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

Places for People Group Limited (202233378)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233378

Places for People Group Limited

28 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about a data breach.
    2. Reports about a leak from a burst mains pipe, and the associated repairs.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which began in April 2001. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. The resident is being represented by his daughter in making his complaint. Although the daughter communicated with the landlord on his behalf, we would refer to them both as the resident in this report.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, this service must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. As part of his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to investigate his concern about a data breach. The landlord incorporated this into its investigation of the stage 2 complaint, but the resident informed this Service that he remained unhappy with the outcome.
  3. While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s concern, this is not a matter which we can consider. Paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
  4. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to investigate data breaches, to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. The resident is therefore advised to refer the matter to the ICO accordingly if he wishes to pursue it. While we have not investigated the matters relating to the data breach, they have been referred to in the report below for the purpose of providing context.

Landlord obligations

  1. Landlords have a duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of its properties, including drains, gutters, and external pipes. The landlord agrees to do so under the tenancy agreement.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it would consider an emergency repair if the resident has suffered a sudden and unforeseen issue which:
    1. Immediately puts a resident’s health and safety at risk.
    2. Is causing uncontrollable damage to the property which the resident is unable to contain.
    3. Renders the property uninhabitable.
  3. It would aim to attend all emergency repairs within 24 hours and attend appointed repairs within 28 days.
  4. The following is stated within the landlord’s complaint policy:
    1. The landlord would try to resolve problems reported by residents about its service within 24 hours. If it can put things right for the resident within 24 hours, it will consider the complaint as resolved. It will open a stage 1 complaint in the first instance if it is unable to resolve the complaint within 24 hours.
    2. It will aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial redress where there has been a failure in service.

Summary of events

  1. The resident reported a water leak on 15 December 2022 at 11:07pm. The landlord noted that:
    1. The resident returned from work and found the property was flooded downstairs. He turned off the water supply to stop the leak.
    2. A new appointment was arranged for 16 December 2022 (all day appointment from 7am to 6pm)
    3. The resident advised that he had to stay in a hotel that evening. He also requested that dehumidifiers should be delivered to the property.
  2. The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 December 2022. He said:
    1. The landlord should have been proactive, knowing there was a cold snap on the way, and taken steps to lag the pipes to prevent them from bursting.
    2. The hallway, kitchen and lounge were flooded with water. He isolated the water and called the landlord, and he was advised to fill up cups to use as drinking water by the advisor.
    3. He was unable to attend work on 16 December 2022, as he was waiting for someone to attend. He ran out of drinking water at 9am and he was unable to leave the property as he had to be in for the 24 hours call out.
    4. A carpenter attended at 5:30pm rectify the issue but they did not have a dehumidifier and they advised him to call in to request it. They also advised that they would return the next morning to carry out the repair.
    5. By this time, he had gone 18 hours with no heating, hot water, drinking water and water for sanitary purposes.
    6. He decanted into a local hotel at 7:20pm and then received a call-back shortly after.
    7. The operative attended on 17 December 2022 at approximately 10am with the part to fix the leak so the resident’s water and heating were restored. The operative advised that someone would attend on 19 December 2022 to put the board back, so he requested an appointment after 3pm.
    8. No one attended on 19 December 2022, and he was not contacted about follow on works or provided a dehumidifier.
    9. He was left with no option than to leave the heating on to try to dry out the wet areas in the property, which resulted in additional heating costs. The property was starting to smell damp.
    10. To resolve the complaint the landlord should provide dehumidifiers and offer compensation for the distress, inconvenience, loss of earnings and additional expenses incurred. The landlord should also rectify damage caused to the carpet, kitchen floor and wooden floor.
  3. The landlord noted in an internal email on 22 December 2022 that it contacted the resident to discuss the case. It said the resident was promised heaters to dry his carpets and some further remedial works, but this had not happened.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2023 for an update on the complaint. He said it had been 3 weeks since the property was flooded, and the landlord had failed to communicate effectively regarding the outstanding works. He further said certain areas of the property remained soaking wet making it inconvenient to live there.
  5. On 6 January 2023, the landlord asked the resident’s daughter complete a form of authority, to confirm that the resident had given authorisation to act on his behalf. On 10 January 2023, they queried why this information was not requested sooner to avoid any delays.
  6. The landlord noted in its email dated 9 January 2023 that it attended on 23 December 2022 to install a dehumidifier.
  7. The landlord discussed the case internally between 18 and 26 January 2023. It noted that:
    1. It attended the property in December 2022 due to a burst pipe, but the wrong operative attended due to a mix up. It should have handled the initial call from the resident, on 15 December 2022, better and asked if the property was in a habitable condition to determine if there was anything it could have done that evening to support him. This would have prevented the delay and the inconvenience to the resident who had to wait the following day for someone to attend.
    2. Dehumidifiers were installed but the carpet in the hall and laminate flooring in the lounge had been damaged.
    3. The carpets in the property were not wet during its visit the previous week but arrangements had been made to renew it and the internal door in the hall (booked in for 8 March 2023).
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It said it would aim to respond to the complaint within 10 working days (30 January 2023).
  9. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 30 January 2023. It said:
    1. It identified a service failure in its communication with the resident as it failed to deal with the initial call from the resident correctly. It should have gathered more information including whether the property was habitable as it could have arranged a decant. It had since taken measures to ensure that the relevant staff was given coaching to prevent a reoccurrence.
    2. Although it attended the repair within the 24 hours for an emergency repair, it could have attended sooner. It was sorry he had to take the decision to decant into a hotel. It acknowledged this would have been an inconvenience as he reported that he had run out drinking water. In view of this, it would like to offer £110.55 in reimbursement of the hotel cost and an additional £50 for the distress and inconvenience.
    3. It acknowledged a service failure in its handling of the complaint, and it apologised for any inconvenience this may have caused. It said it should have logged the correspondence received on 20 December 2022 as a stage 1 complaint, as the issues raised were of a complex nature. It also said it delayed contacting his daughter for written consent to act on his behalf. It offered £25.00 in compensation for the failure identified and it advised that it had reminded staff of the importance of handling complaints in the most effective way.
    4. There was a delay in supplying dehumidifiers and reimbursement of cost for use. It said this was because an incorrect operative was assigned to the job which led to a delay in the dehumidifiers being provided. It was aware that the dehumidifier was dropped off on 23 December 2022 and collected on 5 January 2023. It would like to offer £80.00 in compensation to cover the cost of the additional usage and for the inconvenience of the delay in providing them.
    5. It had raised works for the replacement of the internal door, booked in for 8 March 2023 and arranged for a quote for the replacement of the flooring.
    6. With regards to his concern about the pipe lagging, it had looked into this and concluded that pipes are not routinely lagged. However, it would ask an operative to raise works regarding this to prevent the pipes from bursting again. It had also spoken to the relevant operative to attend and reassess her concern about missing wall plaster.
    7. It had looked into the concern about missed appointments, but it had not been able to identify a service failure. It would be willing to investigate this further if he provided further information.
    8. In conclusion, it apologised for the failures identified and offered a total amount of £265.55 in compensation.
  10. The resident requested the escalation of the complaint to stage 2 on 30 January 2023. He said:
    1. The operative who attended on 16 December 2022 was not a plumber and did not carry out any repairs on the initial visit. The operative returned on 17 December 2022 to carry out make safe repairs that he had already done.
    2. The operative advised that someone would return on 19 December 2022 to fix the panel that had been removed during the investigation of the leak. He took the day off work, but no one attended.
    3. No repairs had been carried out since 15 December 2022 apart from the repairs to the pipe.
    4. The property was not habitable in the condition that it was, so he had to arrange alternative accommodation. He had no supply of water for sanitary purposes or fresh water to drink.
    5. The landlord closed his initial complaint without resolving the issue.
    6. He had to chase several times before the landlord provided dehumidifiers and he had to leave the heating on for a week to try to dry the property.
    7. The operative who attended took pictures of the wall and assured him that it would be plastered.
    8. The access panel was not included in the breakdown of outstanding works. The damaged internal door could not be closed so it was causing a draught throughout the property making it difficult to retain heat.
    9. The compensation offered by the landlord should be reviewed particularly due to the failure to communicate effectively, its initial closure of the complaint and the inconvenience he continued to experience nearly 22 months after the leak was initially reported.
  11. The landlord wrote to the resident on 31 January 2023, and confirmed the complaint would be escalated to stage 2.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 1 February 2023.
  13. The landlord arranged works around February 2023 to install pipe lagging to any exposed pipework within the loft space. It also booked appointments to renew the damaged flooring. It called the resident to advise him of the appointment.
  14. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 22 February 2023. It said:
    1. It is usual practice for the landlord to send out a multi-skilled operative following an emergency call out to carry out any make safe repairs. This was why a joiner attended the emergency call out and not a plumber. The operative would have turned off the water to stem the leak, but this had already been done by the resident. Therefore, the operative assessed the repairs needed and ordered the part for the fix.
    2. It was sorry if the resident was given misleading information about an appointment as it had not found records of the appointment. It would be willing to treat this as a missed appointment and offer £10 in compensation for it.
    3. When its trade supervisor visited the property, they determined the only remaining works were the replacement of the door, flooring and lagging of the pipes. The lagging was completed on 20 February 2023 along with any works needed to the inspection panel. Its flooring contractors had arranged to attend in the week commencing 20 March 2022, to replace the flooring in the living room and the hallway with laminate as agreed with the resident. This appointment had been made in line with his shift pattern and this was why it could not be done sooner. The door would be replaced on 8 March 2023.
    4. Whenever there is a flood or fire or any large-scale repair needed, each property is assessed to determine its condition. In this case, the property was not deemed uninhabitable and therefore no decant was arranged for the resident. In its stage 1 response it offered to reimburse the cost of the hotel.
    5. It acknowledged its failures in the stage 1 response and offered compensation to redress these errors. This included the offer of £80 for the delay in providing the dehumidifier and for the additional electricity cost of using the item for 13 days. It also offered £25 offered for the failure to deal with the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
    6. Considering its handling of a complaint about a data breach, it would like to increase the offer of compensation for the distress and inconvenience from £50 to £150 and an additional £50 for the failure to communicate effectively. This would bring the total to £425.55.

Actions following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process.

  1. The resident escalated the complaint to this Service on 22 February 2023 and complained about a data breach. He said the compensation that had been offered did not consider the heating costs to dry out the property until the dehumidifier was delivered.
  2. The landlord noted on 29 March 2023, that the resident expressed a dissatisfaction regarding an appointment which he had to reschedule. He said the landlord did not offer a convenient time for the appointment. The landlord noted that it booked a new appointment for 25 April 2023, but the resident was not happy about the length of time.
  3. The resident advised this Service on 29 March 2023 that:
    1. He had to replace the internal door himself due to the additional cost in heating. He said the landlord failed to offer him a suitable time despite his request.
    2. The carpet fitter was supposed to attend on 28 March 2023, but turned up on 27 March 2023 when no one was at the property.
    3. He had still not been contacted about the plastering appointment.
  4. The landlord informed this Service on 13 May 2024 that all works had been completed.

Assessment and findings

Reports about a leak from a burst mains pipe, and the associated repairs.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is committed to delivering a high-quality repairs service and to provide homes that are comfortable, habitable, and safe for people to live in. The resident complained that he was without heating, hot water, and drinking water for approximately 18 hours following his report of a flood in the property. Whilst it followed its repairs policy in booking an emergency repair within 24 hours, it failed to assess any risks to the resident during the initial call to ascertain if any support would be needed.
  2. Although the landlord attended within 24 hours, it missed another opportunity to assess the condition of the property to determine if the resident would require support. By the time the operative arrived for the emergency repair, the resident had already taken steps to stop the leak by turning off the supply. As the operative was unable to carry out the repair on the visit, and due to poor communication about the repair, the resident was then left with no choice than to stay in a hotel on 16 December 2022. This would have caused him some distress and inconvenience. The landlord was able to complete the repair on 17 December 2022, and the resident advised that it was able to restore heating and hot water in the property.
  3. The resident complained on 20 December 2022, that he had been leaving the heating on, to dry the wet areas in the property as a dehumidifier had not yet been provided. He complained that this was an additional expense. This shows that the landlord had not learned from its previous errors or taken the resident’s concerns seriously. Although the resident requested dehumidifiers on 15 December 2022, they were not provided until around 23 December 2022 following the submission of the formal complaint. The resident was without any means of drying the property other than using the heating within his property for approximately 8 days. This is unreasonable and would have caused him further distress and inconvenience.
  4. From the evidence seen, the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding the remedial repairs needed in the property. It was not proactive in managing the case and in so doing, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. The resident was left with no choice than to escalate this matter as a formal complaint following the initial remedy to the burst pipe on 17 December 2022. As part of the complaint to the landlord, the resident asked the landlord to rectify the damage caused to the carpet, kitchen flooring and an internal door. The landlord should have been proactive and agreed follow up actions to prevent further inconvenience.
  5. The poor communication with the resident is further noted from the contact on 6 January 2023, where he stated that no remedial works had taken place since the flooding. He said the property remained wet, but the landlord’s records indicated that it had visited the property around 18 January 2023 and ascertained that the carpet was not wet. This said, it should have communicated more effectively with the resident and offered clear explanations for any delays in the provision of service.
  6. There is evidence of some learning from the landlord’s actions as it sought to put things right. It admitted that it failed to communicate effectively with the resident from the outset and that it could have prevented the inconvenience caused. It apologised for the delay in providing a dehumidifier and offered compensation to redress the cost of using it for 13 days (£4 per day for 13 days = £52) and for the delay (£28). It reimbursed the additional expense in staying in a hotel (£110.55), offered £10 for the concern about a missed appointment and an additional amount of £100 for the distress and inconvenience. This brings the total amount offered to £300.55.
  7. It also apologised for the distress and frustration to the resident and assured him that training would be offered to its staff to ensure that repairs calls are handled better. It agreed to change the resident’s flooring, took the resident’s recommendation for the lagging of the pipes, and implemented the works and planned to change the damaged internal door on 8 March 2022. The resident reported that there were further delays in completing the works. From the evidence seen, the repairs had to be rescheduled as the time offered to the resident was not suitable. Although the resident said he had advised the landlord of a suitable time, this Service has not been able to confirm the actual events from the evidence seen.
  8. However, the resident informed this Service on 7 December 2023, that all related works had since been completed but they remained dissatisfied with the amount offered in compensation. Although the landlord provided its repairs records, we have not been able to determine the dates these works were completed. It is, however, clear from the evidence that the repairs exceeded the 28 days for appointed repairs as stated in its repairs policy. The landlord should have acknowledged this in its response.
  9. Overall, we have seen from the evidence that there were several failures in the landlord’s handling of the case. It acknowledged that it got things wrong and sought to redress these failings by offering apologies, compensation, reimbursement of additional expenses incurred and in making good any damage caused due to the flooding. Whilst the Ombudsman welcomes these steps, the £28 offered for the 8 days delay in providing the dehumidifier was not reasonable. The resident reported during this period that the carpet was wet, and the property smelled damp. The compensation offered did not reflect the detriment incurred by the resident, during the period he described as very cold. In view of this, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the burst pipe. An order has been made to address this.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will accept complaints from representatives but it will ensure that the resident has authorised the person to act on their behalf. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in logging the stage 1 complaint raised by the resident on 20 December 2022. We have seen from the evidence that it did not contact the complainant to clarify that they had authorisation to act on the resident’s behalf but rather contacted the resident to resolve the complaint within 24 hours. Although it contacted the resident, it is not clear from the evidence what actions were agreed. This is unreasonable. Even if the landlord felt the issue could have been addressed within 24 hours, it should have confirmed any actions agreed in writing before closing the complaint.
  2. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until the resident asked for an update on 6 January 2022. The landlord admitted this error in both stages of the complaint and offered £25 for the inconvenience caused. It learned from its earlier mistake and requested proof of authorisation to progress the complaint. Whilst the landlord provided detailed responses to the complaints, it failed to address all the points. They complained that the door that was due to be replaced could not be closed and was causing a draught throughout the property driving up the cost of his heating. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about additional expenses on the cost of electricity because of the delay in providing dehumidifiers. The resident asked for compensation, but it failed to comment on these points. This is not appropriate and would have caused the resident distress, frustration, and uncertainty.
  3. Furthermore, when the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint, it contradicted some of the points addressed in the stage 1 response. It initially admitted that it sent the wrong operative in the stage 1, but it later explained in the stage 2 response that it was normal practice to send a multi-trades operative for emergency repairs. Also, it apologised that it had not gathered enough information to ascertain that the property was habitable when it dealt with the initial repair request. However, it said in the stage 2 response that the property was not uninhabitable, and it was for this reason that the resident was not decanted. This is not appropriate and reflects poor handling of the complaint. This would have caused the resident some confusion and frustration. If the landlord felt the information in the stage 1 response was incorrect, it should have addressed this clearly and apologised for any misinformation.
  4. Based on the above, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. It delayed logging the resident’s complaint which led to a delay in responding. While its policy states that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days it took approximately 26 working days to respond. The stage 2 response contradicted some of points in the stage 1 response without any clear explanation for moving away from its previous position. The landlord also failed to address all the points raised in the complaint. It is noted that the landlord apologised for the delay in dealing with the stage 1 complaint, offered £25 compensation and advised that its staff would be given training. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount offered did not redress the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident. An order has therefore been made to address this.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the housing ombudsman scheme, the resident’s concerns about a data breach is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about a leak from a burst mains pipe, and the associated repairs.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord failed to handle the resident’s request for emergency repairs effectively. It was not proactive in dealing with the resident’s concerns and failed to manage his expectations. This led to an overall delay in putting right the damage caused in the property because of the leak. The landlord acknowledged its failures and learned from its errors. It agreed to resolve the damage caused and offered compensation to put things right. However, the amount offered did not reflect the detriment caused by the failures.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was delayed. The stage 2 response also contradicted some of the points addressed in the stage 1 response which would have caused some confusion for the resident. The landlord also failed to address all the points raised in the complaints. The landlord apologised for the delay in dealing with the stage 1 complaint, but the financial redress offered did not account for the detriment caused to the resident.

Orders

  1. The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident the amount of £925 broken down as:
      1. £425 previously offered if it has not yet been paid to the resident.
      2. £100 for the inconvenience to the resident for the failures in the handling of the repairs.
      3. £400 for distress and inconvenience to the resident due its complaint handling.
    2. The landlord should share this report with the relevant staff who handle complaints and highlight the importance of responding to all points raised in complaints. It should also brief staff who handle stage 2 reviews that any contradictions to a previous complaint response should be clearly reasoned and apologies offered to the resident where needed.