Places for People Group Limited (202330868)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330868

Places for People Group Limited

9 August 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of pest infestation.
3. The landlord’s handling of reports of faulty windows.
4. The landlord’s handling of reports of an overgrown garden path.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
6. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under a tenancy commencing 11 October 2022. The property is a two bedroom house with garden in which the resident lives with her two young children.
Although no vulnerabilities are recorded for the resident, she advised the landlord that her daughter suffers from asthma and that her baby son suffers from breathing problems.
Shortly after commencement of the tenancy, on 21 November 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there were leaks and condensation at the property coming through the walls and loft of the house. She complained that this was causing damp in her daughter’s bedroom and the bathroom. She advised the landlord that her daughter suffered from asthma.
From the landlord’s records provided to this Service, it is not clear what action, if any, was taken by it in response to this report.
The resident made a further report of damp to the landlord on 23 December 2022. She stated that woodlice were everywhere in the property, including her daughter’s bed, and that her daughter could not sleep in her room without coughing. Again, it is not clear from the landlord’s records provided to this Service what action, if any, it took in response to this report.
A damp and mould survey was carried out by the landlord on 6 May 2023. While the property was found to be generally dry throughout, and with a satisfactory internal ambient temperature and relative humidity, it found evidence of visible staining to the rear bedroom wall; mould growth to the bathroom and bedroom ceiling; and medium damp meter readings around the external door openings which were damaged.
The report made a number of recommendations to address the cause of the damp and condensation, namely that:
1. the cavity walls, which were uninsulated, be insulated and the affected plaster stripped off and replaced;
2. the mould growth in the bathroom and bedrooms be cleaned;
3. the roof space insulation and ventilation be improved; and
4. the two external doors be replaced.
The resident chased the landlord to carry out the recommended works on 2 August 2023 and 13 October 2023. According to the landlord’s repair log, it attended the property on two occasions during this period but did not obtain access. On 8 November 2023, the landlord repaired a broken window and overhauled an external door at the property. On 18 December 2023, it laid insulation in the loft. However, most of the works recommended in the survey remained outstanding.
The resident brought a formal complaint on 25 January 2024. She complained about the mould in the property which she stated was affecting her children’s health, as confirmed to her by doctors. She complained of the smell of damp in the property, that there were slugs and woodlice on the walls, and that she had recently discovered that a leak had caused a hole in her ceiling. She stated that she wanted to be rehoused and had applied to be approved to bid and move. She attached pictures of the mould and gave permission for the landlord to contact her doctor regarding its health effects.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 1 February 2024 and discussed the issues with the resident, although this visit is not recorded in the extract of the repair log produced to this Service. The landlord states that it agreed at this visit to arrange for its specialist ventilation contractors to attend and carry out works for additional ventilation and mould treatment. According to the landlord’s records provided to this Service, these works were subsequently approved by it but not carried out by its contractors due to difficulties in contacting the resident.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint within its policy timescales. This Service intervened on 16 February 2024, requiring the landlord to issue a Stage 1 response.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 February 2024 and discussed it with the resident. It issued a Stage 1 response on 20 February 2024.
In the response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged a service failure in that it had failed to complete the full scope of works identified in the damp and mould survey. It apologised for this and offered compensation of £400. To put things right, it arranged to carry out a damp and mould treatment and for a further survey to be carried out within the following 14 days. It also addressed a further issue of a broken window which (it is assumed) was raised by the resident during the complaints process. The landlord arranged for a repair of the window to be carried out on 4 March 2024.
In subsequent emails with the landlord between 21 and 26 March 2024, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with her living conditions, concern about her children’s health and that she had been placed in a band for rehousing which had no priority. She sought advice from the landlord about who to contact about moving and asked for an update on her complaint. In response, the landlord signposted her to its relevant contacts responsible for rehousing. It also stated in one of these communications that a final response to the complaint had been sent on 20 February 2024 and the complaint was closed. Following this, the resident accepted the offer of compensation on 25 March 2024.
During this period, the resident was offered, and declined, a mould wash treatment at her property because her daughter had reacted adversely to the wash when it was done previously. No progress was made by the landlord otherwise with regard to carrying out the outstanding remedial works or the survey promised in the Stage 1 response.
After further contact from the resident, this Service directed the landlord to provide her with a Stage 2 response by 15 May 2024. The Ombudsman explained that we considered that the landlord had misled the resident in implying that the Stage 1 response was a final response in circumstances where it was clear that the resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint.
As part of its Stage 2 response investigation, the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident. In addition to the problem of damp and mould and pest infestation raised in her original complaint, the resident complained that she had had a mouse under her bed; that the house was extremely small for her and her two children; that a window in her daughter’s room had been broken for months and the repair had not fixed it; that none of the windows opened properly; and that the path to her back gate was overgrown with spiky thorns which was a fire hazard.
The landlord provided a detailed Stage 2 response on 15 May 2024 which upheld the complaint. In summary, it addressed the various aspects of the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. With regard to the damp and mould, it acknowledged that the survey agreed as part of the Stage 1 resolution of the complaint had not been carried out and that in the three months which had passed no action had been taken to address the outstanding issues. It accepted its responsibility for repair and maintenance of the structure of the resident’s home and apologised for its service failure and the distress this had caused the resident.
2. To put matters right, the landlord arranged for its contractors to complete the insulation work to loft and cavity walls and for the damp survey to be carried out at the same time. It also arranged for a home loft PIV unit to be fitted with a heater. Dates in May 2024 were provided for these appointments.
3. It noted that the resident had declined the mould wash treatment due to the smell and toxins and asked that she let it know if she changed her mind.
4. It acknowledged that the issues with the windows had not been resolved fully and that new jobs would be raised to ensure that the work was completed as soon as possible.
5. It arranged for its landscaping team to attend to the overgrown shrubs on the pathway.
6. It advised that the resident met the criteria where it would help support her with pest issues in the home. It recorded that the resident had confirmed on 13 May 2024 that she had seen no further sightings of vermin and she did not feel it was necessary to instruct a pest control company at that time.
7. With regarding to rehousing advice, it had contacted the resident on 13 May 2024 and confirmed that it was available to support the resident.
8. With regard to complaint handling, it acknowledged a delay in logging the resident’s complaint at Stage 1, its failure to support her with her concerns following the Stage1 response and a failure to escalate her complaint to Stage 2.
9. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £800 in addition to the £400 offered at Stage 1 of the complaint, being compensation for its complaint handling failure and the delay in carrying out works in her home.
10. The Stage 2 response outlined measures it was intending to take to improve its services.

Post completion of the complaints process

The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 22 May 2024.
It is noted from the landlord’s records that after completion of the complaint process, the landlord’s contractors experienced difficulties in obtaining access to the property on dates booked by it for the works to be carried out. At the time of this investigation, it would appear that there are still outstanding works to be done at the resident’s property, including to address the damp and mould. In recent communications with the resident, the landlord has agreed for her to be decanted for two days to allow a mould wash to be carried out, on a date to be arranged.
The landlord has confirmed that it did not raise repair jobs to carry out the work to overhaul the resident’s windows as promised in the Stage 2 response. This is now done and the works scheduled for 18 October 2024. The overgrown shrubs in the resident’s garden have been cleared.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

The resident’s principal complaint to the landlord concerned damp and mould at her property.
The resident first reported a leak, condensation and damp at her property on 21 November 2022. Under its responsive repairs policy, the landlord should have raised a repair for the leak and attended the repair within 24 hours if considered an emergency, or within 28 days if considered an appointable repair (at the time, this was 60 days). The landlord has a dedicated damp, mould and condensation process in its responsive repairs policy. The landlord should have followed the triage process and investigated the water ingress, damp and condensation by way of attendance, inspection and raising repair works.
There is no evidence in the landlord’s repair log that such action was taken to address the issues reported by the resident either in response to the resident’s report of 21 November 2022 or her subsequent report on 23 December 2022. The reasons for this are unclear.
The cause of the problem was not diagnosed (and a solution proposed) until the landlord carried out a damp survey on 6 May 2023, some 5 months after the resident’s initial report.
The landlord subsequently failed to carry out all the works recommended in the damp survey report in a timely manner. It partially completed the works in overhauling the external door on 8 November 2023 and installing loft insulation on 18 December 2023. However, most works remained outstanding. There is no indication in the evidence produced to this Service that the works were being monitored or followed up by the landlord.
As a result of the delay in completing the works, the resident’s damp problem continued and she was required to bring a formal complaint on 25 January 2024 to try to resolve it.
As part of the Stage 1 resolution of the complaint, the landlord sought to put matters right by arranging a further survey and mould wash. Although the survey was apparently for the purpose of ensuring all aspects of work were captured, it is unclear why this should have been required given that the existing survey had already identified the cause of the damp and made recommendations to resolve it.
In any event, the Stage 1 resolution failed to advance matters as the survey was not carried out by the landlord. This appears to have been due to an internal miscommunication by the landlord. The proposed mould treatment was declined by the resident due to the adverse effect on her daughter’s health, of which she had previously advised the landlord.
As part of the Stage 2 resolution of the complaint, the landlord identified the outstanding works and arranged appointment dates to complete them. While this was a reasonable approach to resolving the issue, it is understood that the landlord’s contractors have not been able to carry out the work on the booked dates due to a lack of access to the property. It is noted that the landlord has taken steps to follow this up with the resident and has agreed for her and her family to be decanted while the works are carried out. As works remain outstanding at the time of this investigation, a recommendation has been made below for the monitoring of the outstanding works to ensure completion.
This investigation report has focussed on the period from 21 November 2022, when the resident first reported the damp problem, to the landlord’s final complaint response on 15 May 2024. As set out above, during this time, the landlord failed to diagnose and undertake repairs for which it was responsible in a timely manner and within a reasonable period. Its responses were outside its own publicised target for repair.
It is acknowledged that access problems may have been a contributor to the delay. It is understood that the landlord’s contractors experienced difficulties in arranging access to the property to carry out the works, both in September 2023 and March 2024, and in May 2024 when seeking to effect the Stage 2 resolution.
While difficulty over access provides some mitigation for the delay, it does not account for all of the delay which extended over a significant period of time. Moreover, as the resident was chasing the landlord and actively seeking to have the problem addressed, this suggests that it could have done more to communicate with her regarding repair appointments, in accordance with her communication preferences and taking her work pattern into account.
The landlord’s service failures caused the resident distress in having to tolerate unpleasant living conditions and concern as to the effect of the mould spores on her children’s health over a significant period of time. The resident’s concern was likely exacerbated by the existing vulnerabilities of her children, of which the landlord was aware.

Pest issues

The resident complained of woodlice infestation in her report to the landlord of 23 December 2022 and of both slug and woodlice infestation in her formal complaint of 25 January 2024 and thereafter in her communications with the landlord.
In addition, the resident reported sight of a mouse under her bed on 12 May 2024 which appears to have been an isolated sighting, as she confirmed to the landlord on 13 May 2024.
Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, she was responsible for keeping the property free from insect and vermin infestation. However, in particular circumstances (which the landlord accepted applied to the resident), the landlord had a responsibility under its Pest and Vermin policy to provide support to tenants with pest issues.
It is noted that the landlord attributed the slug and woodlice infestation to the damp conditions of the property. It would therefore be reasonable to expect it to take steps to eradicate these pests as part of its wider responsibility for addressing the damp problem in the property.
The landlord does not appear to have taken any steps to address the woodlice and slug infestation or assist the resident in doing so until the Stage 2 response of 15 May 2024, whether as part of its efforts to address the damp issue in the resident’s home or otherwise. This was a service failure by the landlord.
In its Stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that the resident met the criteria set out in its Pest and Vermin policy for support with the pest issues in her home and offered to arrange for Pest Control to visit. This was a reasonable response from the landlord to resolve the issue albeit the resident informed it that she did not feel it necessary to instruct a pest control company at that time.

Window repairs, overgrown path and rehousing

The resident did not include window repairs as part of her original complaint. However, the need for a window repair was raised with the landlord during the Stage 1 resolution of the resident’s complaint. The landlord acted reasonably in seeking to resolve this issue at the same time as the other issues in the formal complaint. It arranged for a window repair to be carried out on 4 March 2024 which was within the landlord’s responsive repair timescales.
During the investigation of the complaint at Stage 2, the resident brought to the landlord’s attention that the window was still broken despite the repair; that none of the windows opened properly; that the path up to her back gate was overgrown with spiky thorns; and that she wished to be rehoused as the house was small and she was concerned it could not be made habitable.
These were new issues in addition to the original complaint which the landlord reasonably sought to incorporate in its resolution at Stage 2:
1. It agreed to raise new jobs to repair the windows and ensure the work was completed as soon as possible.
2. It arranged for its landscaping team to attend to the overgrown shrubs on the resident’s pathway. It is understood from the landlord that this work has been completed.
3. It contacted the resident on 13 May 2024 and confirmed that it was available to support the resident with regard to rehousing.
The above were all reasonable responses by the landlord to the resident’s concerns.
While there is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of these aspects of the resident’s complaint at the time of the Stage 2 response, the landlord has since confirmed to this Service that it did not raise the repair jobs in respect of the windows as promised in the response. This was a service failure by the landlord in failing to follow through on the action it had proposed and has caused unreasonable delay in the repair to the windows. These have now been scheduled for repair on 18 October 2024, some five months after the Stage 2 response.

Complaint handling

There were a number of failings in the landlord’s complaint handling as outlined above.
The resident brought her formal complaint on 25 January 2024. The landlord did not provide a Stage 1 response within 10 working days as required under its complaints policy, requiring the intervention of this Service. The landlord provided its Stage 1 response on 20 February 2024, eight days outside policy timescales.
The landlord should have recognised that the communications from the resident after the issue of its Stage 1 response required an escalation of the complaint to Stage 2. Alternatively, it should have clarified with the resident whether she wished for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord did neither and compounded its error by wrongly informing the resident that its Stage 1 response was its final response and that the complaint was closed.
The landlord’s approach required a further intervention from this Service and direction to the landlord before it issued a Stage 2 response on 15 May 2024.
The above were service failures by the landlord which caused delay in dealing with the resident’s complaint and inconvenience to her in pursuing it and this Service in order to obtain a resolution of her complaint.

Summary

Overall, there were service failures by the landlord in failing to deal in a timely manner and/or within policy timescales with the damp and mould issues at the resident’s home, the associated pest infestations and the resident’s complaint. In addition, the landlord failed to follow through on action promised in the Stage 2 response by failing to raise repair jobs to fix the resident’s windows. These service failures caused detriment to the resident. She was caused distress over a prolonged period in having to tolerate unpleasant living conditions and concern as to the health effects of mould on her and her family. She was inconvenienced by the delay in repairs and in having to pursue her complaint.
It was appropriate in these circumstances for the landlord to identify and accept the shortcomings in the service provided to the resident, to apologise to the resident, and to offer compensation by way of redress, as it did in its Stage 2 response.
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 and our guidance on remedies.
Across the complaint, the landlord offered the resident £1,200 as compensation for its complaint handling failures and the delays in carrying out works in her home, including the £400 offered at Stage 1. In the Ombudsman’s view, ultimately, this sum is proportionate to the failings identified as at the date of the Stage 2 response and within an acceptable range of compensation we would expect where a landlord’s failures have had an adverse effect on the resident as they did in this case.
It would be appropriate for the resident to be further compensated £100 for the delay in completing the repair to the resident’s windows promised in the Stage 2 response.
It should be noted that if it were not for the landlord identifying the service failures, outlining the improvements it intended to make to its service and offering appropriate redress in the Stage 2 response, the Ombudsman would have made findings of maladministration in this case.
A feature of this investigation has been the landlord’s poor monitoring of repairs, exacerbated by repair records which are largely inadequate to understand the work carried out or the current status of reported repairs. On 31 May 2024, the Ombudsman made a wider order in another case that the landlord review its repairs handling practices and Knowledge and Information Management. In light of that recent order, no further recommendations will be made in this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the pest infestation and the associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of an overgrown garden path or the resident’s request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failure identified in this report in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.
2. Pay £100 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure.

The landlord should contact this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to evidence its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £400 offered in the Stage 1 complaint response and the £800 offered in the Stage 2 complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
As various of the works appear still to be outstanding as at the time of this investigation, it is recommended that the landlord continue to monitor the complaint through to completion of the repairs as is required in any event under the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It is recommended that it conduct a post-completion survey to satisfy itself of the property condition. Should there be any further delay in completion of repairs, the landlord should consider whether it is appropriate to award further compensation to the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should contact this Service confirming its intentions regarding the recommendations made.