Places for People Group Limited (202438388)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438388

Places for People Group Limited

11 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.
2. Formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has recorded that the resident’s son has Autism. She has also told the Ombudsman that she has asthma, and both her children have had coughs.
On 7 November 2023 the resident reported damp and mould in her hallway by her front door, around all windows in the property and on the wall of her son’s bedroom. The landlord raised a job for an inspection and passed it to an external surveyor on 16 November 2023. The surveyor inspected on 16 December 2023 and produced a report, recommending repairs. The resident called the landlord on 5 February 2024 to chase up the repairs. She emailed it on 14 February 2024 to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
1. Delays to repairs following the inspection and a lack of communication from the landlord. She was concerned about the impact of damp and mould on her family’s health.
2. She said it had told her on 5 February 2024 that it would contact her within 5 working days, but it had failed to.
3. She also had issues with her front door which let in water and drafts.
The following day the landlord called the resident to discuss her complaint and asked internally for the damp and mould repairs to be booked in. It emailed her on 19 February 2024 to acknowledge her complaint. She emailed it on 24 February 2024 and said it had offered her repair appointments in April which was too long to wait. Between that date and 4 March 2024, in internal emails, the landlord agreed to bring forward repairs for the door, mould washes and to install thermal boarding. It provided its stage 1 response on 4 March 2024, in which it:
1. Upheld the complaint and apologised for its service failure and the inconvenience caused.
2. Explained the repairs it would complete, based on the surveyor’s report, and that it had brought the appointment forward to 7 March 2024. However, it said it would take several weeks to replace the front door as it would need to be measured up and ordered. It said it would arrange an appointment for this.
3. Offered £150 compensation for delay, distress, inconvenience and poor communication, which it paid that day.
On 7 March 2024 the landlord carried out repairs. The resident emailed it on 10 March 2024 and said it had damaged the carpet in her son’s bedroom when it cut it to install thermal boarding. She requested reimbursement for the cost of new carpet. It agreed to compensate the resident on 12 March 2024, but there was a delay due to in internal error. Between 4 and 9 April 2024 the resident chased the landlord about her door replacement. The landlord chased internally and said its contractor would contact her. She chased it again on 15 and 16 April 2024 as she had not been contacted and asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The contractor replaced the door on 4 May 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2024 and attached a video (not provided to the Ombudsman) about the condition of the property. On 27 May 2024, in an internal email, the landlord said the video showed saturated walls and asked for a new surveyor’s inspection. The landlord’s internal surveyor inspected on 3 June 2024 and recommended further repairs. He provided his summary on 5 June 2024 and concluded the external surveyor had not sufficiently investigated the cause of the damp in the hallway. In internal emails between 8 June 2024 and 11 July 2024 the landlord asked for the repairs to be booked and obtained a quote. The resident made a second escalation request on 28 July 2024, in which she said:
1. The damp and mould had still not been resolved and was impacting her family’s health.
2. There had been a lack of communication and repeated delays since she raised the issue in November 2023.
3. Most repairs appointments consisted of only an inspection, with a follow-on appointment booked, rather than a first-time fix which caused further inconvenience.
On 29 July 2024 the landlord acknowledged escalation. It called the resident on 31 July 2024, and she said she had previously asked for her complaint to be escalated but it had failed to do so. She also said the damp and mould was getting worse. Between that date and 16 August 2024, the landlord exchanged internal emails, and emails with the resident, to arrange the repairs. She told it, and it said internally, that it must provide clear dates, and start and finish times for the repairs, so that she could prepare her son due to his Autism. On 21 August 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said it had refused to provide a copy of its survey. She also said the situation had affected her mental health. She said she had contacted the local council, which had come to inspect. The landlord confirmed, in internal emails on 3 September 2024, it had completed the repairs recommended by its internal surveyor. However, the resident provided the council’s list of repairs on 5 September 2024. It provided its stage 2 response on 10 September 2024, in which it:
1. Upheld the complaint, apologised, and said it took full responsibility for its failings.
2. Accepted there had been “significant lapses in communication and coordination” which caused delays. It said it had raised duplicate repairs on its system which had also contributed to the delay and apologised.
3. Confirmed it had started the repairs on 28 August 2024, and post inspected them on 7 September 2024.
4. Noted it had been contacted by the council about further repairs it needed to complete and that it had raised these repairs.
5. Admitted its lack of communication had impacted the resident. It apologised for this and for not providing updates. It also apologised that it did not always provide start and finish times, as she had requested, to help her make arrangements due to her son’s Autism.
6. Explained why it was not always possible to complete repairs on the first appointment.
7. Offered £200 compensation for distress and inconvenience, lack of communication, and delays to repairs.
Between 9 and 18 September 2024 the landlord and the resident exchanged emails to book in the council’s schedule of repairs. It confirmed, in an internal email, on 26 September 2024 that it had completed the repairs. She raised further issues and repairs on 7 October 2024, and said she did not accept its stage 2 compensation offer. The resident told the Ombudsman on 17 April 2025 that she still had damp and mould. On 22 April 2025 the council sent the landlord an improvement notice. They assessed the damp and mould as a category 2 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and required it to complete further repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised within her complaint to the landlord that her children’s health has been negatively affected by damp and mould being present in the property. While this Service can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident, the Ombudsman cannot determine causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. Under paragraph 42.f of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts. If the resident does wish to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
Within her contact with the Ombudsman the resident has raised issues regarding the landlord not installing new windows, dealing with a leaking radiator, a thermostat and having installed window restrictors with keys. She said these issues were part of the repairs recommended by the council. She has also raised that the landlord has not completed or has completed poorly the repairs recommended by the council. However, as these issues were not included within the resident’s original complaint to the landlord, they are outside of the scope of this investigation. This is because, under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord about these issues.

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

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, external doors and windows. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord has a damp and mould policy which says it will complete inspections and repairs in line with its repairs policy, based on its assessment of severity and urgency but does not set out any criteria on which it assesses this. It also says when it receives a report of mould it will attend and remove any immediate risk. The policy says it will inform residents about the findings from inspections, information on repairs and timeframes. Under its repairs policy the landlord says it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 or 60 days, although which timeframe it uses is unclear. The policy does not include a timeframe for completing inspections. It contains a flow chart of the actions it will take when a resident reports damp and mould.
When the resident reported damp and mould in November 2023 she gave a clear description of the mould, its locations, and what actions she had taken to try to prevent it. The landlord correctly raised an inspection, as per its damp and mould policy. It then decided to use an external surveyor, which it was entitled to do, however it took 38 days to inspect. While its policies do not include a timeframe for inspections, considering the mould reported, and that the resident had children, this was an unreasonable delay. The landlord also failed to attend to remove the risk, possibly by completing a mould wash, as required under its damp and mould policy.
Once it completed the inspection, the landlord failed to raise the repairs recommended by the external surveyor. Not until the resident chased it, and made a stage 1 complaint, did the landlord act. By this time nearly 2 months had passed since the inspection, which was an unacceptable delay. Positively the landlord then worked hard to raise and bring the appointments forward, which was solution focused. It accepted its failings in it stage 1 response and paid compensation to the resident. However, it failed to provide a copy of the inspection report or give clear information to the resident so that she understood the repairs it was going to complete. This was a breach of its damp and mould policy. It also delayed in installing the new front door, its communication with and management of its contractor were poor, and it exceeded its repairs timeframes, which were all failings.
When the resident reported, in May 2024, that she still had damp and mould the landlord correctly consulted a different surveyor. Although initially, due to poor internal communication, the internal surveyor did not receive clear instructions. Once the surveyor had inspected the landlord raised further repairs. While it inspected promptly, it delayed for an unreasonable time in raising the repairs and provided poor quality information to the resident. She also had to ask it several times to provide clear information to assist with making arrangements for her son. This was a reasonable adjustment to meet a disability, which the landlord should have managed better, although the evidence shows it did try to ensure all its staff and contractors were aware. Although the landlord completed the repairs it took until 28 August 2024. This was more than 3 months after the resident re-reported damp and mould. It was outside of its repairs policy timeframe or a reasonable time and was a failing.
Within its stage 2 response in September 2024, the landlord correctly upheld the resident’s complaint. It accepted and admitted its failings in communication, that it had not always provided clear information, start and finish times for repairs, and that it delayed in completing repairs. It said it understood the inconvenience, distress, time and trouble its failings had caused and offered £200 further compensation. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
There was maladministration. The landlord did not follow its policies. It delayed in inspecting the first time and delayed in completing repairs following both inspections. It left the resident with damp and mould which the council categorised as a hazard under the HHSRS. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards While it did attempt to resolve the damp and mould issue it failed to do so. Additionally, its communication was poor throughout. While it correctly accepted its failings, it did not put things right. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation to the resident.

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

When the resident raised her stage 1 complaint the landlord acknowledged it verbally, and by email, within its 5 working day complaints policy timeframe. It proactively worked to bring forward repairs appointments and provided this as part of its resolution. It provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. However, this was more than 10 working days after the complaint was made, in breach of its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time.
On 16 April 2024 the resident expressed a desire to escalate her complaint. The landlord failed to do so but said it would consider offering further compensation in the future. This was in breach of paragraph 5.9 of the Code (or paragraph 6.10 of the new 2024 Code by then in use). The landlord’s failing delayed the resident’s ability to progress her complaint and to bring it to this Service. When she asked for a second time, on 28 July 2024 it acknowledged escalation on the following day in line with its policy. It acknowledged it a second time on 12 August 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response after 31 working days, in breach of its 20-working day policy timeframe and the Code.
While the landlord correctly responded to the complaint it failed to recognise, apologise, or compensate for, its complaint handling failings. The landlord did not demonstrate the dispute resolution principles and there was maladministration. To reflect the additional inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 compensation to the resident. This is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould.
2. Formal complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £1,100 compensation made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling damp and mould.
  2. £100 for the additional inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. Complete an inspection of the property, by either qualified internal or external surveyor, to check for any remaining damp and mould and produce a report. The report is to detail any further repairs required if damp or mould is still present in the property. The landlord is to provide a copy of the report to the resident and this Service.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review its damp and mould policy. The review is to include, but not be limited to, consideration of:
1. Including a clear plan of the actions it will take when damp and mould is reported or identified, with timeframes for each action.
2. Providing copies of inspection reports and schedules of repairs to residents as standard practice.
3. Completing a post inspection and/or review of the repairs once completed to ensure that the damp and mould has been resolved.
The landlord is ordered to confirm compliance with these orders to this Service by the stated deadlines.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Complete all the repairs and actions detailed in the Improvement Notice served on it by the council and keep the resident updated with its progress.
2. Assist the resident in making a new complaint about its handling of the Improvement Notice repairs if she wishes to raise one.