From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Places for People Group Limited (202419425)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419425

Places for People Group Limited

30 April 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 of damp and mould in the property.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a ground floor flat.
  2. In February 2024, the resident posted several complaints on Trustpilot. He said the front door had not been fitted properly and was allowing water into the flat. He also reported damp, mould, and condensation throughout the property. He said that he had visited the doctor for sinus and chest infections and that the issues were affecting his mental health and wellbeing. During this time, the landlord issued a tenancy warning due to emails the resident sent to staff, which it considered were abusive.
  3. On 2 March 2024, the landlord raised a formal complaint to investigate the issues the resident had posted on Trustpilot.
  4. On 11 March 2024, the landlord’s specialist and asset surveyors inspected the flat and found no damp or mould. They noted the heating was off and the temperature in the flat was below 16 degrees. They also noted that the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen were switched off. They recommended replacing both fans and carrying out work on the damp proof course (DPC) at the front of the property to help prevent water ingress.
  5. On 13 March 2024, the landlord contacted the community mental health team, who confirmed that the resident did not have any diagnosed mental health conditions. On 14 March 2024, the resident told the landlord he believed its decision to contact the mental health team had been backhanded.
  6. On 18 March 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It summarised the findings of the surveyor inspection and said it would arrange an appointment to replace the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord referred to Energy Saving Trust guidance recommending an internal temperature between 18 – 21 degrees and acknowledged that the costs of living crisis was affecting residents’ ability to heat their homes. It offered heating vouchers if needed and advised the resident to contact his energy provider if he was struggling with bills.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 response also gave general advice on reducing the risk of damp and mould. It said the resident had acted aggressively and abusively towards the surveyors during the inspection and reaffirmed its zero-tolerance approach to abuse towards staff.
  8. On the same day, the local authority’s environmental health officer conducted a separate inspection of the flat. The officer identified two category 2 hazards for excess cold and damp and mould growth. They noted that some of the radiators appeared too small to heat rooms adequately and observed condensation and mould throughout the flat. They also found that the front door was not fully sealed. The officer instructed the landlord to carry out several actions, including a BTU assessment of the radiators, repairs to the extractor fans, a mould wash and repaint with fungicidal paint, investigation, and repair of rising damp, and works to the guttering, drains, and skirting. They also recommended that the landlord provide a hygrometer to help the resident maintain correct levels of heating and humidity.
  9. On 19 March 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process, as he remained dissatisfied with how it had handled his concerns.
  10. In April 2024, the county court granted the landlord an injunction prohibiting the resident from using abusive or threatening language or behaviour towards specific staff members, and from sending emails to the landlord altogether. The court also ordered the resident to pay the landlord’s court costs of £1,100.
  11. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 May 2024. It apologised for the delay in responding and acknowledged that some of the environmental health officer’s findings differed from its own inspection. The landlord confirmed it would carry out the works set out in the officer’s report. It explained that it first needed to establish who was responsible for the repair of the guttering, as it was located outside another property. It said the works would not require the resident to be decanted (temporarily moved).
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 response also said its decision to explore the resident’s health and wellbeing needs was made under its safeguarding policy, and that it had a social and moral obligation to ensure residents received the support they needed. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould, and £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint. It said it would use the compensation to apply a credit adjustment to the resident’s outstanding court costs.
  13. Between 15 July 2024 and 18 August 2024, the landlord attempted to carry out a BTU assessment of the radiators in the property. The resident told the landlord he did not want the original surveyors, who had conducted the initial inspection, to return. He also escalated his complaint to our service, saying the landlord’s actions were affecting his mental health and that he needed support to resolve concerns that had been ongoing for 16 years.
  14. In October 2024, the landlord and environmental health officer carried out a joint inspection of the property. The inspection confirmed the issues previously identified and recommended additional works, including repairs to the front and rear of the property, remedial works in the bathroom and bedrooms, and sealing the front door.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said the landlord’s handling of his concerns had a negative impact on his mental health. He also reported that the damp and mould in the property had affected his physical health. We acknowledge his comments and understand this has been a difficult situation for him. However, claims of personal injury, including harm to health, fall outside the complaints process. These can be pursued through a landlord’s public liability insurance or in court, where medical evidence and any allegations of negligence would be considered. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim, if he believes the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, caused harm to his health. This investigation considers any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings, as well as how it responded to the resident’s concerns about his mental and physical health.
  2. The resident told us that he has been reporting damp and mould issues to the landlord for 16 years and that the landlord had failed to act. We recognise that this has been a long-standing concern. However, under paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), which is available on our website, we would not normally consider matters that were not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period – usually within 12 months of the issue first arising. If the resident did raise a formal complaint with the landlord 16 years ago, paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme states that we would not usually consider complaints brought to us more than 12 months after the landlord’s final response.
  3. These time limits ensure that both the landlord and the Ombudsman have a fair opportunity to consider concerns while they are live, and that sufficient evidence is available to reach an informed decision. In the interest of fairness, this investigation is limited to events from February 2024 onwards, as this is where records indicate the beginning of events leading to the resident’s recent formal complaint to the landlord.
  4. The resident recently shared with us a copy of a further complaint he had raised with the landlord on 6 September 2024. The complaint included concerns about staff conduct, damage to belongings, missing information from a subject access request, reports to the police, unauthorised access to his NHS records, and the handling of his management transfer.
  5. While some of these concerns overlap with the issues under investigation, they were not included in the resident’s initial formal complaint or the landlord responses. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s actions in relation to these matters. The landlord has responded to them under a separate complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response, he may be able to refer that complaint to our service for consideration at that stage.

Legal policy and framework

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property, including the drains, gutters, external pipes, inside and outside walls and doors, skirting, and windows.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy classifies repairs into the following categories:
    1. Emergency – where there is an immediate threat to safety or the property. These should be completed within 24 hours
    2. Appointable – situations that need attention to avoid future damage. These should be completed within 28 days
    3. Planned – standard repairs that do not need urgent attention. These should be completed within 90 days.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy is used alongside its responsive repairs policy and sets out a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould in residents’ homes. It commits to proactive assessments of property condition, timely repairs, and compliance with best practice and regulation.
  4. Landlords must assess property conditions using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). While HHSRS does not set minimum standards, it focuses on identifying and minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould fall within its scope as potential health risks. Landlords should be aware of their responsibilities under HHSRS and take appropriate action when hazards are identified. Improvement works are typically the first step, followed by ongoing monitoring to ensure conditions do not deteriorate.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if it finds a service failure, it may award compensation. It may offer payments between £100 to £600 for distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble, depending on the impact of the failure and circumstances of the case. Examples could include giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information.
  6. The policy also states that where compensation has been offered, the landlord will check a resident’s account for any arrears or outstanding payments. Compensation will be offered to offset the payment against the debt.
  7. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

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

  1. The resident raised concerns about the condition of the front door and reported issues with damp, mould, condensation, and water ingress in February 2024. These reports were posted on Trustpilot rather than made directly to the landlord, so it is not clear when the landlord became aware of them. The landlord inspected the property on 11 March 2024, just outside the 28-day timescale set out in its repairs policy for appointable repairs. The evidence shows it was managing the resident’s contact during this period, and we consider its response time, in this context, to have been within a reasonable margin of its published timescales.
  2. That said, given that the resident had linked the disrepair to his health, and the potential seriousness of damp and mould, we would have expected the landlord to apply greater urgency in line with best practice. Our Spotlight report on damp and mould, published in October 2021, highlights the importance of treating damp and mould with the same urgency as other health risks. In similar circumstances, landlords should not rely on routine timeframes but act promptly to reduce harm and prevent further deterioration.
  3. There was a significant difference between the findings of the landlord’s surveyor and those of the environmental health officer, both of whom inspected the property in March 2024. The landlord’s surveyor found no evidence of damp and mould and in contrast the environmental health officer identified visible signs of condensation and inadequate heating. While the landlord’s survey appears comprehensive, the absence of alignment between the two assessments is troubling, particularly given the seriousness of the resident’s concerns. This calls into question whether the landlord’s assessment approach – particularly its threshold for recognising damp and mould – aligns with industry standards such as the HHSRS, which informed the officer’s findings.
  4. It is positive that the landlord later accepted the environmental health recommendations in full, but it should not have taken external involvement to reach that point. The inconsistent findings and delayed action understandably may have undermined the resident’s trust in the landlord’s ability to assess and respond to his concerns.
  5. The landlord’s records show a 4-month gap between the environmental health inspection in March 2024 and the first scheduled appointment to begin repairs – the BTU assessment on 23 July 2024. The landlord received the officer’s report in April 2024 and asked for support with setting up a multi-agency discussion about how to move matters forward. We recognise that the landlord was managing some challenges around engagement with the resident and sought advice from partner agencies, which was appropriate.
  6. However, our Spotlight report ‘ASB: Time to be heard (2022)’ makes clear that landlords must continue to meet their legal repairing obligations, even when managing situations involving unacceptable behaviour. Health and safety issues should not be delayed unless there is a clear and documented risk that cannot be mitigated. In this case, the evidence indicates the landlord had measures in place to continue visits safely but made no visible progress towards starting the repairs. In the absence of evidence of active planning or interim steps, we consider the delay unreasonable. The lack of early action likely prolonged the resident’s experience of poor conditions and contributed to his loss of confidence in the landlord’s handling of the case.
  7. The evidence shows that the BTU assessment did not go ahead as the resident told the landlord that he did not want the same surveyors who had previously inspected the property to return. The landlord considered this request throughout July and August 2024 and said it would try to accommodate it. However, its records noted that staff resources were limited, and that assigning different operatives would delay progress. The landlord also suggested installing a key safe so it could access the property while the resident was out, but the resident declined due to concerns about his belongings. We are satisfied that the landlord made reasonable efforts to balance the resident’s preferences with the need to carry out essential repairs.
  8. The landlord showed flexibility by considering alternative arrangements and maintained contact during this period. While this contributed to further delay, we do not consider this part of the delay to have been unreasonable, given the specific challenges and the efforts made to resolve them.
  9. The records show that in September 2024, the resident told the landlord he wanted the environmental health officer to be present for the next surveyor visit. This was a reasonable request, although it inevitably contributed to a further delay. A joint inspection took place in October 2024, and the resulting schedule of works stated that the resident would need to be decanted. However, there is a gap in the landlord’s records as they do not show how it intended to progress the works after that point.
  10. In February 2025, the landlord told the environmental health officer it continued to face access challenges and told us it saw no reason to decant the resident, despite the earlier recommendation. It did not explain this change in approach, provide supporting records of any unsuccessful access attempts or active steps to progress the works, such as following up on developing a multi-agency action plan. Given that the October 2024 identified the need for a decant, we are not satisfied that the landlord went far enough to address the barriers it encountered in the 4 months that followed the joint inspection.
  11. In April 2025, the landlord informed us that it had agreed to decant the resident to complete the outstanding works. This decision is in line with the recommendation made during the joint inspection in October 2024 and represents a positive step towards resolving the longstanding issues. The resident has set out several conditions relating to the decant, and the landlord has agreed to discuss these in an upcoming meeting. We consider the landlord’s willingness to engage in dialogue constructive. However, it will be important for the landlord to ensure that the outcome of this meeting results in a clear, time-bound plan to complete repairs and address the health and safety hazards identified over a year earlier. The landlord should accommodate the resident’s conditions where possible and if it cannot reasonably do so, it should explain why to the resident and look at whether it can offer any alternatives to address his concerns.
  12. Finally, the landlord awarded the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould. The compensation offer fell within the scope of the landlord’s compensation policy and was applied in accordance with its practice of offsetting payments against outstanding payments.
  13. We recognise that the resident has experienced distress and inconvenience during this process. However, we consider the £500 compensation to be a reasonable and proportionate response to the landlord’s overall failings in this case. The amount aligns with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which supports awards between £100 to £600 for failings that adversely affect a resident. This is the amount we would have ordered the landlord to pay if it had not done so already.
  14. However, while the £500 compensation fairly addressed the distress and inconvenience caused, it does not fully resolve the complaint because the core repairs remain outstanding. In view of the outstanding issues, we find maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  15. The landlord must now take prompt action to work with the resident, agree a clear plan, and complete outstanding works. It must provide a written summary of the outcome of the planned meeting, including:
    1. The agreed conditions for the decant
    2. The full schedule of works to be completed, and
    3. The expected start and end date for the repairs.
  16. The resident has requested a full refund of rent. However, we would only order a landlord to do this where a property has been entirely uninhabitable, and the landlord failed to take appropriate action. We have seen no evidence that the property was deemed uninhabitable at any point during the period we are considering. Therefore, we do not consider a full refund of rent to be appropriate or proportionate in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised a formal complaint on 2 March 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 11 working days later, which was slightly outside the 10-working day target set out in its complaints policy. However, we do not consider this minor delay to be significant.
  2. The resident escalated his complaint on 19 March 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response 37 working days later, exceeding the 20-working day target in its complaints policy. Its records show that it explained the delay to the resident, citing the complexity of the complaint and the multiple issues raised in later correspondence. It also said it was working to coordinate an appropriate and informed response. The landlord later offered £25 compensation to acknowledge the delay. Given the shortfall in timescales and the mitigating circumstances, we consider this to be a reasonable response.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response explained that it had contacted the community mental health team in line with its social and moral responsibility to ensure residents were receiving appropriate support. Its records show it sent an email to the resident in February 2024, signposting him to the community mental health team and offering to contact the team on his behalf, as he expressed that he was struggling with his mental health and the issues in the property were causing his mental health to deteriorate. We did not find a specific reference to this action in its safeguarding policy, but we acknowledge that the landlord presented its rationale in a way that was intended to support the resident’s wellbeing. While this issue was raised in a separate complaint, the landlord’s explanation is relevant context here.
  4. We also note that the landlord gave appropriate advice about heating the property and signposted support services, including energy vouchers. These steps demonstrate a focus on practical support and a person-centred response, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which encourages landlords to show empathy and take account of the resident’s individual needs when responding to complaints.
  5. Overall, we find that the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to reasonable redress. It acknowledged delays, offered proportionate compensation, and provided relevant advice and support in response to the issues raised.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer prior to our involvement which satisfactorily resolves the failings identified in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the £500 compensation already offered for its handling of damp and mould in the property if it has not done so already.
    2. Take prompt action to work with the resident, agree a clear plan, and complete outstanding works. It must provide a written summary of the outcome of the planned meeting, including:
      1. The agreed conditions for the decant
      2. The full schedule of works to be completed, and
      3. The expected start and end date for the repairs.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £25 compensation already offered for its complaint handling if it has not done so already. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress finding is made based on this sum being paid to the resident.