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

Places for People Group Limited (202324903)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324903

Places for People Group Limited

16 June 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 the resident’s reports of:
    1. Repairs in the property.
    2. Mice infestation in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom maisonette owned by the landlord, a housing association. He has reported both mental and physical health vulnerabilities, including suicidal ideation, eye problems, skin, and respiratory conditions. He believes these were worsened by the poor condition of the property and the presence of mice. The landlord was aware of his mental health needs.
  2. Between 20 September 2022 and 15 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord multiple times to report repairs. These issues included problems with doors, windows, flooring, walls, the staircase, and gaps that allowed pests to enter.
  3. On 20 September 2023 the resident submitted a formal complaint, stating the landlord had failed to address the repairs and mice infestation.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 9 October 2023. It acknowledged a service failure and offered £200 in total compensation.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 2 November 2023 stating the issues with repairs and infestation were still unresolved.
  6. On 1 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It stated it had completed all repairs by 14 October 2023. It said it had made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident and, as it could not confirm the reasons for his dissatisfaction, it had closed the complaint but invited further contact. It reiterated its previous £200 compensation offer.
  7. On 20 December 2023 and again on 26 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to express dissatisfaction about outstanding repairs and the compensation offered. The landlord offered to reopen the complaint on 29 January and 5 February 2024. However, on 9 February 2024, the resident declined to proceed.
  8. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his continued repair reports and escalated his complaint to us. As a resolution the resident wants the landlord to complete outstanding repairs and offer increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In communication with us, the resident said the repair issues have had a detrimental impact on his health. 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 we 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.
  2. The resident stated he has reported repair issues in the property for the past 4 years. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is so the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to investigate the issue whilst it is still ‘live’ and sufficient evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. As issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as an Ombudsman to conduct an effective review of the actions taken.
  3. In view of the time periods involved in this case, considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to 20 September 2022. This is 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint to the landlord and any reference made to events prior to this date is for context only.

 

Reports of repairs in the property

  1. The landlord’s Repair Policy and the Tenancy Agreement state the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure of the premises including walls, doors, windows, and floors. It will complete routine repairs within 60 days and planned repairs within 90 days.
  2. The resident first reported multiple repair issues on 20 September 2022. These included a faulty front door, gaps in the flooring and walls, damaged windows, banister issues, leaks, and skirting board defects.
  3. The landlord arranged a flooring inspection on 4 October 2022. It is unclear from the landlord’s records if it completed any repairs between 4 October 2022 and March 2023. Between April and May 2023 the landlord completed some window repairs and internal plastering. It also raised a job for flooring repairs, but the work remained incomplete. These actions show that the landlord did take some steps, but it failed to progress all the repairs effectively.
  4. By 20 September 2023, when the resident made his formal complaint, he said many repairs were still outstanding. These included repairs to the front door, flooring, skirting boards, windows, bannisters, staircase, leaks, plastering gaps and voids in flooring and walls.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged service failure and upheld the complaint. It commissioned a specialist survey. It offered £200 in compensation broken down as £175 for distress and inconvenience and £25 as an apology.
  6.  By 9 October 2023 when the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response, the resident’s repairs were more than 9 months outside its planned repairs completion target of 90 days. It was therefore appropriate of the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its service failings. It appropriately took positive steps to put things right, including commissioning a specialist survey, making safeguarding referrals in recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities and offering compensation. However, the £200 compensation it offered in its stage 1 complaint response did not adequately reflect the scale of delays or the likely impact on him, especially considering his known vulnerabilities.
  7. The specialist survey took place on 10 October 2023. The surveyor’s report listed 15 issues including, structural defects, poor workmanship, gaps, leaks, and hazardous conditions, many of which had persisted for over a year. The landlord raised new repair orders on 13 October 2023.
  8. In his escalation request on 2 November 2023 the resident explained that multiple repairs remained outstanding despite the landlord’s previous actions. The resident requested that the landlord fully complete the outstanding works. He also asked it to reconsider the compensation it had offered, to reflect the prolonged inconvenience and distress caused by the delays.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2023 the landlord closed the complaint on the basis that it had completed all the repairs on 14 October 2023. It said it had attempted to contact the resident several times without success and offered to reopen the case if he requested this.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 December 2023 and again on 26 January 2024 reporting ongoing repair issues. The landlord offered to reopen the complaint in January 2024 and the resident declined this offer. Despite the resident refusing to reopen the complaint, the landlord still had a duty to complete its legal repairing obligations under the tenancy.
  11. In its internal correspondence on 6 February 2024 the landlord confirmed that it had not completed all the repairs. It had only completed replastering to the front door and replaced skirting by the front door. The landlord’s assertion in its stage 2 complaint response that it had completed all repairs was therefore inaccurate.
  12. Paragraphs 5.8 and 6.6 of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) state that when investigating a complaint landlords should consider all relevant information and evidence carefully. Landlords must track outstanding actions and complete them promptly. In this case the evidence suggests the landlord failed to do this. The landlord’s reliance on lack of resident engagement was not reasonable. It still had access to its repair orders, which would have shown outstanding works. It also missed the opportunity to reassess redress for continued distress.
  13. Furthermore, the landlord’s records show it took no further substantive action to complete the outstanding repairs until March and April 2024, when it finally completed some repairs. These included: repairs to the front door hinges, door handles and frame, skirting board repairs, kitchen and living area remedial works.
  14. The landlord’s records show it received a quotation for the staircase works, and plastering and decorating walls on 25 April 2024. The landlord had therefore still not completed the works until well into 2024, over 19 months from the first report. Furthermore, the landlord’s records show it was still arranging for the completion of stairs repairs on 8 May 2024. It remains unclear from the landlord’s records whether it has completed all outstanding repairs.
  15. The landlord’s actions were not in line with its own repairs policy, which requires it to complete routine repairs within 60 days and planned repairs within 90 days.
  16. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident’s vulnerable circumstances, made safeguarding referrals, offered hotel accommodation, information on mutual exchange, and maintained contact. These actions demonstrated some positive and compassionate engagement. Nevertheless, these positive steps were undermined by delays, poor record-keeping, inadequate coordination of repairs, and inaccurate information at stage 2, all of which contributed to prolonged repair issues. The resident had to live in a property with multiple unresolved repairs over a prolonged period, which had an impact on both his physical and mental wellbeing.
  17. In conclusion, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs was unreasonable. It failed to document repairs and appointments consistently, contributing to miscommunication and further delays. It failed to effectively monitor the progress of repairs. There were extensive delays, incomplete works, and a failure to manage the resident’s expectations or needs.
  18. Furthermore, the £200 the compensation was inadequate given the length of time the resident lived with serious disrepair, the repeated reports, and his vulnerability. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will offer compensation of £600 and above where there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the customer, including physical or emotional impact or both. In line with its compensation policy, the landlord could have offered increased compensation at stage 2 of its process to reflect the distress and inconvenience the situation would have caused the resident.
  19. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. The failings in this case, including delays of over 1 year to complete repairs, would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. We have ordered the landlord to take specific actions to resolve any outstanding issues. Additionally, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation in addition to the £200 it previously offered. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and in line with our remedies guidance for where there have been failures over a significant period which had a detrimental impact on the resident.

Mice infestation in the property.

  1. The landlord’s Pest Control Policy requires it to inspect and assist vulnerable residents to ensure their homes remain habitable. For infestations linked to structural issues, the landlord must engage qualified pest control contractors to assess the situation and recommend action. The policy also requires prompt investigation, safeguarding referrals, and support for vulnerable tenants.
  2. The resident first reported a mice infestation in early May 2023, specifically on 4, 5, and 9 May. He explained that mice were entering through structural gaps, damaging his belongings, and worsening his physical and mental health. He raised concerns about contamination, respiratory and skin conditions, and his mental health, including suicidal thoughts.
  3. In this case, the landlord acted promptly. It offered temporary accommodation and paid for train tickets so the resident could stay with family if he preferred. The resident declined both offers. The landlord contacted pest control on 5 May 2023 and contractors visited on 10 May 2023 to place bait throughout the property. The landlord also made safeguarding referrals and maintained contact with the resident, showing awareness of his mental health needs. These initial actions were appropriate and in line with its policy.
  4. Following continued reports from the resident, a second contractor visited on 18 May 2023. They found no signs of active infestation and noted that the resident had already conducted significant proofing work. However, they identified structural gaps and recommended further investigation into the flooring and other entry points.
  5. Throughout May and June 2023 the landlord remained in contact, made additional safeguarding referrals, and again offered hotel accommodation which the resident declined. However, it failed to clearly document whether pest control appointments scheduled for 23 May and 7 June 2023 took place, which reflects poor record-keeping.
  6. The resident continued to report pest activity in June and July 2023 and expressed growing distress. The landlord responded empathetically, referred him again for adult safeguarding, offered further decant options, and arranged for a specialist surveyor to assess structural issues.
  7. Overall, while some pest control visits were not well-documented, the landlord responded with concern and took reasonable steps to support the resident and address the infestation.
  8. On 20 September 2023 the resident submitted a formal complaint, stating the pest access points remained due to unresolved repair issues. In its stage 1 complaint response on 9 October 2023 the landlord upheld the complaint, acknowledged service failures related to repairs, and arranged a full inspection. It offered £200 compensation; this was for the broader repair issues and not specifically the infestation.
  9. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was reasonable. It accepted responsibility for its failings, took steps to commission a specialist inspection to identify underlying repair issues contributing to pest access, and maintained ongoing safeguarding awareness. Its actions to investigate the underlying causes of infestation were appropriate and in line with policy.
  10. Following the surveyor’s visit on 10 October 2023 it identified various building defects including gaps under doors, in the bin store wall, and around the rear elevation, all of which could enable pest entry. The landlord acted on these findings by raising works to seal gaps and repair skirting boards. These measures were in line with the landlord’s policy and structural responsibilities.
  11. Between October and November 2023 the landlord arranged thermal imaging, made further pest control referrals, and ensured it completed the sealing work. A follow-up pest control visit between 25 October and 16 November 2023 used motion sensors, which confirmed no rodent activity during that period.
  12. In its stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2023 the landlord stated all repairs were complete. While it had appropriately concluded pest control actions at the time of its stage 2 complaint response, as explained above, the claim that all it had completed all repairs was inaccurate.
  13. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about his belongings damaged by mice. It should have clarified its position on liability and managed the resident’s expectations.
  14. The landlord continued to monitor pest activity following its stage 2 complaint response. A further pest control contractor visited on 15 December 2023 and again found no evidence of new infestation.
  15. The landlord responded appropriately and in line with its policy to the initial and ongoing pest reports. It arranged multiple pest control attendances, engaged a specialist surveyor, identified structural entry points, and completed sealing works. It made repeated safeguarding referrals and maintained frequent contact with the resident in recognition of his mental health vulnerabilities.
  16. Its pest control contractors provided consistent reports that no live infestation was present after May 2023, and the landlord appropriately followed expert advice while taking further preventative action. The landlord acted reasonably and responsibly to manage both the pest risk and the resident’s health needs throughout the investigation.
  17. While the landlord’s management of the repair issues contributed significantly to the resident’s experiences, its handling of the mice infestation was reasonable, timely, and in accordance with its policies. Its pest control efforts were thorough and demonstrated proper consideration of both the property condition and the resident’s vulnerability. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to confirm whether it will refer the resident’s claim for his damaged personal items to its liability insurance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice infestation in the property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must complete the following orders and provide evidence of compliance to us:
    1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report, including an explanation on how it would prioritise repair request from vulnerable residents in future.
    2. Inspect the property and confirm in writing to the resident and us if any of the repairs the resident raised in his formal complaint are still outstanding.
    3. If there are outstanding repairs, the landlord should specify what these repairs are and provide a timeline for completion.
    4. Pay the resident the total sum of £600 in compensation broken down as:
      1. The £200 previously offered if not already paid.
      2. An additional £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of the residents reports of outstanding repairs.
      3. This money should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord confirms to the resident whether it will refer the resident’s claim for his damaged personal items to its liability insurance.