Places for People Group Limited (202216023)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216023

Places for People Group Limited

22 November 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
   2. The landlord’s response to reports of pests in the property.

Background

2. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom flat with her adult son under an assured tenancy agreement since 3 December 2021. This service understands that at an unknown date in 2024, the resident ended her tenancy. This service also understands that the resident lives with several long-term health conditions.
3. The resident raised a complaint via this service on 6 December 2022. The resident was dissatisfied that:
   1. the property was affected by leaks, damp, and mould, which included water rising up through the floor, and the landlord had not taken any action to resolve this
   2. the property was affected by pest infestations, including rats, mites, and tapeworms, and the landlord had not taken action to resolve this
4. In its stage 1 complaint response on 20 December 2022, the landlord:
   1. stated it had conducted a joint inspection with the local authority’s environmental health department on 28 October 2023 and concluded that there were no repairs needed related to leaks, damp, mould, or pests in the property
   2. stated there was no evidence of water rising up through the floor
   3. noted that the resident had laid her own vinyl flooring over the top of the pre-existing vinyl flooring, and this was likely causing condensation between the layers which caused the top layer of flooring to bubble
   4. advised the resident to remove the top layer of flooring to allow it to dry out and offered to provide the resident with a dehumidifier once she had done this
   5. stated it had taken humidity readings throughout the property and confirmed these were within normal ranges
   6. confirmed the results of a recent drain survey which showed there were no problems and the drains were running freely
5. The resident escalated her complaint via this service on 18 January 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied that:
   1. there were outstanding repairs to the property relating to leaks, damp, mould, and pest infestations
   2. she wanted the landlord to decant her to another property whilst it completed the repairs
6. In its stage 2 complaint response on 8 February 2023, the landlord:
   1. confirmed an extension had been agreed with the resident to allow an opportunity for an inspection of the property to take place before providing its stage 2 complaint response
   2. stated it had carried out numerous inspections of the property, and most recently on 1 February 2023, and had not identified any repairs or noted any change in the condition of the property at these inspections
   3. explained that it agreed with the opinion of the local authority’s environmental health department that there was no evidence of any infestation, or that the property was affected by leaks, damp, or mould
   4. reiterated its advice that the resident remove the top layer of vinyl flooring to prevent further condensation
7. In her complaint to this service, the resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken action to complete repairs or address the pest infestations.

Assessment and findings

Scope

8. In her complaints to this service, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with a variety of matters, including:
   1. the landlord’s handling of the ending of her tenancy in 2024
   2. various health services’ handling of her and her son’s health conditions
   3. concerns about the local authority and the conduct of its environmental health officers
   4. the conduct of the local police force
   5. an insurance providers response to a claim
   6. concerns about electrical safety
   7. allegations of antisocial behaviour
9. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman 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

10. There is no evidence the resident has raised her new complaints about the ending of her tenancy, electrical safety, or antisocial behaviour with the landlord. Therefore, these complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are not ones this service can investigate.
11. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these matters, she should raise a new complaint with the landlord. If at the end of the complaints process the resident remains dissatisfied, she may bring that complaint to the Ombudsman to consider.
12. Paragraph 41.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: b. concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme

13. The resident’s health care providers, insurance providers, local police force, and the local authority’s environmental health department are not member’s of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, these complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and not ones this service can investigate.
14. The Ombudsman will consider the landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp, mould and pests at the property, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks, damp, and mould

15. The landlord has provided not provided this service with a copy of its repairs policy. However, the Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair.
16. On 11 February 2022, the resident reported that the drains of the property were blocked and that bathwater was draining slowly. She told the landlord the utility company had inspected and determined that the affected drain was the responsibility of the landlord.
17. On 18 February 2022, the landlord inspected the drains, identified a blocked gully, and cleared it. The landlord’s repair records noted that the water drained normally following this.
18. The landlord completed the repair 7 days after the resident reported the problem. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was appropriate, because the time taken to complete the repair was reasonable.
19. Between February and December 2022, the resident continued to report problems with blocked drains and leaks which had caused damp and mould. This included:
    1. reports that sewers and drains were overflowing
    2. water and sewage was seeping through the resident’s floor
    3. ‘toxic’ smells
    4. damp and mould throughout the property
20. The evidence indicates that in response to these reports, the landlord attended the property on several occasions. This included:
    1. unblocking the bath drain
    2. inspecting underneath the bath for holes or leaks
    3. a joint inspection with environmental health officers on 28 October 2022
    4. a further inspection of the drains on or around 9 November 2022
    5. a further inspection for leaks on 1 February 2023
21. In her complaints the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not completed repairs to address the leaks, damp, and mould. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that there was no evidence the property was affected by leaks, damp, or mould, and that there were no repairs for it to do.
22. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response was reasonable. This is because the landlord’s conclusion that the property was not affected by leaks, damp, or mould at the time of the complaint was based on the evidence available. Furthermore, the landlord could not be expected to carry out repairs which could not be identified.
23. This service has not been provided with any evidence which contradicts the landlord’s conclusions, or on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s response was unreasonable.
24. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of leaks, damp, or mould, in that:
    1. it inspected the property on several occasions and was unable to corroborate the resident’s reports or identify any repairs
    2. explained its position to the resident

The landlord’s response to reports of pests in the property

25. The tenancy agreement states that it was the resident’s responsibility to keep the property free of pests and treat any infestations. However, it remained the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain the exterior and structure of the property.
26. The resident reported pest infestations to the landlord on several occasions in 2022. This included reports that:
    1. there were rat droppings throughout the property
    2. rats were crawling over her in her sleep and entering her body
    3. the property was infested with ‘mites’
    4. the resident was infected with tapeworms which she believed had been caused by the condition of the property
27. In her complaints, the resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not taken action to address the pest problems. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that following its various inspections of the property (as detailed at paragraph 14 of this report) it had not identified that the property was affected by any pest infestations nor had it identified any repairs.
28. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response was reasonable. This is because the landlord’s conclusion that the property was not affected by pest infestations at the time of the complaint was based on the evidence available. Furthermore, the landlord could not be expected to carry out repairs which could not be identified.
29. This service has not been provided with any evidence which contradicts the landlord’s conclusions, or on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s response was unreasonable.
30. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of pests, in that:
    1. it inspected the property on several occasions and was unable to corroborate the resident’s reports or identify any repairs
    2. explained its position to the resident

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of leaks, damp, and mould.
32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of pests.