Places for People Group Limited (202314012)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314012

Places for People Group Limited

22 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour.
2. Repairs to the property, including damp and mould.
3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The resident moved into the property, a 2-bedroom semi-detached bungalow, in June 2021. The landlord is aware that the resident has difficulties with her mental health.
This Service has also investigated a previous complaint under reference 202223017, relating to repairs up to the landlord’s previous stage 2 response of 14 December 2021. This found that the landlord had not done enough to show that it had taken the appropriate steps to ensure the property was damp and mould free at that stage. It had also failed to carry out agreed works within a reasonable timescale, including the installation of new extractor fans.
Following that response the resident reported cracks in the floor and around windows and doors on 5 January 2022, which she believed to be caused by a tree in the front garden. She also told the landlord that there was more mould growing. The landlord responded the same day to say it would investigate the cracks. On 24 January it emailed her to arrange an appointment on 31 January to inspect the property for damp and mould. This appointment did not go ahead as the resident was unwell, and was rearranged for 4 February.
On 3 February 2022 several jobs were raised by the landlord with various appointment times made, however these appointments were subsequently cancelled and the jobs passed to contractors as part of the landlord’s ‘effortless repairs programme’. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 February to say that she was told during the survey on 4 February that no more mould would grow, but she had moved furniture in the bedroom and found mould on the furniture despite cleaning a week ago. She said she had to buy plastic storage boxes to try to prevent further mould damage.
The landlord suggested an independent environment survey, which the resident accepted. This was provisionally booked for 1 March 2022 at 11am, however the resident asked for it to be an afternoon appointment so her partner could attend. The landlord’s records are not clear, however it appears that the appointment was rearranged for 8 March, however on that date, when the landlord contacted the resident to confirm the appointment she said that she had not been told about it.
On 28 March 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say she was unhappy that contractors were being difficult when she asked them to wear a mask. She also said that they were not interested in looking at the mould issues. On 6 April the landlord sent the resident the outcome of the damp report, which said that there was slight mould in the bathroom, but a new fan had recently been fitted. It said that the resident had reported having to continually clean mould off the walls but this could not be verified at the time of the survey and no other mould was found. It said that there were no recommendations due to the lack of mould.
On 25 May 2022 the landlord let the resident know that whilst no damp concerns had been found, a floor had sunk so it needed to instruct a sub-contractor to attend.
On 21 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say there was mould growing on her sofa and other belongings. The landlord responded to say that its surveyor had found no evidence of mould. On 15 October she emailed the landlord to say she was having flooring fitted but the bedroom floor was not level and the flooring was lifting.
The landlord carried out a visit on 19 October 2022 and followed this up with an email to the resident that day. It agreed that a third party would check the flooring in the bedroom and the kitchen, and it would review the fit of the doors once the flooring was laid. It also raised other jobs in relation to radiators and a curtain pole. It also agreed that it would be removing an old shed as part of a larger project.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 18 November 2022 to say that no matter how much she cleaned, the mould kept coming back. In a further email of 25 January 2023 she told the landlord the mould had given her health issues.
In February 2023 a further survey was carried out, however it is not clear from the landlord’s records what date this took place, and no report was provided to us for consideration. The landlord sent the resident an email on 20 February in which it set out a long list of issues that had been identified, including mould.
On 11 April 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and asked to raise a complaint as she felt that many things had been missed. On 26 May she emailed again to report a problem with rats and reminded the landlord of her mould problems. The landlord responded to say that it had only found mould in one room, and asked her to send pictures if it had got worse. She said the mould was in every room.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 2 August 2023. On 16 August the landlord’s contractor emailed the resident with a list of work to be carried out and dates between 11 and 22 September for these jobs to be done.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 23 August 2023 in which it said that there had been a poor service given to her during a call with repairs schedulers. It said it had tried to call to apologise and had left a voicemail, and offered her £50 compensation for this. It said it could not identify any failures in terms of cancelled appointments. The resident responded the next day to ask for the complaint to be escalated as she said that the landlord’s contractors had repeatedly failed to turn up for appointments.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 16 October 2023, in which it acknowledged that the resident had said she was only available for morning appointments but afternoon slots had been booked. It also said she had provided evidence that showed that appointments had been booked without prior discussion or notice.
The landlord also accepted that items in her home had been damaged as a direct result of its continued failings and works not being scheduled appropriately had led to a build up of damp and mould. It offered her £250 reimbursement for damaged items and £240 for utility bills, made up of £5 per day for 28 days plus an additional £100 discretionary payment. It also offered compensation of £450 made up of £200 for time and trouble related to missed appointments, and £250 for distress and inconvenience. This was total redress of £940, and the landlord’s records show it paid £764.15 directly to the resident, and the remaining £175.85 was used to clear rent arrears.
Following the stage 2 response there were difficulties in arranging repair work. On 5 December 2023 the resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted us to investigate the complaint. She has since told us that repairs remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
According to paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response for this complaint on 16 October 2023. The earliest evidence this Service has seen of the resident raising concerns about her neighbour’s behaviour was on 30 January 2024, when she told the landlord via email that they were stealing from her garden and ‘threatening to rip her cameras down’.
These concerns were raised with the landlord after the conclusion of its internal complaints process and this Service has seen no evidence that the resident has raised a formal complaint about the behaviour of her neighbour. So, her concerns about the landlord’s handling of her reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour are outside the jurisdiction of this Service. If she wishes to pursue this complaint, she would need to raise this with the landlord as a new complaint.

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns with the landlord about the impact of the damp and mould on her health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Repairs

The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repairs obligations. This shows it is responsible for upkeep of the property, apart from decoration or anything damaged by the resident. The agreement says that the resident must allow the landlord or its contractors into the property at reasonable hours and on reasonable notice to carry out inspections and repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and an appointment will be made for routine repairs, at the resident’s convenience, within 28 calendar days.
The Ombudsman’s investigation into the resident’s previous complaint found that the landlord had failed to provide evidence that showed the property was free from damp and mould at the time it concluded its previous internal complaints process on 14 December 2021. It had also not completed the installation of new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, as agreed in its stage 1 response sent in August 2021. These fans were not fitted until sometime between January and April 2022.
The resident continue to report mould in January 2022, despite the landlord’s claim that there was no evidence of it growing in the property. It agreed to carry out a further inspection, which it carried out on 4 February, but it has not provided evidence of what was found at that time. It did, however, agree to an independent environment survey.
There was a delay to this survey being carried out as the resident said that an appointment was booked for 8 March 2022 without her being informed. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it gave her notice of this appointment, and when it subsequently investigated her complaint it acknowledged there was poor communication in relation to appointments.
On 28 March 2022 the resident raised with the landlord that she had received resistance from its contractors when she asked them to wear a mask to enter her property. This was not an unreasonable request from her, and mask-wearing was still commonplace at that time, so the contractors should have complied with this request without argument.
It is not clear when a damp survey was carried out, but the landlord emailed the resident on 6 April 2022 to say that there was slight mould in the bathroom, however a new extractor fan had recently been fitted. It said that the resident reported having to repeatedly clean mould off the walls but this could not be verified at the time of the survey.
It was reasonable for the resident to try to clean the mould to reduce the impact on her health, and given that she had made the landlord aware that she had to regularly clean it, it should have considered whether that was why it could not find any mould. It would have been appropriate to arrange a further inspection at a time where the resident had not cleaned off the build-up of mould, rather than just assuming there was no mould problem.
The resident continued to email the landlord in September and November 2022 and January 2023 to say that the mould kept on returning no matter how much she cleaned. The landlord carried out a further survey in February 2023 and then emailed the resident on 20 February setting out the following issues and required repairs:
1. Hallway:
  1. Front door did not fit correctly and there were gaps. A repair was raised to adjust the door.
  2. Mould patches around the doorway. It said the door repair should fix this issue.
  3. Mould in the bottom corner of a cupboard and exposed wires in the ceiling. Jobs were raised to disconnect the doorbell and carry out a mould wash.
2. Spare bedroom:
  1. Mould on the walls, it is recommended that the room is vented.
3. Lounge:
  1. Mould in bottom corner of the room and on the sofa and a chair. A mould wash was to be carried out.
  2. A window vent was jammed and a repair raised to fix the trickle vent.
4. Main bedroom:
  1. Mould in corners of the room. A repair was raised to carry out a mould wash to window reveals and the ceiling and repoint the silicon around the windows.
  2. The radiator behind the bed to be removed as it was not plumbed in.
5. Kitchen:
  1. Rats potentially entering via some outside holes. A repair was raised to fill the holes.
  2. Water was running down a cupboard by the hallway door. A repair was raised to the gutting which was leaking.
  3. Mould behind the cupboards and above the door. It was expected that the repairs to the guttering and loft insulation would resolve this.
  4. Floor by the back door was not level. A repair was raised to repair this.
6. Bathroom:
  1. The radiator to be removed as it was not plumbed in.
  2. Mould under the sink and in the top corners by the window. A job was raised to carry out a mould wash and apply bio-check paint.
7. Loft:
  1. Insulation to be checked, with a job raised to provide additional insulation.
8. Garden:
  1. Holes in the wall leading to the kitchen to be filled.
  2. Guttering about the door was leaking and a job was raised to fix this.
This list of repairs demonstrates that there were significant issues with the property and the resident acted fairly in persistently asking the landlord to resolve matters. Despite this survey identifying mould in all rooms, when the resident continued to pursue the landlord for rectification, it incorrectly said that the surveyor only identified mould in one room. It did not recognise the scale of the problem or act with any urgency to get matters fixed.
It was not until its stage 2 response of 16 October 2023 that it finally acknowledged to the resident that there was a problem with damp and mould and that this had been caused by its failure to appropriately schedule repairs.
It is clear from the evidence provided that there has been a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and the landlord, and communication has been difficult. The landlord has implemented a range of methods of restricting the resident’s contact with it, including providing her with a single point of contact, and in January 2024 issuing a restriction of contact that only allows her to communicate with it in writing via a specific named member of its staff.
Whilst this Service understands that the communication from the resident was frequent and could sometimes have been perceived has hostile, the landlord does not appear to have considered how it may have played a part in the relationship breaking down. It was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and it took a long time for it to recognise that there was a damp and mould issue that needed to be dealt with.
Ideally both parties would have remained civil, however it is understandable that the resident became frustrated with the situation when she felt that her concerns were not being taken seriously. Had the landlord taken the appropriate steps to fully investigate the damp and mould earlier on, it is probable that the situation would not have escalated to a point where the landlord felt it needed to restrict contact from the resident. This Service expects all parties to play their part in effective communications and this includes residents acting in a reasonable manner towards a landlord’s staff and its appointed contractors.
This breakdown in relationship has made it difficult for the landlord to carry out the required repairs. The landlord has tried to arrange further inspections, however the resident was unwilling to allow these to take place as she felt that the landlord had already had enough opportunities to know what work remained outstanding. However, in order for the landlord to be able to complete all outstanding work, it would be reasonable for it to carry out a full inspection. The resident has an obligation under the tenancy agreement to allow the landlord access if required, as long as notice is provided. The resident is therefore expected to work with the landlord to ensure that the inspection ordered below can take place within the specified timeframe.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property. Whilst it did eventually, in its stage 2 response, acknowledge that there was a problem with damp and mould, it took too long to do this. This left the resident living in difficult conditions over an extended period of time and the landlord’s records show she spent a considerable amount of time and effort pursuing this with the land. The inspection carried out in February 2023 highlighted that there was a lot more going on than the landlord’s attempts to resolve had previously identified.
The landlord did not always act in line with its policy in arranging repairs, as it did not always communicate the appointments in advance to the resident. It also often arranged appointments in the afternoon, when she had asked for morning appointments. It cancelled a number of appointments it had booked internally when it transferred jobs out to contractors as part of its ‘effortless repairs programme’, which appears to have caused further confusion and communication issues.
The landlord’s actions likely contributed to the breakdown in communication between it and the resident, which has left some repairs outstanding. Whilst the landlord did offer the resident reimbursement for damaged items, it is not evident whether this covered all of her losses. The Ombudsman also does not consider the compensation offered by the landlord to be enough to fully take into consideration the impact of its failings.
The following orders have been made for the landlord to carry out the following actions:
1. Pay the resident additional compensation of £750, to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her, especially considering her mental health difficulties, bringing the total redress for this complaint to £1,690.
2. Send a written apology to the resident.
3. Provide the resident with information about its insurer so that she can make a claim if she has not been fully reimbursed for her damaged items.
4. Arrange for an independent inspection to be carried out, including a full damp and mould survey, to identify all outstanding repairs, and a schedule of works to be arranged.
5. Carry out a case review to ensure it learns from its failings in this case.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaints process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and send a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will acknowledge the escalation request within 3 working days and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation.
In an email sent to the landlord on 11 April 2023 the resident asked for a complaint to be raised. The landlord did not log the complaint at this time, and sent an email acknowledging her complaint on 2 August, 78 working days after she asked for it to be raised. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this unreasonable delay in raising the complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 23 August 2023, 15 working days after acknowledging the complaint, and 93 working days after the resident raised it. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its delayed response in its response, however it failed to do so.
The resident responded the next day to ask for the complaint to be escalated. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged this request, however on 18 September 2023 it emailed her to extend the deadline for its stage 2 response to 10 October. The landlord send its stage 2 response on 16 October 2023, 37 working days after it was escalated, which represented a further unreasonable delay.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to respond within its policy timescales at either stage, taking 6 months to respond to the complaint fully.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise the delays in its handling of her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord to take the following actions within 28 days of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,890, less any amount already paid, broken down as follows:
  1. £1,690 in relation to its handling of repairs.
  2. £200 in relation to its complaint handling.
2. A senior officer at the landlord to provide a written apology to the resident.
The landlord to arrange for an independent inspection to be carried out, including a full damp and mould survey, to identify all outstanding repairs, and a schedule of works to be arranged. The landlord to provide a copy of the report and schedule of works to the resident and this Service within 8 weeks of this report.
The landlord to carry out a review to ensure that it learns of the failings in this case. A copy of this review to be provided to this Service within 8 weeks of this report.