Places for People Group Limited (202405073)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405073

Places for People Group Limited

12 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a lease for a property with the landlord. The landlord is the freeholder.
In 2006 the resident told the landlord she had moved out and was renting the property out to tenants.
On 24 February 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. She reported a water leak and damp and mould to the landlord in November 2023. There was now black mould on the kitchen walls and in the cabinets.
2. She was concerned of the impact on her tenants who have a young baby.
3. The landlord had given her conflicting information so she wanted it to provide her with a designated person to speak to.
4. She wanted the landlord to investigate the cause of the leak, confirm the scheduled repairs and repair the damage to her property from the leak.
5. She wanted confirmation the building insurance company was aware of the issue.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 July 2024. It upheld the complaint. It said it carried out repairs to the roof and acknowledged there had been delays in it completing works to the guttering. It had inspected the resident’s property and agreed to carry out some internal works as a gesture of goodwill. The following works would be carried out on 24 July 2024:
1. Gutter clean.
2. Remove aerial.
3. Fill holes on outside walls.
4. Carry out a mould clean and stain block, plus redecorate the living room.
5. Stain block and touch up the decoration in the kitchen.
6. Repair work to the bathroom.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 July 2024 as she said the landlord had not told her what the cause of the leak was and if it had been resolved.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 November 2024. It partially upheld the complaint. In its response it:
1. Said a damp and mould survey was completed on 27 September 2024. It showed no water ingress from the building, and the damp and mould was being caused by poor air movement.
2. Said the fans in the resident’s property were insufficient to control the level of condensation. As the resident was a leaseholder, she was responsible for completing the works identified in the survey and the internal repairs.
3. Apologised for giving incorrect information in its stage 1 response.
4. Offered the resident £300 compensation, which was broken down as:
  1. £100 for its lack of communication.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  3. £100 for its delay in sending its stage 2 response.
The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as the landlord had failed to state what the cause of the damp and mould was. She had completed the repairs and redecorated herself, but wanted the landlord to:
1. Close the external vents on the outside of her property as recommended in the damp and mould survey.
2. Confirm there are no leaks from the flat above.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised concerns about the impact of the damp and mould on her tenants. The tenants do not hold a landlord/tenant relationship with the landlord themselves and therefore are not entitled to make a complaint to us. We can only consider the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

We find maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The reasons for our findings are below.
The resident’s lease states she is responsible for internal repairs and maintenance. It states the landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof and structure of the building. A landlord that has an obligation to repair must also rectify damage to decorations as a result of the repair work. This includes both damage that occurred because the landlord failed to carry out repairs and damage caused by the repair work itself.
The resident told us she initially reported a potential issue with water ingress into the property in November 2023. The landlord’s records show in December 2023 it refixed loose roof tiles, cleared the guttering, resealed external windows and repointed external walls. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to follow up on whether these works had resolved the issues in her property. This was not pro-active or customer focused.
In December 2023 and January 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in her property. It was reasonable that the landlord inspected the resident’s property on 10 January 2024. Its records state it found no evidence of water going into the resident’s property at that time, but there was evidence of past leaks. The landlord carried out inspections of the building on 12 March and 7 May 2024 and found no issues with the roof or structure of the building. The evidence shows the landlord’s operative recommended it should investigate whether there could be a leak from the flat above the resident. No evidence was provided to show the landlord contacted the resident in the flat above or investigated any potential leaks. This was a significant failing.
The operative’s notes from the inspection on 7 May 2024 stated he did not believe the damp and mould was due to the guttering. However, in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 15 July 2024 it told the resident works were needed to the guttering. This led the resident to believe she would receive assistance from the landlord to deal with the mould in her property. It was unreasonable that it took the landlord around 4 months to realise it had provided incorrect information and to communicate this to the resident.
In the stage 1 response the landlord said it would carry out internal repairs as a good will gesture. It was unreasonable that the landlord started to repair the bathroom ceiling but then left it unfinished when it realised it may not be responsible for the cause of the damp and mould. Especially as the landlord was aware that the bathroom ceiling tiles contained asbestos. There was no evidence the landlord considered the risks of it exposing the asbestos or discussed this with the resident.
The landlord instructed a contractor to carry out a damp and mould survey in April 2024. This was completed in October 2024. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to instruct a specialist to find the root cause of the damp and mould, this was 11 months after the resident had reported issues with water coming into the property and damp and mould.
It was reasonable for the landlord to say in its stage 2 response that the resident, as a leaseholder, was responsible for the recommended internal works in her property. However, the survey mentioned that the external walls were not insulated and the external vents on the front elevation wall “may allow uncontrolled ventilation to the rooms, along with possible moisture ingress within the building fabric”. There was no evidence the landlord investigated these issues further or whether they could have contributed to the damp and mould. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord told the resident there was no water ingress from the building and that it failed to discuss whether it was going to complete the recommended works to the building.
There was evidence of poor communication with the resident throughout the complaint. This led her to reporting the same issues and chasing updates. She asked the landlord on several occasions what was the root cause of the water ingress and mould. There was no evidence the landlord responded to her and it just referred her to the damp and mould survey.
There was no evidence the landlord provided its insurance information for the resident in line with the lease and its obligations. It should have explained how she could make a claim should she consider that the damp and mould was due to the landlord’s actions or inaction. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to provide this information.
Landlords are required to create and maintain adequate records to be able to demonstrate that they have complied with their policies and procedures. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. There was a failure in this case to record information about all of the repair appointments, and its communication with the resident and contractors. This lack of records is likely to have affected the landlord’s ability to manage its investigations into the cause of the damp and mould.
In summary the landlord failed to show it fully investigated the root cause of the water ingress and damp and mould in the property. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. The landlord apologised and offered £150 for its lack of communication and for providing the resident with incorrect information. However, the landlord did not show it had learnt from the complaint, as it failed to respond to the resident about whether it had inspected the flat above her for leaks, or whether it was going to complete the recommended works to the building outlined in the survey. Although the resident has now carried out the internal repairs herself, she does not know the cause of the water ingress and therefore whether the damp and mould has been resolved.

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

We find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The reasons for our findings are below.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident made a complaint to her landlord on 24 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 April 2024, 32 working days later. This was a significant delay which was outside its target timescale of 5 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 July 2024. This was outside its target timescale of 10 working days. There was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to say there would be a delay or when she should expect its response. The landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 10 October 2024, this was significantly outside its target timescale of 5 working days. The landlord contacted the resident on 9 August 2024 to apologise for the delay, however, it failed to provide her with a timescale for when it would provide a response. This led to her chasing updates and contacting our service for assistance.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint on 8 November 2024. This was outside its 20-working day target timescale and the date we asked it to provide its response by.
In summary there was a delay in the landlord acknowledging and escalating the complaint and issuing its stage 1 and 2 responses. There was evidence of poor communication. Although the landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delay in it issuing its stage 2 response, it failed to acknowledge the other failings identified in this investigation. While it was positive that the landlord offered compensation, this was insufficient given the excessive delays and resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also did not state what steps it was going to take to improve its service delivery. Accordingly, the landlord failed to respond to the complaint in line with our Dispute Principles which encourage landlords to put things right and learn from outcomes.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the £600 compensation. This should be paid directly to the resident and not paid onto their rent account, unless requested otherwise. The compensation is broken down as:
  1. £300 the landlord offered the resident in its stage 2 response dated 8 November 2024, if this has not already been paid.
  2. £200 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property.
  3. £100 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience cause to the resident by the landlord’s handling of her associated complaint.
3. Contact the resident and confirm if it inspected the flat above her and whether it found a leak causing water ingress into her property. If not it should discuss any outstanding issues with the resident and whether further investigations are needed. This should be confirmed in writing.
4. Consider whether it should carry out the recommended works to the structure and exterior of the property outlined in the damp and mould survey. This includes closing the external vents on the exterior of the resident’s property. The landlord should confirm the outcome, explaining the reasons why to both the resident and this service.
5. Provide the resident with its liability insurance information in line with the lease.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping practices and staff training to ensure that all staff are accurately recording and managing resident’s reports of repairs and complaints. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.