Jigsaw Homes North (202001174)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001174

Jigsaw Homes North

28 April 2021

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her kitchen;
2. the resident’s reports of asbestos in the block;
3. the resident’s reports of faulty radiators;
4. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
5. the resident’s staff conduct complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The tenancy began on 12 September 2019 and the tenancy agreement describes the property as a one-bedroom basement flat. The property is within a sheltered housing unit.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to ‘repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling’ and keep in repair the installations in the property for ‘heating water’ and the ‘supply of water, gas, electricity’. The landlord is also required to ‘keep any communal entrances, halls, stairway, lifts, passage ways, rubbish chutes and any other communal parts in reasonable repair’.

The resident is obliged to ‘keep the inside of the property decorated to a reasonable standard’.

The tenancy agreement requires the tenant not to ‘behave in any way that causes or is likely to cause nuisance, annoyance, alarm, distress or harassment to any other person’. Slamming of doors is listed as an example of this type of behaviour and it is presumed that all tenants within the unit have similar tenancy conditions.
The landlord’s website shows it has four repairs priorities with timescales ranging from 24 hours to 30 working days. It adds that it will conduct pre-inspections in certain situations where it needs to diagnose the full nature of the work required, giving examples such as dampness, structural defects, upgrades or where investigations are required to identify the problem.
The landlord has an ASB policy that defines ASB as ‘conduct capable of causing “housing-related” nuisance or annoyance to any person’ but that it will not accept reports that ‘are considered to be normal everyday activities or household noise’. It states that it will use early intervention methods such as mediation, warnings to perpetrators and acceptable behaviour contracts. It requires the landlord to investigate ASB complaints as fully as possible and seek ways of independently corroborating by interviewing local neighbours and using recording equipment.
The landlord has a three-stage complaints policy with an initial ‘put it right’ phase following by an investigation stage (for which a response should be provided within ten working days) and a review stage (for which a response should be provided within five working days).

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that the resident reported doors slamming on 14 October 2019 but she was not aware of the source of the noise. It has noted the following actions in response:
1. it checked with other residents that week to see if any others had noticed the noise – it found that only one other resident had heard this but that they did not consider it a disturbance
2. the resident reported on 18 and 21 October 2019 that it was the neighbour above who was slamming doors – the landlord spoke to that neighbour to request that he take care when closing doors although he denied the allegation
3. it put up a notice on the unit noticeboard to ask residents to be aware of their environment and consider that noise can travel
4. the resident made further noise reports on 28 October 2019 – the landlord asked her to complete diary sheets but the resident said this was not possible so the landlord agreed to set up weekly meetings with her to monitor the situation
5. the resident continued to make reports from 28 October 2019 to 28 November 2019 and provided a list of incidents on 28 November 2019 – the landlord noted that the alleged perpetrator had been away from the property in hospital for a week during this period but the resident had continued to report noise at the time
6. it put notices through all doors in the unit during November 2019 reminding residents not to cause a disturbance
7. it considered five sound recordings that the resident provided in early January 2020 – it noted that it combined these with its own CCTV footage and found three were caused by the main doors to the building and two appeared to be from the resident’s own property
8. it received a report of banging doors on 13 January 2020 but established that the alleged perpetrator was bed-bound and terminally ill so would not have been responsible for the noise
9. it closed the case on 4 February 2020 due to lack of evidence (it sent a letter confirming this on 4 February 2020).
The resident made a report on 5 February 2020 of an incident (on 2 February 2020) where she was asked by a different neighbour why she would not return to her home country. The landlord investigated this by interviewing the neighbour who confirmed what was said – the neighbour was warned not to make a comment like this again.
A repairs order was raised on 10 February 2020 to attend to a report of damp in the resident’s kitchen. The order was closed on 13 February 2020 with a note stating ‘No dampness detected at property. No repairs required. Found some rotten fruit in kitchen, tenant was complaining of small flies.’
The landlord’s records show that the resident made reports on 18 February 2020 of various concerns, including windows, light fittings, light bulbs, cooker hood filter, banging noise, kitchen damp, flies in the flat and use of the laundry.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 March 2020. It advised her that:
1. pest control operatives had visited the property and found that the only flies present were due to rotten fruit and that a follow-up visit would follow
2. inspections of the property had found no evidence of damp
3. the noise nuisance case had been closed due to a lack of evidence
4. support would be offered to the resident for her search for a new property.
A doctor’s letter was written on 6 May 2020 that set out the resident’s physical health problems and stated that the resident believed her current accommodation had worsened her asthma (there is no evidence as to when this letter was provided to the landlord).
Following contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord on 20 July 2020 to ask that it respond to a complaint from her about repairs and ASB. The landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident the next day. It said it had spoken to the resident on 20 July 2020 and defined her complaint as being about kitchen damp causing blistered paintwork, kitchen ventilation, potential asbestos within the block, rattling radiators, poor insulation, door slamming by a neighbour and conduct of a member of the landlord staff. It added that they had discussed a past hate crime but that the resident had stated she no longer wished this to be pursued.
The landlord’s records show that the resident again reported slamming doors on 21 July 2020. It noted that this could not have been from the property above as the alleged perpetrator had passed away during February 2020 and the new neighbour was yet to move in. The landlord has advised this Service that the resident has not reported further noise concerns since 21 August 2020.
The landlord conducted a survey of the resident’s property on 24 July 2020. It has provided photographs of more than 20 damp meter readings taken that show all readings were within the ‘dry’ range. Its internal records show that it tested all accessible areas of wall and found no evidence of condensation either. It also concluded that:
1. there was asbestos present in the block and property but a condition check showed this was ‘fine’
2. the kitchen is an internal room with no window or ventilation but this is how the properties were designed and there was no plan to upgrade the block
3. there was no evidence of rattling radiators during the survey
4. there was a small section of peeling paint on a kitchen wall above the skirting board but this was concluded to be a decorative issue
5. the windows throughout the property were ‘fine’.
A repairs order was raised on 27 July 2020 in response to the resident’s report of pipework banging during the night. The order was closed on 29 July 2020 with a note that stated ‘Tenant complaining about noisy radiators. Got some air out of the system for her and told her to see how she gets on if not will need commercial heating engineer.’
The landlord issued a complaint response on 28 July 2020. It mentioned seven aspects to the complaint and concluded that:
1. a survey on 23 July 2020 concluded there was no damp and that kitchen paintwork blistering was a decorations issue for which the resident was responsible
2. a new extraction system would not be installed as the property met building requirements when the landlord converted the building
3. there is asbestos present in the property and block but is deemed to be low risk if it is not disturbed or damaged
4. the surveyor had not witnessed rattling radiators but the resident was invited to report this again in the winter when the radiators would be in use
5. the noise nuisance report relating to a neighbour slamming doors was closed in February 2020 due to lack of evidence and a new tenant was due to move into the property in any case
6. the landlord was aware of a resident under the influence of alcohol causing disruption and, although it could not divulge details, the matter was in hand
7. it had attempted to contact the resident to obtain details of allegations she had made about a member of staff being dismissive of her concerns but it had not been able to speak to her; it asked her to make contact to discuss this further.
The landlord has recorded that it spoke to the resident and her representative on 4 August 2020. It noted that it discussed:
1. racist comments made to the resident – the landlord noted that the resident had previously stated she did not want this to be pursued
2. deliberate damage caused to the resident’s scooter – the landlord noted it advised the resident that it did not have CCTV in the relevant storage area
3. concerns about two neighbours who had dementia – the landlord noted that it could not discuss safeguarding issues about other residents
4. kitchen damp – the landlord noted that it advised the resident this was to be investigated
5. soiled clothing left in the laundry – the landlord noted that it had been aware of an incident related to an unwell neighbour
6. conduct of a member of staff – the landlord noted that it told the resident to report any specific concerns to it about this member of staff
7. conduct of a surveyor – the landlord noted that the resident was concerned she was not able to speak to the surveyor but the surveyor later denied this
8. re-housing support – the landlord noted that the resident wanted to live in social housing within a specific geographic area and that she had been signposted to local housing providers.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 August 2020 (this letter was not posted until 27 August 2020). It advised the resident that:
1. a further survey would be undertaken to the block to determine if any improvement could be made to kitchen ventilation
2. the former neighbour no longer lived at the block so the door slamming should no longer be an issue
3. no repairs at the property were outstanding
4. she would need to contact her insurance company about the scooter issue
5. it had spoken to the resident, and her representative, about the staff conduct issue but no recent incidents had been provided.
A repairs order was raised on 10 September 2020 in response to the resident’s report of a rattling living room radiator. The order was closed on 16 September 2020 with a note stating ‘No noise from radiators. Radiators heating properly. No fault found. If re occurs may need commercial engineer to check pump speeds in boiler house.’
A repairs order was raised on 11 September 2020 to service the cooker hood. The order was closed on 16 September 2020 with a note stating ‘Bathroom fan cleaned. Cooker hood cleaned and filters changed.’
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 September 2020. It advised that a comprehensive inspection of the ventilation system had taken place and the only recommended work was the servicing of the cooker ventilation hood. It added that it had replaced the cooker hood filter and internal lamps on 16 September 2020 and completed a function test that established the cooker hood was functioning correctly.
Repairs orders were raised on 28 September 2020 and 22 December 2020 to check the living room radiator size. The size was noted 6 October 2020 and it was concluded on 14 January 2021 that ‘radiator is more than adequate for that room. No further work required.’

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Kitchen repairs

The resident made an initial report of damp in her kitchen on 10 February 2020. The landlord raised a repairs order and conducted an inspection within a week – it assessed that there was no damp present and no repairs required. The landlord’s repairs procedures state that it will conduct pre-inspections when damp is reported and its response was therefore appropriate.
The resident subsequently advised the landlord of health concerns and again raised damp to the kitchen during the complaints process. In response, the landlord conducted another inspection in July 2020. It used damp meters to test moisture levels to different walls in the property and was again unable to establish that there was a damp issue. The landlord’s decision to conduct a second inspection demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to check that there was no damp present in her property – this was again an appropriate approach.
The resident has also reported a lack of ventilation in the kitchen and the need for decorations. The property was let to the resident with no windows to the kitchen and the landlord is under no obligation to make improvements to the resident’s property by installing windows. Its responsibility is instead to ‘maintain’ the property. Similarly, the tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for decorations within her home. The landlord’s assessment that it was not responsible for re-decorating the area of peeling paint in the kitchen was therefore appropriate.
The landlord nevertheless assessed the resident’s reports when it conducted its second inspection in July 2020. It confirmed that it was not obliged to install an extraction system to the kitchen but decided to raise an order to service the cooker hood in an effort to improve ventilation. It completed this work in September 2020, when it also cleaned a bathroom fan. Although the landlord concluded that it was not obliged to install windows or an extraction system to the kitchen, it was resolution-focused in that it undertook a couple of inspections and completed improvements to the existing ventilation devices.
In summary, the landlord has been unable to locate damp in the resident’s kitchen despite two inspections for this purpose. Its attempts to diagnose were appropriate and its decision that no repairs were required was reasonable given the lack of evidence of damp. It was not obliged to carry out any decorations, install windows or fit a new extraction system to the resident’s kitchen but it has again inspected in response to the resident’s reports and taken steps to improve the quality of ventilation where possible.

Asbestos

The resident made a general report about the presence of asbestos in her property and the block when the landlord discussed her complaint with her on 20 July 2020. The landlord conducted an inspection on 24 July 2020 and included an asbestos condition check. The need for a pre-inspection was in line with its repairs policy and therefore appropriate. It concluded that the asbestos was safe in its present condition and informed the resident of this on 28 July 2020 – the landlord therefore conducted the inspection and communicated the outcome to the resident within a reasonable timescale.
In summary, the landlord inspected the resident’s property within a week of her raising asbestos-related concerns and identified that the asbestos was low risk and no repairs were required. It reasonably advised the resident that the asbestos was safe if it remained intact and, based on evidence seen by this Service, the resident has not raised these concerns again.

Radiator repairs

The resident reported rattling radiators when the landlord discussed her complaint with her on 20 July 2020. The landlord conducted an inspection on 24 July 2020 and included a radiator check. The decision to undertake a pre-inspection was again in line with its repairs policy and therefore appropriate.
The landlord noted that it had not observed the radiators rattling during the inspection. Nevertheless, it raised a repairs order on 27 July 2020 for an engineer to attend when the resident reiterated her reports of noisy pipework. The landlord completed this order on 29 July 2020 when it noted that it had released some air from the system. This demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused and it attended to the radiator report twice within nine days which was an appropriate timescale for this type of repair.
When the landlord wrote to the resident on 28 July 2020, it stated that the resident could report the issue again in the winter when the radiators were in use. This was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord would be willing to re-consider the report at a time when it may be more likely to be able to witness the fault.
The landlord raised a further repairs order in September 2020 in response to the resident’s report of the living room radiator rattling. It attended the property within a week and was unable to find a fault on the radiator – this was again a reasonable timescale for the landlord to attend and in line with its repairs obligations.
The landlord raised a further repairs order in late September 2020 to check the size of the radiator as the resident had reported the property was cold. It attended on 6 October 2020 to record the size of the radiator – this was again done within a reasonable timescale. The landlord failed to reach a conclusion to this investigation until mid-January 2021 but this delay did not change the outcome as it was found that the radiator size was appropriate for the property size.
In summary, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports about her radiators. It attended on three occasions to attempt to witness the rattling the resident reported – it was unable to diagnose any problem with the radiator but it released air from the system nevertheless and offered to re-visit the problem if the resident were to report it again. Although it took three months to complete its investigations, it also assessed the heating output of the radiators in comparison with the property size and established that no works were needed – this was a reasonable approach to the resident’s concerns.

ASB Reports

The Ombudsman considers complaints about how a landlord has responded to reports of a problem. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide if the actions of the alleged perpetrators amounted to ASB, but rather, whether the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports about this appropriately and reasonably.
The resident made initial reports of door slamming on 14 October 2019 and identified the neighbour that she thought was responsible the same week. Door slamming is mentioned as potential ASB within the landlord’s ASB policy and over the course of the next six weeks, the landlord has evidenced that it:
1. attempted to gather evidence by interviewing other neighbours and setting up weekly meetings with the resident when she advised she could not complete incident diaries
2. addressed the issue with the alleged perpetrator who denied he was responsible
3. put up notices and wrote to all residents in the block to request that they take care when closing doors.

These actions were in line with the landlord’s ASB policy to investigate as fully as possible and attempt to obtain corroborating evidence – this was therefore an appropriate response to the resident’s reports of slamming doors.

The resident continued to report slamming doors during January-February 2020. It considered five sound recordings that the resident submitted and matched these to its own CCTV recordings – having done so, it was unable to identify that another resident or property was responsible for the noise. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord to attempt to establish the source of noise and was again in line with its ASB policy to investigate using recording equipment.
The landlord was unable to establish that the neighbour alleged to have been the source of the door slamming was responsible for the noise and it explained to the resident its decision to close the case in February 2020. It was reasonable for it to consider the neighbour’s circumstances in terms of his health and absence from the property at times when the resident had reported door slamming. Its decision to close the ASB case was therefore evidence-based and appropriate.
The resident did not report slamming doors again until July-August 2020. The landlord considered that the previously alleged property could not have been responsible for the noise given the tenant had passed away and it established that the new tenant was yet to move in. It was reasonable that the landlord reviewed the situation at the neighbouring property and determined that it was unlikely to be the source of the noise. Based on evidence seen by this Service, no further noise reports have been made by the resident.
The resident made a separate ASB complaint about comments made to her by another neighbour in February 2020. She reported that the neighbour had asked her why she did not return to her home country. The landlord interviewed the alleged perpetrator, corroborated that the comments had been made and warned her. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to take, particularly given it noted in July 2020 that the resident had asked the landlord not to proceed with any further action.
In summary, the landlord considered the resident’s noise nuisance reports in line with its obligations. It investigated the reports in detail, asking the resident to collect evidence and using its own means to attempt to corroborate the door slamming. It was unable to conclusively establish the source of the door slamming and so the informal measures it took to alleviate the noise were reasonable.

Staff conduct

The resident reported that she was dissatisfied with a member of staff at the unit when the landlord discussed her complaint with her on 20 July 2020. When the landlord responded to the complaint on 28 July 2020, it stated that it did not have specific allegations to investigate. It advised that management had unsuccessfully attempted to contact the resident to discuss the allegations further and invited the resident to contact it so this part of the complaint could be considered. In order for the landlord to investigate a complaint of staff misconduct, it was necessary for it to understand the details of the complaint and it was therefore reasonable that the landlord stated that it needed to discuss the matter with the resident.
When the landlord and resident discussed the wider complaint further on 4 August 2020, the landlord reiterated that it was willing to investigate any staffing issues. There were again no specific details provided by the resident but the landlord agreed with the resident that the member of staff concerned would liaise with the resident’s representative in future instead of with the resident – this was confirmed in writing on 14 August 2020. Although the landlord had not been able to fully investigate the staff misconduct issue, it was reasonable and resolution-focused for it to introduce an alternative method of communication with the agreement of the resident.
In summary, the landlord attempted to undertake an investigation into the resident’s concerns about a member of staff. However, there was a lack of detailed information provided by the resident even after it met with her to discuss the matter. The landlord took reasonable steps to demonstrate it took the resident’s concerns seriously and assured the resident that it would investigate any specific allegations she was able to make. Based on evidence seen by this Service, no specific allegations have been made and it is therefore reasonable that the landlord decided it could not progress the investigation further.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her kitchen;
2. the resident’s reports of asbestos in the block;
3. the resident’s reports of faulty radiators;
4. the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB);
5. the resident’s staff conduct complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has conducted two inspections of the resident’s kitchen which have failed to identify any damp. It was not obliged to carry out the improvements and decorations requested by the resident but has taken steps to ensure ventilation devices are working correctly.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property within a week of her reports of asbestos concerns. It concluded that there was low risk to the resident and no repairs were required.
The landlord has attended the resident’s property on multiple occasions but been unable to witness the rattling radiators she reported. Nevertheless, it has attempted to reduce the likelihood of noise by releasing air from the system and offered to return to the property when the radiators are in use.
The landlord took appropriate informal steps to address the resident’s reports of door slamming. Its investigations based on the resident’s evidence and its own monitoring did not allow it to take formal enforcement action against any of the resident’s neighbours.
The landlord has offered to review the resident’s staff conduct complaint further but the resident has not provided any specific instances of staff misconduct that would have allowed the landlord to progress its investigations.