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

Places for People Group Limited (202223965)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223965

Places for People Group Limited

26 February 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 landlords:
    1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s stairlift.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since January 2008. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident is disabled and requires a stairlift to access his toilet, shower and bedroom located on the first floor. The resident advised this service he has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Because of this he prefers to communicate via telephone rather than email.
  2. On 29 March 2022, the resident told the landlord that electrical problems within his home were affecting his stairlift. An engineer visited on 30 March 2022. They repaired the electrics and left the stairlift in working order. The resident advised the landlord of a further issue with the stairlift on 27 April 2022, but the issue resolved itself the same day. He reported further faults on 19 October 2022 that an engineer repaired on the same day. On 16 December 2022, the resident told the landlord the control panel at the top of the stairs was not working and that he could not use the stairlift.
  3. On 9 January 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. He said he had made a complaint to the landlord but had not received a response. We wrote to the landlord the same day and asked that it provide a stage 1 response to the resident within 10 working days.
  4. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on 30 January 2023 and repaired the control panel. The notes state that no parts were required, and the stairlift was left in working order.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2023. He said he had made a complaint in January 2023 but had still not had a response. He then contacted us on 5 June 2023 and asked that we contact the landlord. We wrote to the landlord on 16 June 2023 and asked that it provide a response to the resident by 20 June 2023.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 July 2023. It said:
    1. It upheld the resident’s complaint.
    2. It apologised for its failure to promptly repair the stairlift and acknowledged that the timeframe was unacceptable.
    3. It concluded that it had taken insufficient action to resolve the situation with the stairlift and had failed to communicate appropriately on the matter.
    4. It apologised for the inconvenience, stress and frustration caused to the resident and his family by its handling of the matters.
    5. It offered compensation of £200 for the delays and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 July 2025. He rejected the landlords offer of £200 compensation. He said it was not sufficient to cover the loss of his stairlift, which he required every day, over a 7-month period. He requested £100 for every day he was without the stairlift.
  8. On 1 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that it had left him without the use of his stairlift for an unacceptable period of time and had failed to communicate appropriately. The landlord acknowledged that being without a stairlift left the resident without access to parts of his home, which caused significant distress and inconvenience. It confirmed that it had failed to raise a complaint when asked to do so by the Ombudsman in January 2023, and had not done so until it was contacted again in June 2023. To put things right, it increased its offer of compensation to £4,800, comprising:
    1. £2,800 for the time the resident was without the stairlift. This equated to a full refund of his rent for the period.
    2. £1,000 for failing to handle the complaint in line with its complaints policy.
    3. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused throughout the experience.
  9. The landlord subsequently paid the £4,800 to the resident. The resident, who is no longer a tenant of the landlord, told us he feels that additional compensation is due.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s stairlift

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is committed to delivering a high-quality repairs service, which aims to ensure all residents live in a safe and habitable environment. There are 3 repair categories and associated response times listed in the policy:
    1. Emergency repairs have a 24hour response time. They are described as a sudden and unforeseen issue which:
      1. Immediately puts a customer’s health and safety at risk.
      2. Is currently causing uncontrollable damage to the property which the customer is unable to contain.
      3. Renders the property uninhabitable.
    2. Appointable repairs have a 60day response time. They are described as a repair that can prevent damage to a property.
    3. Planned repairs have a 90day response time. They are described as a repair that is non-urgent and can consist of a replacement rather than the repair of a component.
  2. The policy confirms the landlord is responsible for the repair to stairlifts or hoists installed in residents’ homes. There are no separate timescales listed for repairs to this type of equipment.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to pay compensation in the following circumstances:
    1. Where it has failed to provide a service covered by the tenancy agreement which had been previously highlighted by a tenant.
    2. Where there has been an unreasonable delay in resolving an issue and a failure to keep the customer informed.
    3. Where there has been failure of equipment or facilities that are the landlord’s responsibility, which have not been repaired within its policy timescales.
  4. The policy does not detail what amounts of compensation that the landlord will consider. It states that it will assess each case on an individual basis.
  5. This Service has not been able to establish the exact sequence and timing of events in this case, due to the level of evidence submitted by the landlord. The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of their activities and actions. Clear and accurate records provide an audit trail and enhance the landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. We released our “spotlight on knowledge and information management” report in May 2023. The seventh recommendation in this report was for landlords to develop key data recording standards across their organisations to ensure good records that support their business.
  6. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord regarding the particulars of a case, the onus is on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that it had provided accurate and timely information, which met an acceptable standard. However, the landlord failed to provide accurate records showing its communication with the resident, which constitutes a failing.
  7. The landlord’s records show that the resident reported issues with his stairlift on 4 occasions between 29 March 2022 and 16 December 2022. The last record of an engineer visiting was on 30 January 2023. There are no further records after this point.
  8. The resident has reported that he was without the stairlift for a 7month period, which is undisputed by the landlord. In the stage 1 response it said that it was “unacceptable that he had been left without a stairlift for such an extended period”. In the stage 2 response it said,you have been left with no use of your stairlift for an unsatisfactory period which is unacceptable”. In the absence of sufficient records, we have therefore accepted that the resident was without his stairlift for a total of 7 months. Echoing the landlord’s own admissions, this significant timeframe was unacceptable and constituted a failure to comply with the repair timescales outlined in its policy. It also failed to fulfil the policy’s aim to provide a safe habitable environment for the resident.
  9. Being without the stairlift had a significant detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that its failure to repair the stairlift left him without the use of the upstairs facilities in the property. The resident told us that the only way he could get up the stairs was to crawl. As he feared falling, he mainly stayed downstairs to sleep and would go to the toilet in a bucket or use the garden. This was degrading for the resident and caused him substantial distress and inconvenience. He could also not wash properly because his level access shower was located in the first floor bathroom. This was unfair and inappropriate.
  10. The landlord was aware the resident required the stairlift and that he was vulnerable. Further, he told this Service that he repeatedly called the landlord and reported that he could not get upstairs. We have not been provided with the call records. However, the landlord acknowledged in the stage 2 complaint response that it had failed to communicate appropriately throughout the timeline of the case. Given the challenges the resident was facing in his home, the poor communication he experienced would have been extremely frustrating for him. While still recognising the landlord’s failures, it is positive that it has accepted that its communication was inadequate, and has committed to take learning from the matter.
  11. It is clear that this issue has had a significant detrimental impact on the resident’s day-to-day use and enjoyment of the property over the 7 months. He faced daily challenges in accessing the basic and essential components of a home, which caused him distress and inconvenience.
  12. When we identify failures, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In deciding this, we consider whether the landlord’s apology and offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  13. It is apparent from the landlord’s complaint responses that it recognised and took responsibility for its failings and the impact those failings had on the resident. The apologies it offered also demonstrated empathy, regret, and a willingness to learn from its mistakes, which was positive and in line with our apologies guidance.
  14. In respect of its failure to repair the stairlift, the landlord offered the resident a full rent refund amounting to £2,800. It also awarded £1,000 for distress and inconvenience. In our experience, it is highly unusual that a landlord proactively offers a full rent refund, even where it has identified serious errors. However, we recognise that in the circumstances this was a positive step by the landlord, which accounted for the resident’s inability to use a proportion of the property. The additional £1,000 for distress and inconvenience was also an appropriate step in recognising the extent of the impact on the resident.
  15. The total amount of £3,800 is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been serious failings by the landlord that have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
  16. In all the circumstances of the case, including the sincere apology and genuine attempt to put things right, the landlord’s overall offer of financial redress is considered both reasonable and proportionate. We therefore consider that it amounts to reasonable redress in relation to its handling of repairs to the resident’s stairlift.

Complaint handling

  1. 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.
  2. As with the substantive part of this complaint, the landlord has provided minimal records associated with its complaint handling. For example, we do not have a copy of the resident’s original complaint, records of his phone calls, or any internal correspondence on the matter. However, we are satisfied that the resident did make a complaint. The landlord confirmed this its stage 1 response. It stated, “there were multiple instances where your complaint was raised but failed to receive the attention and updates it deserved”.
  3. We wrote to the landlord on 9 January 2023 after the resident informed us that it had not responded to his complaint. Our letter required the landlord to provide a formal complaint response by 20 January 2023, but it did not do so (or otherwise reply to our contact). On 4 April 2023, almost 3 months later, the resident contacted the landlord again and told it that he was still waiting for a response. Again, the landlord did not acknowledge the residents complaint or provide a stage 1 response. This was unacceptable and a failure to comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) as well as the landlord’s own policy. The failure caused ongoing frustration and inconvenience for the resident.
  4. After being contacted again by the resident, we wrote to the landlord on 16 June 2023. It then issued its stage 1 response on 5 July 2023. In the response the landlord apologised for the delays, its poor communication, and its failure to handle the resident’s complaint in line with its procedure. While this was positive, its offer of £200 for the failure to repair the stairlift reduced the impact of its apology. In addition, such a low sum indicates a lack of awareness of the resident’s experience and a substandard complaint investigation. Further, while the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures it did not offer any compensation for them. The landlord therefore failed to put things right for the resident at this stage, and missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest possible point.
  5. The landlord recognised these failings in its stage 2 response. It substantially increased its award for the substantive element of the complaint, as described in the previous section of this report, and awarded £1,000 for its complaint handling failures. But for these steps, we would have found maladministration in how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. However, given its sincere apology, and the fact that the compensation offered is an appropriate amount in line with our remedies guidance, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s stairlift.
    2. Complaint handling.