Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202305418)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305418

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

10 September 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 handling of the resident’s reports concerning:
1. A blocked drain.
2. Peeling damp proof paint and the contractor’s behaviour.
3. Cracks in the property.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Since 1 September 2003 the resident has been an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house. During the relevant period there were 4 people living at the property and there are no recorded vulnerabilities.
On 7 September 2022 the resident reported that mould had reappeared in the bathroom, as such an order for a mould clean and anti-mould painting was raised.
The resident also reported that the gully underneath the kitchen window was blocked on 12 September 2022. A contractor attended the property on 15 September 2022, but the works could not be completed as further works by the drain team were required.
On 10 November 2022 the resident reported cracks on the landing, that the ceiling in the bedroom, bathroom and landing were sagging as well as that the recently completed anti-mould paint applied to the bathroom ceiling was flaking off.
An inspector attended the property on 23 November 2022, they recommended that a specialist contractor carry out a drain survey and a structural engineer attend to assess the cracks on the landing.
A drainage survey was conducted on 1 December 2022 and the report advised that both gullies should be replaced and a CCTV survey conducted.
On 19 December 2022 a structural survey was conducted on the property, the surveyor did not recommend any structural repairs/remedial works as they had concluded that:
1. The property had settled to the left, likely around the time of construction, but the effects of the building movement had not compromised the structural integrity of the house.
2. The cracking on the landing was most likely the result of plaster shrinkage and not structural issues.
3. The possibility of structural movement or distress occurring in the future was extremely remote, assuming normal levels of upkeep and maintenance.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023 and reported that the recently applied anti-mould paint in the bathroom was flaking off, the drain survey had not been done and the structural engineer who attended the property had told her there was structural movement. However, she had not heard anything further since then.
The landlord responded to the resident on 1 February 2023 and said that due to the conclusion of the structural survey no work was required. It also confirmed the contractor had been informed the paint they applied to the bathroom was peeling.
The next day the resident contacted the landlord and said that a contractor had attended the property, they had scraped bits off the bathroom ceiling but had not cleaned up after themselves. They had also used the toilet without asking and then did not flush it. The resident asked for an update regarding the subsidence issue and the drain survey, stating she had chased this several times but had not received a reply.
The landlord left the resident a voicemail on 8 February 2023 stating that no issues were reported in the structural survey and therefore no work was needed. An external drains survey had been completed and had found that no works were required. It also confirmed that it would pass the resident’s feedback to the contractor regarding their operatives’ conduct.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 3 May 2023, stating that:
1. The contractors that had originally attended to unblock the drains had not done the work because they said they needed a high-powered tool and would return with one. The resident heard nothing back from them after this and the drain eventually unblocked itself.
2. The contractors that came to paint the bathroom ceiling with damp proof paint knocked off some of the peeling paint and painted it but it then started peeling even more. They came back out and did it again but left all the mess and used the toilet without flushing. She had complained about this and was told she would hear back but had not heard anything since.
3. When she reported the growing cracks in the walls and ceiling, she was told the landlord would send someone to look at the drains as it is the first thing to look at in this situation. Someone came out in November 2022 and they spoke to the neighbour because the manhole is next door. She said the hole was under paving slabs but they were not cemented down, so he needed to put it back properly. However, he instead said that he needed to speak to his manager first. A surveyor came out in December 2022 and he told her that the house was moving. She had heard nothing after this despite calling 4 or 5 times and asking for the inspector to ring her back. Each time she was told she would get a call back within 72 hours but she has not been contacted in 5 months.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 26 May 2023 and concluded that:
1. Despite the neighbour refusing access to her garden for the surveyor to inspect the soil vent pipe which is shared and drops into their garden, both the structural and drainage surveys found no issues relating to the property’s pipes or subsidence.
2. The resident’s requests for a call back were responded to by the landlord and the inspector’s manager, and they had updated her. The landlord had also requested that the Inspector call the resident. It had also arranged a visit by a different contractor to assess and make arrangements for a further mould treatment and paint for 5 June 2023.
3. The resident’s feedback regarding the contractor’s conduct was passed on to them. In response they had apologised and advised this will not happen again.
The resident was unhappy with this response and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 26 May 2023, stating that:
1. 3 of the dates on which the landlord’s stage 1 response said she had received a call back were wrong because she had only ever received 1 call which was when she was told there were no structural issues. It was this call she then called back about because the engineer had told her during the visit that the walls and floor were not straight and the house was twisting. Additionally, the landlord had said the attempted calls were made to her landline yet she has never had a landline, therefore she was not satisfied that it contacted her back in due course.
2. She felt the landlord was insinuating that she had lied about the situation with the neighbour. The landlord’s stage 1 response said the neighbour had not given the surveyor access to the garden, when in fact she had and had told them the slabs covering the manhole were not concreted down. So, they could lift them but then needed to put them back properly. The resident felt that the surveyor “basically couldn’t be bothered and said he would speak to his manager”. She was not happy that the drains had not been inspected and said it could not be concluded that there was no issue with them.
3. She was unclear how the cracks in the walls could be from plaster shrinkage when she had lived at the property for 20 years and no new plastering had taken place in that time. Additionally, the inspection was not a proper one as the contractor was only there for about 3 minutes. Why did the engineer tell her there was structural damage? He also pointed out cracks on the outer of the house.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 21 June 2023 and said:
1. The case officer who investigated the complaint confirmed the landline number was on the account with no mobile number. However following the complaint, the account was updated to remove the landline number and include only the mobile number. They were unable to explain why the records had not been updated previously and apologised for any inconvenience caused.
2. The member of the asset management team that coordinated the structural report had explained that the surveyor who initially visited may have told the resident that the property required a structural report; however this was not because they believed the property had structural damage. The landlord’s surveyors are not structural engineers and therefore it requested a structural and a drainage report. The results of the structural survey found no issues and did not recommend any structural repairs/remedial works.
3. The drains had been inspected and recommendations for works were made in the report. It confirmed that the recommended drainage works had been completed.
4. The landlord also pointed out that during the visit the resident had told the engineer there was a third gully which was missed during their first visit, this was located under the decking and can just about be seen by leaning to look underneath. The contractor noted there was water holding and could see signs the ground below had been washed away. The contractor advised that the decking needed to be removed and this investigated with the most likely way of doing so being through an excavation of the gully. If the gully under the decking was to be investigated, then the decking needed to be removed prior to the arrival of the engineers.
5. The landlord confirmed it considered that further works and investigations were required but to enable it to carry these out the decking would first need to be removed by the resident.
On 27 June 2023 the resident contacted this Service and confirmed she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses and wanted the complaint investigated. She said the response was contradictory as:
1. It noted she does not have a landline on record because the landlord has taken it off, yet there was never a landline in the first place as she has never had one.
2. The person who inspected the drains found water collecting at the corner of the house and thought there should be a gully there, he looked and thought he might be able to see the corner of one. The response implied that she had said there was a gully and had covered it up with decking. However this was not the case, the decking just goes up to the corner of the house and not over the place where the gully should be. On closer inspection she believed what the inspector saw was the corner of a brick. At the time she told him she had never seen a gully in that area, the side of the house had always been concreted and if they did need to look it is not under my decking.
A plumbing invoice shows that works were completed on the drains on 1 August 2023 and the landlord’s records show that a further mould wash was completed on 3 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports concerning a blocked drain

Under the landlord’s repairs policy blocked gullies are classified as essential repairs and should be resolved within 15 working days.
The records seen show that on 12 September 2022 the resident reported the gully underneath the kitchen window was blocked and that a contractor attended the property on 15 September 2022. The notes on the repair records state “Repair Incomplete 15-Sep-2022 11:09:41……Further work required… Drain team required”.
However, the records do not provide details about what was found during this visit and why/what further works were required. Additionally, while the gullies were inspected later in relation to reports of cracks in the property, no records have been seen to show the resident was contacted to arrange an appointment for the additional works to be carried out.
The resident has said that following the visit on 15 September 2022 she was not contacted again about the blocked gully, but it did eventually unblock itself. However, she has not confirmed how long it took for the gully to unblock itself.
Overall, the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failure to:
1. Keep adequately detailed records
2. Monitor outstanding works
3. Keep in contact with the resident
Cumulatively these failures amount to a service failure as they caused an unnecessary delay in the gully being unblocked and the resident avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience by not being contacted about outstanding works.

The landlord’s handling of reports concerning peeling damp proof paint and the contractor’s behaviour

Under the landlord’s repairs policy, damp prevention works (which includes plastering and associated decoration) are classified as routine repairs and should be resolved within 90 working days.
The records seen show that on 7 September 2022 the resident reported that there was mould in the bathroom. On 7 November 2022 a mould clean was carried out and anti-mould paint applied to the bathroom.
The stage 1 response said thaton 19 January 2023 the resident reported that the anti-mould paint in the bathroom was peeling off, although no record of this is shown on the repairs history provided by the landlord.
However, the repairs history shows that on 10 November 2022 the resident said “after you carried out a mould clean and applied mould paint to the bathroom that soon after the ceiling paint has started to flake off”. This same record shows that an order to fit plasterboard to the eaves, add a plaster finish and apply mould inhibiting paint to the ceiling was raised, and that these works were completed on 23 November 2022.
The stage 1 response also says that on 2 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and reported that a contractor had attended the property and had “scraped bits off your bathroom ceiling but had not cleaned up after them. You were also unhappy they had used your toilet without asking and did not flush it”. However, there is no record of this visit on the repairs history provided by the landlord and as such the date is unknown, although the records show that a further mould wash was carried out and completed on 2 March 2023.
While the records do not explain why 2 instances of anti-mould paint applied to the bathroom had failed and peeled off, the landlord completed the individual damp proofing works within the repairs policy timescales.
That said the records do not show that the landlord carried out any investigations into why the anti-mould paint began to peel off after 2 separate applications nor that it monitored these works to ensure the paint did not peel off again. The fact that the anti-mould paint had peeled may have been an indicator that the original damp issue may not have been fully resolved and therefore should have been investigated further.
Additionally, the stage 1 response confirmed that the resident’s feedback about the contractor’s behaviour had been passed on and they had apologised. Under the circumstances this was a reasonable response to the resident’s complaint about the contractor’s behaviour.
Overall, the landlord completed each individual repair within the repairs policy timescales and the apology for the contractor’s behaviour in the stage 1 response was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns as it accepted responsibility and expressed regret.
However, the landlord’s failure to carry out an investigation into the cause of the peeling paint and to adequately monitor the works amounts to a service failure as it caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of reports concerning cracked walls

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The resident reported cracks in the walls and ceilings of the property on 10 November 2022, and an inspector attended the property on 23 November 2022. The records seen state the inspector recommended that a specialist carry out a drain survey and a structural engineer attend to assess the cracks to the landing walls.
A drainage survey was conducted on 1 December 2022 and stated the operatives were unable to inspect the manhole in the neighbour’s garden as they refused to provide access, but in relation to the 2 gullies in the resident’s property it recommended they both be replaced and a CCTV survey carried out.
On 19 December 2022 a structural survey was carried out. This survey concluded that the possibility of structural movement or distress occurring in the future to be extremely remote, and as such did not recommend any structural repairs/remedial works.
Both surveys were carried out within the 90 day timescale set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, as such there was no maladministration in this regard.
While the Ombudsman does not doubt what the resident has said regarding what the inspector told her about the property, the conclusions of the inspections or the third gully, the reports compiled by the surveyors do not support this. The landlord followed the recommendation of its inspector to commission a drain survey and assessment by a structural engineer. Therefore taking appropriate steps to investigate the report of cracked walls.
Landlords are entitled to rely on information provided by appropriately qualified contractors in the absence of contradicting independent third-party evidence, and in this instance the structural survey concluded that there was no structural movement and that no structural works are required. While the drainage survey recommended that the decking be removed so the water underneath and signs that the ground below had been washed away can be investigated in relation to the cracks in the walls.
Additionally, based on the records seen, the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns by working with relevant senior officers regarding their version of events. It also clarified its version of events and the intended advice of the contractors who attended the property. These records contain a good level of detail about the visits, the advice given and they are consistent. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on them.
Overall, based on the above, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to reports concerning cracked walls.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, while a stage 2 response will be issued within 20 working days. If more time is needed then the investigating officer will explain why more time is needed and when to expect the complaint response.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 3 May 2023 and the landlord issued its response on 26 May 2023, which is 16 working days later. Therefore, the landlord failed to issue its stage 1 response within the timescale set out in its complaints policy. Additionally, no evidence has been seen to show that the resident was contacted about a delay or given a new date by which to expect the response.
In the resident’s stage 1 complaint she raised concerns regarding the visit by contractors to unblock the gully under the kitchen window, which was not completed because they said they would need to return with a high-powered tool. The contractors did not return and the gully eventually unblocked itself.
However, neither the stage 1 or stage 2 responses address this complaint point nor has the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures. While it is appreciated that the resident has said the gully unblocked itself, the landlord should still have addressed this complaint point.
The Ombudsman’s Code, operated at the time, required that landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failure to:
1. Adhere to its complaints policy timescales.
2. Address all complaint points raised by the resident.
Cumulatively these failures amount to maladministration as they led to unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports concerning a blocked drain.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports concerning peeling damp proof paint and the contractor’s behaviour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports concerning cracked walls.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord must apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology should follow the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
Within 4 weeks the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has directly paid the resident £225 compensation comprised of:
1. £50 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the failures in managing the report of a blocked drain.
2. £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the poor management of reports of peeling anti-mould paint.
3. £75 for the inconvenience caused by the maladministration of the complaint.