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

Places for People Group Limited (202300366)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300366

Places for People Group Limited

4 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 landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to a leaking roof window, a roof or guttering leak, and to re-enamel the bath.
    2. The resident’s reports of damp.
    3. The resident’s request for a new kitchen, bathroom, boiler, triple glazing, and for the landlord to relocate a radiator.
    4. Communal repairs to the front door and building.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, which is a first floor flat within a converted period house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident has a medical condition which the landlord is aware of.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould on 13 January 2023 and the landlord raised an order for a damp and mould survey. He reported a leak from his roof window, or the roof around it, on 2 March 2023 and the landlord raised a repair. It attended on 13 March 2023 but there was a no access. The resident called the landlord, and it booked a new appointment for 28 March 2023, but then cancelled it on the day, and rebooked it for 3 April 2023. On that date the landlord said it needed scaffolding to complete the repair and on 19 April 2023 it raised a new repair for scaffolding to be erected. The resident reported the communal front door lock needed to be repaired on 20 April 2023 and the landlord raised a repair for 19 June 2023. However, he called it again the following day and it attended as an emergency repair.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 May 2023 to make a stage 1 complaint, which was about:
    1. Outstanding repairs in the property and communal repairs including a roof leak.
    2. Needing a new communal front door and new windows.
    3. Having been told he would get a new kitchen, bathroom and boiler but it had not happened.
  4. On 9 May 2023 the landlord visited the resident to discuss his complaint. On 17 May 2023 it raised a repair to overhaul and paint, or paint around, the communal front door. The landlord provided it stage 1 response by email on 18 May 2023, in which it:
    1. Listed the repairs or improvements the resident had asked for as part of his complaint but did not uphold the complaint.
    2. Explained regarding repairs that it would arrange a damp and mould inspection, had arranged a window and roof repair, organised scaffolding for 13 June 2023 and said the planned repairs would address the cause of the damp.
    3. Said it had raised repairs as soon as the resident had reported them, but “scheduling of these tasks is influenced by the urgency of the issue, resource availability, safety considerations, and external conditions.”
    4. Confirmed it had inspected the kitchen, bathroom, and boiler on 2 November 2022, and that they might need to be replaced by the 2025 to 2026 financial year. It apologised if it had caused any confusion that replacements would take place earlier than this.
    5. Explained that it would not fit triple glazing as this was not required to meet the Decent Homes Standard. Equally it could not relocate a radiator as the resident had requested as this was not a responsive repair.
    6. Said it would consider his request for internal and external communal redecoration and would inspect and look into funding for this if possible.
    7. Confirmed it was working on booked appointments for the outstanding repairs it needed to complete. (However, it provided appointment dates within its cover email to the resident).
  5. On 21 May 2023 the resident reported the communal front door lock could not be opened, and the landlord raised an emergency repair. He called it again to chase and then cancelled the repair. The landlord attended an emergency repair for the door on 23 May 2023 but there was a no access. It attended again the following day and completed repairs on 30 May 2023. The same day the resident asked to escalate his complaint and said the landlord had not completed repairs, or not completed them properly, and he had been locked out due to the door lock fault. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the following day. It completed external repairs to brick work and painted the masonry around the communal front door and window on 2 June 2023 and it attended an emergency repair for the communal door lock on 7 June 2023. The landlord erected scaffolding and completed repairs to the roof and roof window on 13 June 2023.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 6 July 2023, in which it:
    1. Did not uphold the complaint regarding the resident’s request for a new kitchen, bathroom, or boiler and repeated its stage 1 response.
    2. Partially upheld the complaint about outstanding repairs, said there were shortcomings in its service and took full responsibility for these and apologised.
    3. Apologised for its delays regarding damp and mould and said there had been a delay in receiving the inspection report due to a backlog.
    4. Repeated its stage 1 response regarding repairs to the roof window, roof, and damp patches caused by the leaks.
    5. Offered £400 compensation for distress and inconvenience, and £400 for time and trouble.
    6. Said it had asked its contractor for a quote to complete repairs to the roof, internal plaster and painting, and to re-enamel the bath.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. On 11 July 2023 the landlord received a copy of the damp and mould inspection report, following its contractor’s inspection on 8 June 2023. The report said there were damp patches caused by the roof leak, and a possible leak from the chimney breast, but no mould present. The landlord raised the recommended repairs and carried out repairs on 17 July 2023, including to clear guttering, remove plaster, treat and replaster internal walls. It also raised further roofing repairs. It emailed the resident on 18 July 2023 and said it had ordered a new communal front door and would see if it could find funding for communal redecoration.
  2. The resident rejected the landlord’s compensation offer on 19 July 2023. He said he wanted all the repairs done and a higher offer. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £1,200, and said it would complete the repairs, on 27 July 2023. It completed roofing repairs that day but recalled the contractor on 28 October 2023. Between 12 December 2023 and 6 August 2024, the landlord carried out multiple roofing and guttering repairs, before confirming these were completed after 6 August 2024. On an unknown date the resident signed a job sheet to confirm numerous internal and external repairs had been completed. The signature is dated 12 December 2022 although the landlord has told the Ombudsman this is incorrect, and it cannot be the correct date based on the timeline of events.
  3. The resident has told this Service that he still has multiple outstanding repairs. Some of these relate to the leaks from the roof, including defective plasterwork and decoration. Other repairs outstanding, including to floorboards, an extractor fan, a hallway light, and pest control issues were not part of the current complaint and are outside of the scope of this investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within the evidence, and in contact with this Service, the resident has referred to repairs issues predating this complaint, and more recent issues after the end of the complaints process. Under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, this Service can only consider complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, this investigation has been limited to the issues raised as part of the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints as detailed above.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a leaking roof window, a roof or guttering leak, and to re-enamel the bath

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the exterior and structure of the property, including the roof and guttering, and for installations for the supply of water and sanitation including the bath. This is also stated in its repairs policy and is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Under its repairs policy, it categorises repairs as either:
    1. Emergency repairs where there is a risk to life, safety or of uncontrollable damage, which it will repair within 24 hours.
    2. Appointable works where a repair can prevent damage to the property which it will repair within 28 days.
    3. Planned works where it is a non-urgent repair or component replacement which it will repair within 90 days.
  2. When the resident first reported a roof window or roof leak in March 2023 the landlord correctly raised a repair. It raised an appointable repair appointment and followed its no access process under its repairs policy. It correctly rebooked the appointment when the resident called but cancelled this and delayed the new appointment. It attended outside of its policy timeframe which was a failing. While it was reasonable for it to decide it needed scaffolding, it delayed for 11 days before ordering this, which was a further failing. By 18 May 2023, when the landlord provided its stage 1 response, it had yet to complete the repairs and gave a date of 13 June 2023. While it did complete repairs on that date, this was 102 days after the resident reported the leak, which was an unreasonable delay in breach of its repairs policy timeframes.
  3. Within its stage 2 response the landlord accepted there had been “areas where our service has fell short, and as a result, we did not meet [the resident’s] expectations” and offered total compensation of £800. It also said it would arrange further roofing works. While it did complete these in July 2023, it later recalled them and completed several further roofing repairs up until August 2024 demonstrating that its previous repairs had been ineffective.
  4. Regarding the resident’s bath repairs, there is no evidence that he reported this until his stage 1 complaint. However, at that point the landlord should have raised a repair, but it failed to do so. There is no evidence it has assessed the bath or completed any repairs which was a failing.
  5. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  6. While the £800 offered may have been reasonable at the time of the complaint response for the combined failings, when separating the complaint elements out, and considering the additional repairs and failure to do the works to a reasonable standard (and consider the bath), the amount does not compensate for the level of failing. Overall, there was maladministration.
  7. The landlord failed to act within its policy timeframes, or a reasonable time, to complete repairs to the roof window and roof, and the repairs it completed were ineffective, requiring multiple further repairs. The leaks caused damp within the property (considered below) and meant the resident had to chase the landlord for it to complete these repairs, without a clear timeframe or confidence the issue would be resolved. There is also no evidence it repaired the bath. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £600 compensation to the resident.

 

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp

  1. One of the 29 identified hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is damp and mould and landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards. At the time of the complaint the landlord had a damp process within its repairs policy. This process sets out the steps it would take when a resident reported damp or mould. If the cause is thought to be water ingress the landlord will arrange a repair or inspection by a contractor to plan a repair. For damp or condensation not thought to be from a water ingress it will appoint a contractor or supervisor to inspect. The process refers to a surveyor’s inspection further down the process and does not give any timeframes for its actions. The landlord now has a separate damp and mould policy, but this was implemented in October 2023 after the end of this complaint.
  2. When the resident reported damp on 13 January 2023 the landlord did not follow its damp process but raised an order for an external damp and mould survey. The landlord did not give an explanation for this, and it is not clear whether it considered water ingress as the cause. While ordering a specialist survey is a positive step, this caused a substantial delay. The survey was not completed until June 2023, and the landlord did not receive the report until 11 July 2023, which was an unreasonable delay and failing. There is no evidence the landlord chased the specialist company to complete the survey sooner, or chased for the report, which was a further failing. Its communication to the resident was also poor. In its stage 1 response it said it would raise an inspection but gave no date or timeframe. In its stage 2 response it blamed delays on a backlog, which was not a reason given the landlord’s failures.
  3. The landlord, while waiting for the inspection and report, was aware of the resident’s roof window and roof leak (discussed above), and the report confirmed the cause of damp in the property was due to this. The report also identified another area of the roof, by the chimney, which needed to be repaired. If the landlord had inspected sooner, it would have been able to repair this issue sooner, and therefore resolve the damp more quickly.
  4. While the landlord did complete internal plasterwork and decoration repairs, on an unknown date, the resident has told the Ombudsman repairs are still needed. It is possible that further or new damage was caused following subsequent leaks until the issue was repaired in April 2024. There is no evidence the landlord completed further internal repairs which it should have. Overall, the was maladministration, which led to distress and inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £500 compensation to the resident, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen, bathroom, boiler, triple glazing, and for the landlord to relocate a radiator

  1. The landlord has an asset management investment strategy, which it explained within its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It started a programme of stock condition surveys, to assess the condition of kitchens, bathrooms, and boilers, to estimate when they might need to be replaced. This approach is in line with industry standards, were these types of replacements take place on a cyclical basis based on age and condition. The government’s Decent Homes Standards states kitchens are considered old if over 20 years old, and bathrooms over 30 years old, but only need replacement if this is also due to their state of repair or condition.
  2. Within his stage 1 complaint the resident said he had been told by the landlord, when it inspected, that he would receive a new kitchen, bathroom, and boiler in the 2023 to 2024 financial year, but he had not heard anything further. In its stage 1 and 2 responses the landlord appropriately apologised for any confusion caused regarding the timeframe for these replacements, and clearly explained when replacement might take place and that this would be based on a further survey nearer the time, which is standard industry practice.
  3. Within his stage 1 complaint the resident also asked for triple glazing due to external noise. The landlord denied this request and said this was not required under the Decent Homes Standards, which is correct. Properties must have “adequate insulation against external noise” however there are no set requirements on glazing. There is also no evidence the external noise is enough to amount to a hazard under the HHSRS.
  4. The resident also asked for a bedroom radiator to be relocated to improve the usability of a bedroom within his complaint. The landlord refused this request as it was not a responsive repair. The landlord was under no obligation to relocate the radiator and so its refusal was reasonable. Overall, there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of communal repairs to the front door and building

  1. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairing and keeping fit for use any communal areas. This is in line with its obligations under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its repairs policy states it is responsible for external main doors. The policy does not give different timeframes for communal repairs, or state that they will be responded to differently.
  2. When the resident first reported the communal door lock was faulty the landlord correctly raised a repair, but booked this for 2 months later, far in excess of its appointable repairs timeframe, which would have been a more appropriate categorisation than a planned repair. The following day it correctly attended as an emergency repair. A communal door which cannot be opened or unlocked presents a risk to safety, and potentially creates a fire escape hazard under the HHSRS.
  3. Within his stage 1 complaint the resident said the property needed a new communal front door and repairs to the exterior. Positively the landlord visited the resident to discuss the complaint and view the issues. It raised a repair for the external wall, door and window frame, and completed them within its planned repairs timeframe. It also said within its stage 1 response it would consider internal communal redecoration. It is not clear whether the landlord has a policy on cyclical internal decoration, but it said it would try to secure funding for this, which was solution focused.
  4. However, the communal door lock fault continued, and the resident reported this multiple times in May 2023. The landlord attended as an emergency but there was a no access, and then attended under its original repair job and completed repairs. The result of the door faults was that the resident had been locked out, which in part led to his escalation request. That the landlord had to attend an emergency repair again in June 2023 showed that its previous repairs may have been ineffective or temporary in nature. The landlord confirmed, in an email to the resident on 18 July 2023, that it had ordered a new communal front door. There is no evidence that it fitted the door.
  5. Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord’s response to external communal repairs, and consideration of internal redecoration was reasonable. However, it failed to carry out complete and lasting repairs to the communal front door, which presented a health and safety hazard in the event of needing to escape, and serious inconvenience in the event of not being able to get into the property. This also caused distress, frustration, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £400 compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. When the resident made his stage 1 complaint on 2 May 2023 there is no evidence the landlord acknowledged it. However, this can be inferred as it arranged to visit him to discuss the complaint and did so within 5 working days in line with its complaints policy timeframe. It provided its stage 1 response after 12 working days, outside of its 10-working day policy timeframe and that under paragraph 5.1 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time.
  2. Within its stage 1 response the landlord gave poor quality responses, without timeframes or appointment dates for repairs, which it did include in its cover email. It failed to respond fully to each complaint point within its stage 2 response but repeated, word for word, its stage 1 response which was a further failing. The letter also contained stock paragraphs which did not represent a genuine attempt to respond to the complaint and one was repeated word for word within the stage 2 response “I also would like to take a moment to express my heartfelt gratitude for sharing your complaint with me.” The wording did not come across as authentic and genuine.
  3. When the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord correctly acknowledged this within its 3 working day policy timeframe. It provided its stage 2 response after 28 working days, which was a failing, in excess of its 20-working day policy timeframe and in breach of paragraph 5.13 of the Code. Its response also failed to fully address the complaint in breach of paragraph 5.16 of the Code. The landlord repeated sections of its stage 1 response without update or further comment which was a failing.
  4. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, which caused additional inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect this impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £150 compensation to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to a leaking roof window, a roof or guttering leak, and to re-enamel the bath.
    2. The resident’s reports of damp.
    3. Communal repairs to the front door and building.
    4. The complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen, bathroom, boiler, triple glazing, and for the landlord to relocate a radiator.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the maladministration detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,650 compensation (inclusive of its £1,200 post complaints process offer) made up of:
      1. £600 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling the leak.
      2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling damp.
      3. £400 for the distress, frustration, time and trouble caused by its failings in repairing the communal front door.
      4. £150 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Carry out a survey to identify all outstanding repairs within and affecting the property and produce a schedule of works. The landlord is to provide a copy of the survey report and schedule to the resident, which includes appointment dates for any required repairs. The landlord must do this within 10 working days of receiving the survey. The landlord must then use its best endeavours to start the repairs within 28 days of the date of the survey.
    4. Review its template complaint response letters for wording or stock paragraphs if it has not already done so since the date of this complaint, to ensure its responses are more empathetic.
    5. Confirm compliance with these Orders to this Service.