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

Places for People Group Limited (202226977)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226977

Places for People Group Limited

28 February 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 the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
  2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom, semi-detached house and she lives there with her children.
  2. In July 2022 the resident reported problems with the extractor fans in her kitchen and bathroom, as well as problems with her windows and front door. The landlord raised jobs to carry out repairs, however some appointments were cancelled and rearranged.
  3. The landlord carried out some repairs, but other repairs remain outstanding. The resident has also said that the repairs that have been carried out have not resolved the problems with damp and mould in her property.
  4. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 10 October 2022, in a response to a survey it sent her. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 22 November 2022. It said it had found a leak that was difficult to locate and had fixed this. It offered £250 for distress and inconvenience caused and said it would learn from the situation. It provided appointments for outstanding work to be completed.
  5. The resident responded the next day to say she was happy to accept the appointments but wanted the compensation to be increased. On 7 December 2022 the landlord agreed to increase the compensation to £350. The resident replied the same day to say she was not happy with this. The next day, the landlord acknowledged that she remained unhappy and agreed to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 31 January 2023. It apologised for delays and set out a schedule of works to resolve matters. It offered to increase the compensation to £375. The resident remained unhappy and asked this Service to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(c), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. The resident has said that she has had problems with issues of damp going back 15 years, however this Service has not seen evidence of a complaint being raised about this before 10 October 2022.
  2. The events leading up to the complaint under investigation have been assessed, with historical issues to be referred to for contextual purposes only. There are, however, events that have taken place after the landlord’s internal complaints process was concluded, that have been considered as part of this assessment. This is due to them being linked to the ongoing issues with damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(a), 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.
  4. The resident is unhappy that the landlord has not removed a tree growing in a drain between her property and a neighbouring property. Whilst the presence of this tree did come to light while the landlord was investigating the repairs complaint, it was not complained about at this time. The issue with the tree was raised as part of a later complaint, and this Service has not seen evidence that this has exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. The resident will need to escalate this with the landlord if it remains an outstanding problem.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. For the purpose of this report this Service has looked into the repairs issues relating to leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom separately to the issues with the windows and the front door.

Leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom

  1. The landlord’s repair policy sets out its obligations. It is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain and replace extractor fans, and for repairing damage to pipework. It sets out a timescale of 24 hours for emergency repairs and 28 days for “appointable repairs”. This policy was amended on 1 April 2022, and the timescale for appointable repairs was previously 60 days. The policy also sets out a timescale of 90 days for “planned repairs”.
  2. Problems with the extractor fans in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom were first raised on 15 July 2022. The landlord raised the job the same day but did not immediately allocate this, as there were no appointments available. This job was raised with a timescale of 60 days, which was not the appropriate timescale for any of the landlord’s categories of repair under its policy at the time. As this was not a planned repair, a timeframe of 28 days would have been appropriate.
  3. On 19 July 2022, an appointment was scheduled for 9 September 2022. This appointment was cancelled on the day as the landlord’s contractor ran out of time carrying out emergency repairs. The appointment was rearranged several times, with the extractor fan being replaced on 4 January 2023. Whilst this Service appreciates that emergency repairs will take priority on any given day, the first scheduled appointment for this repair was outside the 28-day timescale in the policy. It took the landlord almost 6 months to carry out the replacement of the extractor fan, which far exceeds the timescale set out in its policy.
  4. In the meantime, the resident raised further problems relating to damp in the bathroom. On 3 October 2022 a job was raised for the kitchen ceiling, which was damp and bulging due to a leak above. The landlord’s records from 17 October 2022 state that a leak was found in the bathroom, that was so small it had been difficult to find. It told the resident that the kitchen ceiling had dried but needed to be partially replaced due to the leak.
  5. The landlord’s records from July 2022 do not make it clear whether there was a damp and mould problem at that time, as a result of the problem with the extractor fans. However, by October 2022 it had become clear that there was a problem with damp. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a damp survey at this time, or any inspection from a surveyor. So, it has not evidenced that it took sufficient steps to identify whether there was a more serious damp issue in the property.
  6. On 10 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that it was not recognising the damp problem in the bathroom and that she had been told it was just condensation. She provided the landlord with a list of 20 appointments it had made for her between October 2022 and January 2023 and questioned the need for so many appointments.
  7. The landlord responded the next day to confirm appointments for 4 January 2023 to replace the extractor fan and 11 January 2023 to treat the mould on the bathroom ceiling. In its stage 1 response of 22 November 2022, the landlord apologised for having made her feel at fault regarding the condensation and mould issues. It offered her £250 compensation and reconfirmed the appointments it had booked in. The resident responded the next day accepting the appointments, but not the compensation amount. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £350 on 7 December 2022, which the resident did not accept.
  8. A further leak through the kitchen light fitting was reported on 18 December 2022 which was resolved as an emergency repair. The extractor fan in the bathroom was replaced as planned on 4 January 2023 and the mould on the bathroom ceiling was treated with 2 coats of mould resistant paint.
  9. In its stage 2 response of 31 January 2023 the landlord confirmed the kitchen ceiling had also been repaired, and further redecoration work was booked in for 28 March 2023.  It increased its offer of compensation to £375 and apologised for the delays in carrying out repairs.
  10. Following the repair work, the resident continued to report problems with damp and mould in her bathroom. In July 2023 a contractor visited the property and noted that condensation was getting in through the extractor fan. They said they thought the property was not breathing properly, and that the extractor fan itself as not the problem. A job was raised on 25 July 2023 for a quote to be obtained for a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit, however no evidence of any follow up on this has been provided by the landlord.
  11. On 9 August 2023 the landlord told the resident it had raised a request for a formal damp and mould survey, which was carried out on 30 August 2023. This Service requested a copy of this; however, the landlord was unable to provide this. It said it does not hold any records from that period, however it now has a more robust process in place, with a dedicated damp and mould team.
  12. The landlord carried out its self-assessment in January 2023 following this Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould. As part of this it identified that it was holding data in multiple systems which presented a challenge. It said it was undertaking a large-scale programme of digital transformation to ensure clear and coherent record keeping. The damp survey was carried out 8 months after this self-assessment. It is therefore not reasonable that the landlord has been unable to provide a copy of this report from August 2023, as its policy requires it to keep records of such surveys.
  13. The resident told this Service that a further mould wash was carried out on 3 November 2023, however the mould was recurring as the underlying problem has not been dealt with.
  14. In the absence of a report relating to the survey carried out in August 2023, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord has taken appropriate steps, in line with its policies, to get to the root cause of the damp and mould issues in the property. During its internal complaints process, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £375 which was not sufficient in the circumstances to recognise the detriment to the resident and her household. It did not do enough to put things right and its continued failure to get to the root cause of the damp and mould does not demonstrate that it has learnt from the outcome of the complaint.

Windows

  1. On 10 October 2022, the resident raised that there was a problem with her windows, saying there were holes around them which made them draughty. An internal email sent between the landlord’s staff on 17 October 2022 stated that the windows were old but working correctly. It was looking at having all windows on the estate upgraded, however this was being looked at by its asset management team.
  2. On 8 November 2023, following a survey carried out by the landlord in August 2023, it was identified that a trickle vent needed to be installed to the bathroom window, and that the window itself needed an overhaul. This demonstrates that the landlord failed to take its obligations under its damp, mould and condensation policy seriously, as this survey was not carried out until more than a year after the resident first raised issues relating to damp.
  3. The landlord’s policy requires it to conduct proactive assessments where damp and mould have been reported and carry out necessary repairs. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out an appropriate assessment of the damp and mould issue until August 2023, which was not within a reasonable timescale.
  4. Replacing all the windows in the property, and in this case possibly across all properties in the estate, is a large job, which could reasonably be classed as “planned repairs”. However, there is no evidence the landlord reasonably considered whether the resident’s windows were contributing to the damp issues in her property, or that it let her know that an estate-wide upgrade was being considered.
  5. On 8 February 2024, the landlord told this service that it was awaiting a quote from contractors for a full replacement of the windows in the property. Whilst this Service recognises that it is now taking action, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about the windows at either stage of its complaint process. Since the resident raised the issue in October 2022 the landlord has not acknowledged this issue with her directly or updated her with its plans to replace the windows.

Front door

  1. The landlord’s repair policy and the tenancy agreement set out that the front door is the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain. The landlord raised the repair with a 60-day timescale which, as explained above, is not in line with any of the timescales set out in its repair policy. However, as the door required replacement, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to class this as a “planned repair” under the definition in its policy of “a repair that is non-urgent and can consist of a replacement rather than a repair of a component”. As a new door was required, and would need to be ordered, a 90-day timescale for this repair would have been reasonable.
  2. The resident first raised the issue with the front door on 15 July 2022 and a contractor attended on 1 August 2022 to measure the door and order a new one. The resident raised the issue again on 10 October 2022 when she raised her complaint. The landlord logged a new job to renew the front door on 19 October 2022, with a target date of 18 December 2022.
  3. An appointment was made to replace the front door on 10 January 2023, but this was rescheduled to 7 March 2023 due to a delay in the manufacturing of the door. From the evidence provided, this appointment also had to be rescheduled and the new door was fitted on 12 May 2023.
  4. Whilst this Service appreciates that a new door needed to be ordered, and the manufacturing of this was out of the landlord’s control, the landlord should have proactively chased the manufacturer and provided clear updates and timeframes to the resident. The landlord should have considered that the front door problem may have also been contributing to the damp and mould issues in the property, and therefore treated this repair as more urgent.
  5. The replacement of the front door took almost 10 months, and there is no evidence that the landlord followed up with the manufacturer after ordering the new door. There is also no evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated about delays to it receiving the door. Therefore, the landlord failed to manage this repair appropriately.

Summary of repairs issues

  1. The landlord has failed to adhere to the timescales set out in its repairs policy across all the repair issues raised by the resident. It did not conduct a proactive assessment into the damp and mould issue soon after it was reported, and when it did carry out a survey, it did not keep a copy of the report, contrary to what its damp, mould and condensation policy sets out that it should do. It has failed to demonstrate that it has identified the root cause of the damp, and it has so far failed to implement a permanent solution to keep the property free from damp and mould.
  2. It is for these reasons that the Ombudsman considers that there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to this property. Whilst it has carried out a number of repairs, its management of the repairs to this property have not been customer or resolution focussed, which has led to the problems being protracted over a period of more than 18 months. During this period, many appointments have been cancelled at short notice, causing inconvenience to the resident, including her having to take unnecessary days off work to be at home.
  3. The repairs carried out throughout the internal complaints process have failed to identify the root cause of the damp problem and the landlord has not carried repairs that to fix the underlying problem. As explained above, the landlord’s offer to pay the resident compensation of £375 during its internal complaints process does not fully recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her family by the poor management of the repairs.
  4. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay additional compensation of £750 to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to her and her family. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £1,125.
  5. An order has been made for the landlord to carry out a further damp survey and share a copy of this report, as well as a schedule of repairs, with this Service and the resident. An identified works should be completed within a reasonable timeframe, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. An order has also been made for the landlord to share its schedule of works to replace the windows in the property with this Service and the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord’s complaint process lacked customer focus and it took too long to respond at both stages, delaying the final outcome.
  2. The resident raised the complaint on 10 October 2022, in response to a satisfaction survey sent out by the landlord. She attached photos of mould and paint issues and followed up with an email listing several repair issues. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day and said it would respond by 25 October 2022 in line with the 10-working day timescale set out in its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord tried to call the resident to discuss the complaint on 9 November 2022 but was unable to get in contact with her. It then sent its stage 1 response on 22 November 2022, 31 working days after the complaint was raised, which is an unreasonable delay. While it did attempt to call the resident to discuss the complaint, this was not until 22 working days after the complaint was raised. It did not contact the resident in the meantime to explain that there would be a delay in responding to the complaint, which this Service would expect a landlord to do.
  4. The resident responded to the stage 1 response on 23 November 2022, asking for the compensation to be increased. The landlord did not respond until 7 December 2022, when it offered to increase the compensation by £100, which was another unreasonable delay. It did, however, apologise for this delay.
  5. The resident replied the same day saying that she was not happy with the compensation and would rather take the complaint to this Service. She said she wanted the complaint to stay open and asked for more compensation.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that she was unhappy with its stage 1 response on 8 December 2022 and said it would send forms to her for her to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This Service has seen no evidence that any forms were sent, or of when it escalated the complaint, however the resident’s email of 7 December 2022 should have been enough for the landlord to escalate it.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy says that stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 3 working days, and a response will be sent within 20 working days. It says that if it cannot send the response in this timeframe, it will let the resident know when it expects to be able to do so. The landlord did not send its stage 2 response until 31 January 2023, 36 working days after the resident made it clear she wanted it to be escalated. The landlord has failed to act in line with its policy in terms of the time it took to response, and that it did not update her when it was unable to meet the 20-working day timescale.
  8. The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Whilst it did apologise for failures in its communication, it did not specify whether this was just in relation to the repairs, or whether it was acknowledging the delay in its complaint response. It took a total of 67 working days to respond to the complaint, which was more than 3 and a half months, which is not an acceptable timescale. This may have led to the repairs issues to be further protracted.
  9. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £50 for cases where “there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and /or fully put them right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays in responding to the complaint at both stages.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handing of repairs to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £1,225 compensation, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
    1. £1,125 for the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord to carry out a further damp survey and share a copy of this report, as well as a schedule of repairs, with the resident and this Service.
  3. The landlord to share a copy of its schedule to replace the windows in the property with the resident and this Service.
  4. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this service within 28 days of this report.
  5. The landlord to carry out a review of its repair handling procedures to ensure that it has processes in place to follow up on parts needed for repairs, and keep residents updated of any delays. It must complete a written report, to be shared with both the resident and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of this report.