenant what a mutual exchange entails.
    2. Complete a property inspection to check for damage, the condition of any alterations made with consent and whether any unauthorised alterations have been made.
    3. Discuss any breaches in tenancy conditions that will affect the move.
  3. If the lettings tenancy officer identifies any damage that is not fair wear and tear, they will decide whether the tenant can rectify the damage themselves or whether it should be recharged. Any damage that the tenant is to put right themselves will need inspecting before the deeds are signed.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states under the heading “Service Failure”, the landlord may compensate residents where a failure on its part has been shown to cause the resident to suffer loss or incur cost. One of the examples being the landlord taking an unreasonable time to resolve a situation.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will aim to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days, acknowledge an escalation request and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the reported condition of the property and rubbish being left in the gardens following the resident’s mutual exchange

  1. The landlord relied on the correspondence and documents that were provided to the resident in relation to her mutual exchange to not uphold her complaint. Whilst this was the correct general approach, the landlord should have been more robust in checking it had taken the actions outlined in its own mutual exchange procedure. It is a concern the landlord originally made the decision to not take any action, when it had not conducted a thorough investigation. The landlord failed to address whether an inspection had taken place prior to the resident moving in, despite the question being raised in the resident’s escalation request.
  2. The landlord had the opportunity to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all the circumstances of the reported issue at stage 2 of its complaints process. Had this been done, the landlord could have identified its service failure and taken action to put things right earlier. The landlord only undertook a further review of the resident’s complaint after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Had the landlord made the offer to clear the garden during the complaints process, it would have likely been satisfactory in putting things right at a much earlier stage. The landlord should ensure it conducts a thorough investigation, that relies on all of the evidence available before making a decision. This will help it to reach a fairer outcome and take any necessary action in the first instance.
  3. However, it is positive that the landlord has since identified its failings and outlined in its letter of 6 July 2023, the actions it had taken to prevent this issue from occurring again. This included carrying out property inspections and addressing any issues it considered a breach of tenancy before a mutual exchange was completed and outlining this procedure with all relevant staff. This is in line with the learnings and actions the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have taken from the failings it had identified and its delays in dealing with the reported rubbish left in the garden.
  4. The delayed action from the landlord meant that the issue remained outstanding for around 10 months. This would have been highly inconvenient and frustrating for the resident. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord has sought to put things right by clearing the garden and providing the resident with compensation of £350. However, given the landlord’s delay in resolving the issue, the compensation it has provided to the resident is not proportionate to the identified failings in this investigation. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests compensation of up to £600 is appropriate for instances of service failure, where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 compensation to fully put right the recognised failings. This would bring the total compensation to £450 taking into account the landlord’s earlier offer.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the condition of the property and reported rubbish being left in the gardens following the resident’s mutual exchange.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation for the failures identified with its handling of reported rubbish being left in the gardens following the resident’s mutual exchange.
  2. If it has not done so already, the landlord is to pay the £350 compensation it offered to the resident prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation.
  3. The compensation awarded by this service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against any service charges or rent arrears.
  4. The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this decision.