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

Places for People Group Limited (202314748)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314748

Places for People Group Limited

14 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:
    1. Response to reports of repairs required to a neighbour’s roof, a replacement sink, a front door, toilet and floorboards.
    2. Response to reports of a kitchen roof leak, damp and kitchen unit repairs.
    3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-storey mid terrace property and has an assured tenancy.
  2. In January 2023 the resident reported his kitchen cupboard doors were hanging off. In the same month he also reported water leaking through his flat kitchen roof. On the 13 June 2023 the resident complained the roof leak repair was outstanding and he reported damp in his kitchen. He expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not replaced his kitchen units.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023 and upheld the complaint. It agreed to a damp survey in the kitchen, and it awarded the resident £150. This was for distress, inconvenience, and poor communication.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 19 August 2023 expressing dissatisfaction at the level of compensation. He also expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of the roof and kitchen unit repairs. In August 2023 the landlord completed work to the resident’s kitchen roof and kitchen units before doing a damp inspection on 2 October 2023.
  5. On 13 October 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response, and it upheld the complaint. It increased the compensation offered to a total of £690 to include the £150 offered at stage 1 and:
    1. £240 towards the resident’s redecoration costs
    2. £225 for additional heating costs
    3. £75 for a missed timescale and poor communication since its stage 1 response.
  6. Although the resident received the £690, he told the landlord he remained dissatisfied at the time it took it to do the repairs to his kitchen roof and units. He also remained upset at the landlord’s decision not to replace his kitchen. The resident told this Service he was unhappy that he discovered damp and rotten floorboards in the property in October 2023. The resident has also referred to a broken toilet and front door in his communications with us. The resident would like a replacement kitchen and wants the landlord to re-inspect his kitchen for damp as he says this remains. The resident has also asked for the landlord to agree to improvements in its complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42. of the Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. 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.” This is because we expect residents to raise complaints first with their landlord to allow them an opportunity to resolve them.
  3. It is unclear exactly when the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his neighbour’s roof repair. However, the evidence shows that on 26 September 2023 he accepted this was a new complaint. On the same day the resident complained about the landlord’s decision not to replace his kitchen sink with one that had “one opening” and said the replacement sink was not “electronically grounded”. The resident also complained about the front door, a toilet, and floorboards. These complaints were not part of the resident’s initial complaint. We have not seen any evidence that these complaints have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  4. Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of a repair to the neighbour’s roof, replacement sink, front door, a toilet, and the floorboards is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident complained about damp in his kitchen on 13 June 2023. The landlord’s damp survey in October 2023 covered other areas of the property. However, both the resident’s initial complaint and the landlord’s stage 2 response only related to damp in his kitchen. As issues with damp outside the kitchen were not part of the initial complaint the landlord considered, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of reports of damp in the kitchen.
  2. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Kitchen roof leak

  1. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a detailed record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, easily accessible records provide an audit trail. They also improve the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. We consider the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records. This has affected our ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a significant failure by the landlord and contributed to other failures identified in this report.
  2. The resident reported water leaking from his kitchen flat roof on 17 January 2023. While the landlord said initially it repaired this in March 2023 it accepted in its stage 1 response this was not the case. The landlord said it repaired the “wrong part of the roof” which the resident identified as his neighbour’s roof. The landlord accepted it raised a repair job to the resident’s roof on 17 August 2023 which the resident confirmed was completed on this day. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy required it to complete non-emergency repairs, like a roof leak, where there was no immediate risk to life or property within 28 to 60 days.
  3. It took the landlord 7 months to complete this repair. This was considerably outside the response time set out in its policy for non-emergency repairs. This failure caused the resident frustration and upset, not least because he was concerned that it may affect his relationship with his neighbour.
  4. After the roof repair the resident told the landlord he incurred additional heating costs because he had to dry the wet plaster following the repair. The landlord gave the resident £240 for decoration costs and £225 for additional heating costs. We note the resident told the landlord he wanted to employ his own decorator, rather than the landlord carry out the redecoration. He was also unable to provide the landlord with evidence of his decoration costs and additional heating costs. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord acted reasonably to reimburse the resident an amount for these in line with its compensation policy. This allows for compensation, including payments for increased utility costs and gestures of good will.

Kitchen damp

  1. The resident reported damp in his kitchen on 13 June 2023. While the landlord inspected the property on 12 July 2023 the landlord limited its inspection to an assessment of the kitchen repairs needed. We acknowledge the resident did not “mind either way” that the landlord inspected the property for kitchen repair work before doing a damp survey. Nevertheless, the landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy required it to complete inspections in line with its responsive repairs policy. The landlord completed the damp and mould inspection on 2 October 2023. This found damp to the rear window wall, high humidity, and old staining from the repaired roof leak.
  2. When a resident reports a risk of damp the landlord should quickly inspect the property and check for hazards. The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. It is also the Ombudsman’s expectation that the landlord complete damp and mould inspections in a timely manner as outlined in our spotlight report on damp and mould.
  3. As it took the landlord nearly 4 months to inspect the property for damp and mould, we cannot be satisfied that it acted reasonably in line with its legal duties or the expectations in the spotlight report. The time it took the landlord to act meant that it left the resident in a property with a damp smell in the kitchen and damp walls and kitchen floor. This caused the resident considerable distress and concern. The damp survey recommended the landlord install a kitchen fan and mould wash and stain the kitchen. The resident told us the landlord installed the kitchen fan in January 2025 while the landlord said it completed this in October 2024.
  4. This Service cannot verify from the landlord’s records when it completed the actions recommended in the damp survey. However, it is clear from the landlord’s account that it did not complete the installation of the fan and mould wash within a reasonable time (within 60 days of the mould and damp survey). As the resident has said he still experiences some damp in the kitchen we have made a couple of orders in relation to this. This includes an order for some additional compensation to reflect the additional distress this likely caused in line with our remedies guidance.

Kitchen unit repairs

  1. The resident reported his cupboard doors hanging off on 10 January 2023. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy required it to respond to repairs which were not an emergency within 28 days to 60 days. The landlord’s notes suggest it made appointments on 9 February 2023 and 13 February 2023. It stated it completed a job on 2 March 2023. It is unclear what it did and therefore we cannot be satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably. The landlord raised a job on 17 May 2023 to measure up and inspect repairs to the kitchen which it completed on 12 July 2023. It noted there was:
    1. damage to kitchen cupboard doors.
    2. blown joints under the kitchen sink.
    3. damage to the drawer and drawer box.
    4. chips to the kitchen worktop with sealant missing.
    5. rotten plinths and side panels.
  2. Following this inspection the landlord completed work on 24 August 2023 when it:
    1. removed the old kitchen unit and doors and installed new ones.
    2. fitted a new drawer box and new plinth.
    3. installed a new kitchen sink.
  3. The landlord needed to complete work within 28 to 60 days under its responsive repairs policy. Given the available evidence we cannot be satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably or in line with its policy. This is because we cannot be satisfied the landlord inspected the property or completed the work within 60 days of the report in January 2023.
  4. While the resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not fully replaced all the kitchen units, we have not seen evidence that the landlord was either under an obligation to do this, or that it agreed to do this. We note the landlord stated in its stage 2 response it would consider this in future. Therefore, the landlord’s decision to repair and not replace the kitchen was reasonable.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord about the standard of workmanship and the quality of materials it used to repair the kitchen cupboards. As the resident refused to allow the landlord to inspect these on 26 September 2023, we cannot fault the landlord for not looking into this issue further.

Summary and findings

  1. Based on the evidence we cannot be satisfied that the landlord acted reasonably and in line with its responsive repair policy. This is in relation to its repairs of the roof, kitchen units and inspection of and work to deal with the kitchen damp. Therefore, this amounted to maladministration. The landlord awarded the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident by its delays in dealing with these up to its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023. The additional compensation it paid the resident at stage 2 did not cover any additional distress and inconvenience.
  2. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactory in the circumstances. When considering this the Ombudsman must have regard to 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.
  3. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for its failings.
  4. The landlord’s repairs to the roof, kitchen units and damp inspection and kitchen fan installation were all completed after its stage 1 response. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers it would be appropriate to award additional compensation to be fair and to put things right. This is because the resident experienced further delays and distress after the landlord’s stage 1 response which the landlord did not specifically reflect in its stage 2 response. Therefore, we have made an additional award of compensation of £100. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  5. The Ombudsman previously ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its approach to damp and mould, repair and record keeping practices on case 202321572. Some of the issues identified in this complaint are like the issues identified in that complaint. The landlord has demonstrated compliance with our previous wider order, so we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case that would duplicate those already made to the landlord. The landlord itself should consider whether there are any additional issues arising from this later case which require further attention.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy had 2 stages. It needed to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord told the resident on 26 June 2023 that it had closed the complaint he made on 13 June 2023. This was inappropriate as there is no evidence it resolved this to the resident’s satisfaction. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response this was inappropriate. The resident had to request the landlord consider his complaint again on 1 July 2023 and 24 July 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 4 August 2023 when it ought to have acknowledged this within 5 working days in line with its complaint policy. It took it until 11 August 2023 to provide its stage 1 response.
  2. This was 43 working days after the resident raised the complaint which was not in line with its policy. The landlord’s stage 1 response was from the member of staff who was responsible for the works. This was not appropriate. Paragraph 4.7 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code” version 2022 in force at the time of the complaint) required the complaint handler to “act independently and have an open mind”. The landlord also ought to have raised a new complaint about its handling of his neighbour’s roof and the resident’s sink in line with the expectation of paragraph 5.7 of the Code.
  3. The resident escalated the complaint on 19 August 2023 and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 13 October 2023. It took the landlord 39 working days against a target of 20 working days. This was not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy. The delays in responding to the resident’s complaint amounted to maladministration. This caused distress which also affected the landlord and resident relationship as the resident lost trust in the landlord.
  4. The landlord awarded the resident £75 in its stage 2 response for failures in missed timescales and failures in communication since its stage 1 response. The Ombudsman considers that it would be appropriate to award the resident additional compensation to reflect the likely impact of the failures. We have found service failure. We have made an order that the landlord pay additional compensation of £75. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where the landlord may have made an offer of compensation, but it does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint about the neighbour’s roof, replacement sink, front door, toilet, and floorboards is outside jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a kitchen roof leak, damp and kitchen unit repairs. 
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. contact the resident and arrange an inspection of the resident’s kitchen for damp and mould
    2. pay the resident directly additional compensation of £175 made up of:
      1. £100 for the additional distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the roof leak and kitchen damp, including the repairs to the roof and kitchen units
      2. £75 for the additional distress and inconvenience likely caused to the resident by its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.
  3. Within 56 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
    1. review how it handled the resident’s complaint and identify any areas for improvement. The landlord must share a copy of its findings with the resident and this Service within 56 days of the date of this determination
    2. share its kitchen damp and mould inspection findings with the resident and if the report recommends further work the landlord must state when the landlord is likely to start and complete this by. The landlord must provide evidence to this Service of compliance with this order within 56 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord should contact the resident to see if there are any outstanding complaints that it needs to respond to.