Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Places for People Group Limited (202335735)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335735

Places for People Group Limited

30 January 2025


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 resident’s:
    1. Reports about a bathroom leak.
    2. Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2012. The property is a 2-bedroom house.
  2. The resident reported a bathroom leak in late May 2023, after which the landlord took action to contain the leak and to overhaul a leaking pipe connected to a bath tap.
  3. The resident reported the kitchen ceiling bowing due to the leak around the same time, after which the landlord raised a repair to inspect the ceiling and later scheduled some unspecified works, which were noted to require removal of the ceiling beforehand.
  4. The repairs were cancelled multiple times, for reasons that included a full day being required, asbestos removal being required, contractors not turning up, and contractors not having the works on their system. The evidence indicates that the delays led the resident to make a complaint in June 2023, and to then attempt to escalate this with an individual member of staff in December 2023 or January 2024.
  5. The landlord finally removed the ceiling on 30 November 2023, which the resident says allowed it to access and repair a leaking pipe. Following this, the landlord reinstated the ceiling on 11 January 2024 and aimed to attend the next day to reinstate the kitchen light. However, the landlord did not obtain access when it attended, and the light reinstatement was rescheduled to 26 January 2024.
  6. On 12 January 2024, the resident complained again. She said that she had been in for the appointment that day, she currently had no light in the kitchen, the issue had been going on for a long time, and she had experienced missed appointments and lack of responses to emails.
  7. The same day, the landlord offered to schedule the kitchen light reinstatement to 18 January 2024, but the repair for the light was completed on 26 January 2024 after the resident asked to keep the appointment to this date.
  8. The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 March 2024, after attempts to call her on 2 February 2024 and contact from us in March 2024. It confirmed the issue had been resolved but noted that she was unhappy about it taking 7 months to resolve, lack of replies from staff, and multiple missed appointments for which she had taken time off work. It also noted that she reported a pipe was rattling and needed to be clipped back to the wall, the plaster on the ceiling was half smooth and half Artex, and that some plaster had been left on the walls.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 5 April 2024. It reviewed the repairs history and apologised for delays, lack of communication and inconvenience, and awarded £480. It confirmed it had booked an appointment to clip the pipe, clean plaster on the walls, and inspect the ceiling towards ensuring all the plaster matched.
  10. The resident requested escalation of the complaint on 22 April 2024 after further missed appointments, and then reported further water coming through the kitchen ceiling on 26 April 2024. Following this, operatives attended on several occasions and tested the bath, basin and toilet for leaks. However, they were unable to find any signs of water ingress and noted that the issue could possibly be the boiler overflow since the leak was not constant.
  11. The landlord’s surveyor attended on 7 May 2024 and compiled a schedule of works, which included works to expose and test various pipework, reinstate floors, fit new floor coverings and decorate the kitchen.
  12. The resident reported further water coming through the ceiling on 20 May 2024, and an operative was unable to identify any leaks when they attended the same day. The landlord subsequently removed the ceiling and checked all pipework, after which it overhauled a stop valve and renewed pipework on 5 June 2024.
  13. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 17 June 2024.
    1. It acknowledged the resident complained about delays to repairs and follow up works, poor communication, time and trouble chasing the issue, unattended appointments on at least 7 occasions, water being shut off for 3 days and leaving her unable to bathe after a recent operation, and inadequate kitchen lighting.
    2. It noted that there were outstanding repairs to reinstate the ceiling and repaint the kitchen which a repairs manager had been asked to keep her updated about.
    3. It noted that she wanted repairs to be completed within a reasonable timescale and to be compensated for the loss of earnings and inconvenience for the 7 missed appointments, no lighting in the kitchen, and the lack of communication she had received.
    4. It apologised for issues with service, delays responding to the complaint and frustration, anxiety and distress caused to the resident. It awarded £710, which comprised £30 for no hot water for 3 days, £30 for no sanitary provision for 3 days, £30 for no cold water supply for 3 days, £70 for 7 failed appointments, £200 for missed timescales, and £350 for lack of communication. It explained that it had compensated for missed appointments in line with its policy and that it was unable to compensate for loss of earnings.
  14. The same day, the landlord reboarded the ceiling and asked its repairs department to plaster the ceiling and repaint the kitchen. The landlord’s repairs log reports that there was no access for an August 2024 appointment for the ceiling, but the landlord provides information that all works at the property were completed by late October 2024.
  15. The resident confirms that the ceiling was done, that no leaks have occurred since, and that she accepted the compensation offered by the landlord. However, she has restated dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling and its not following its policies and timescales.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has raised additional issues that include a sewage flood that occurred in July 2024, issues with additional works the landlord raised, and damage to items such as white goods. She confirms that she has made a more recent complaint about such issues.
  2. The July 2024 sewage flood, while clearly distressing for the resident, is considered to be a different issue to issues in the previous complaint the resident made to the landlord and in its complaint responses in April and June 2024. This investigation therefore focuses on the existing, previous complaint that the resident brought to us. This is in line with Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out how we may investigate complaints, that says we may not consider complaints before they have exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
  3. The resident has been advised that she has the option to progress the more recent complaint through the landlord’s complaint procedure, and refer it to the Ombudsman if she is dissatisfied with its response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a bathroom leak

  1. The resident reported leaks through her kitchen ceiling in May 2023, after which the landlord overhauled a pipe connected to a bath tap the following day. In November 2023, it completed some follow on works that involved removal and inspection of the kitchen ceiling. It then completed ceiling and light reinstatement works in January 2024.
  2. The landlord resolved the resident’s initial May 2023 report of a leaking pipe in a timely manner, however its handling of the follow on works was not reasonable. The November 2023 completion of the repair was 6 months after the repair was raised, and 3 months in excess of the landlord’s 90 day planned repairs priority. The evidence also refers to operatives not turning up, contractors having no record of the repair, asbestos actions being requested, and then operatives not being able to complete repairs due to asbestos actions not being done. The handling will have impacted the timely resolution of the issue, and caused time and trouble and frustration to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s April 2024 stage 1 response acknowledged and apologised for service issues, awarded £480, and confirmed it was taking steps for the resident’s then desired outcomes of a pipe being clipped, plaster being cleaned off walls, and ensuring all kitchen ceiling plaster matched. It also assured the resident that the complaint would be used to improve its services.
  4. The resident experienced missed appointments for the further works, and then reported more leaks on 26 April and 20 May 2024. Following these, operatives found no leaks after testing the plumbing multiple times, and on 7 May 2024 a surveyor compiled a schedule of works to intrusively investigate and then make good damage. The landlord subsequently overhauled a stop valve and renewed pipework on 5 June 2024, then completed reinstatement works in October 2024, since when the resident confirms no further leaks have occurred.
  5. The landlord investigated the further April and May 2024 reports in a timely manner, and appropriately considered more intrusive investigation when inspections could not identify any clear cause, which led to resolution of the leaks in June 2024. The 4 months the landlord took to complete the October 2024 reinstatement works also seems reasonable, as these were initially attended in August 2024 in time without access, and will have been reasonably impacted by the separate July 2024 sewage flood that occurred. The much swifter resolution of matters than previously is indicative that the landlord took the issue seriously and sought to learn from its previous handling.
  6. However, the handling was not entirely satisfactory. The resident experienced further missed appointments, lacked water for a period where she had recently undergone an operation, and lacked lighting in the kitchen for some time. It is also not evident that there was clear communication to the resident about what was happening, between the 7 May 2024 surveyor’s visit and June 2024 works. These will have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and added to her existing frustration that leaks, while infrequent, were ongoing.
  7. The landlord’s June 2024 stage 2 response acknowledged, apologised, and awarded £710 compensation for service issues that included delays, missed appointments, communication issues and lack of hot and cold water and washing facility. It also made commitments about completing outstanding works for the ceiling and decoration of the kitchen, and using the complaint to improve its service, particularly in respect to communication.
  8. The landlord’s responses demonstrate that it sought to acknowledge, learn from and put right the complaint, through practical action and compensation in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for aspects such as lack of hot and cold water and washing facility, missed appointments and loss of earnings. It could have been clearer that the compensation recognised distress and inconvenience caused by lack of adequate kitchen lighting at points. However, its acknowledgement of the issue confirms it took this into account, and the £1,190 total compensation is in the region of what our remedies guidance considers applicable for serious failings and severe impact on a resident over a lengthy period.
  9. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord therefore responded reasonably overall for the issues and impact evident, and in line with its policies and our remedies guidance. This leads us to find reasonable redress in the landlord’s response about a bathroom leak. This does not mean that we think that the issues, landlord’s handling or impact on the resident were “reasonable.” The finding reflects that there were failings, which the landlord has appropriately acknowledged and remedied in line with our approach.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident made an initial complaint in June 2023, which the landlord handled under an informal “Put it Right” stage. Section 5.2. of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says it is not appropriate to have extra named stages as this causes unnecessary confusion. This is evident here, as the resident says she attempted to escalate her complaint before she complained again in January 2024, when the landlord correctly raised a stage 1 complaint.
  2. There were then delays between January 2024 and April 2024, when the landlord eventually provided a stage 1 response. This was a delay of almost 3 months, which is not satisfactory. The stage 2 response was then delayed by 1 and a half months. These delays will have caused time and trouble and distress and inconvenience to the resident, and will have undermined her confidence that the landlord was doing all it could to resolve matters.
  3. The landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 and 2 responses were delayed, and awarded £100 for delays in its stage 1 response, and awarded £200 for missed timescales in its stage 2 response. It also offered apologies that provided explanation and came across as sincere, and confirmed practical actions to address the resident’s issues. The landlord’s responses again demonstrate that it sought to acknowledge, learn from and put right the complaint, through practical action and compensation in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord therefore responded reasonably in respect to its complaint handing, and leads us to find reasonable redress in its complaint handling. Again, this does not mean that we think that the landlord’s handling or impact on the resident was “reasonable,” but reflects that there were failings, which the landlord has appropriately acknowledged and remedied for in line with our approach.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in:
    1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a bathroom leak.
    2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review lessons learned for the resident’s lack of lighting, and ensure that its operatives provide alternative electric or lighting provision to residents in similar circumstances.
  2. The landlord is recommended to review our Complaint Handling Code and ensure its complaint policy is compliant with this, ensure that complaints progress when complainants request escalation of a logged complaint, and ensure that staff signpost residents appropriately when residents seek to complain or escalate a complaint.