Places for People Group Limited (202332149)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332149

Places for People Group Limited

2 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. reports made about the resident’s placement of his bins and its response to his request for information.
2. the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant since September 2008 and lives in a mid-terrace bungalow. The resident informed the landlord that he has osteoarthritis. The landlord is a housing association.
A neighbour reported concerns to the landlord about the placement of the resident’s bins below their window 9 times between January 2021 and August 2022. The concerns were about the lack of privacy and the smell.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord visited the resident and discussed the reports made about his bins. The resident confirmed his bins were positioned below his neighbour’s window since he moved to the property and would not be moved.
The landlord visited the resident about his bins on 8 August 2022. On 14 September 2022, the resident asked the landlord for copies of the complaints made about his property. The landlord responded to the resident on 4 October 2022 with a list of the complaints.

The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 January 2023. He said:
1. he was unhappy to move the bins from beneath his neighbour’s window.
2. he received information about complaints made about his property as part of a Subject Access Request (SAR) and felt the information was fabricated.
3. he felt bullied by the landlord and his neighbours.
4. he has osteoarthritis in his hips, and he said this made it difficult to walk to a new location for the bins.
On 17 March 2023, the landlord provided copies of the complaints made about his bins and offered to build a hard standing for the bins near his gate. The landlord invited the resident to provide feedback about its plans to move his bins. It said if it did not hear back from the resident by 24 March 2023, it will proceed to build a hard standing for the bins and move them to his gate.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2023 and said he had not received a response from it about his complaint. The resident also explained he found the behaviour of the Tenancy Enforcement Manager intimidating.
The landlord spoke to the resident about his complaint on 14 August 2023 and sent its stage 1 response on 22 September 2023. It said:
1. it had provided the information the resident had requested and referred him to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if he remained unsatisfied.
2. it acknowledged he felt intimidated, but it had not found evidence to support that. To remedy his concerns, the landlord had removed the Tenancy Enforcement Manager from his case.
3. as it had received complaints about the position of the resident’s bins, it moved them to where his gate is with a hard standing it had built, and it offered to build a storage unit around the bins.
The resident told the landlord on 15 October 2023 that he found its stage 1 response unsatisfactory, although there was no further explanation as to why. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 22 November 2023. It said:
1. it had not found a failure of its service and referred the resident again to the ICO if he was unhappy with its response to his information request.
2. it explained the Tenancy Enforcement Manager may have to visit the neighbourhood but reiterated they had been removed from his case.
3. due to his health, it had moved his bins to the front gate with a hard standing, rather than move them to the communal bin area.
4. due to his concerns that the bins could blow over, it offered to build a storage unit, although it acknowledged the resident did not want this.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 December 2023. The resident said he felt bullied because of the landlord’s complaint response, felt bullied because his bins were moved to his front gate, and was unhappy with the accuracy of information it sent him. In resolution of the complaint, the resident said he wants the bins moved back to the position they were in, and for action to be taken against staff members.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident referred to the legitimacy of information provided as part of his information request, also known as a Subject Access Request (SAR). The ICO is better placed to assess concerns about a SAR. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) was set up to deal with concerns about data handling by organisations. The ICO may be able to assess the regulatory aspects of the resident’s complaint about the information provided, as this is not within the Ombudsman’s remit.
However, we can assess the landlord’s communication with the resident about his concerns and whether it followed policy and procedure and acted reasonably, taking account the circumstances of the case.
The resident said he wants action taken against individual staff members. We are unable to assess how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
However, the Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s communication with the resident as a whole. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be against the landlord rather than the individual.

Reports about the placement of bins and response to the information request

The landlord received a report about the placement of the resident’s bins on 23 January 2021 and 10 February 2021.
The landlord’s Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) and Data Privacy policies say:
1. it will work with residents to agree actions to resolve a dispute.
2. it will attempt to resolve disputes using non-legal intervention.
3. a resident can request information its recorded about them and it will respond within 1 month from receiving the request.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says:
1. a household must not do anything that may unreasonably interfere with the peace, comfort, or convenience of other residents.
2. a household must not do anything on or around the property which, in the landlord’s opinion, could disturb or cause a nuisance to anybody.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident about the placement of his bins and sent a letter to the resident on 19 February 2021. The letter said the landlord gave options to move the resident’s bins to another area or to his gate, so they were no longer under his neighbour’s window. The resident did not agree to this. The landlord’s contact with the resident was appropriate and in line with its policies, which states that the landlord will attempt to work with residents to resolve a dispute.
The landlord received 7 further reports about the placement of the resident’s bins between 18 February 2021 and 1 August 2022.
The landlord visited the resident on 8 August 2022 and sent a letter to him on 23 August 2022. During the visit, the landlord asked for the resident’s bins to be moved from his neighbour’s window, as this caused alarm and distress to his neighbour. The landlord said if the bins were not moved, the resident could be in breach of his tenancy agreement. This was reasonable to explain to the resident why the bins needed to be moved. It was reasonable for the landlord to reference the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, so he was aware of his responsibilities and any potential risk to his tenancy.
On 14 September 2022, the resident made a SAR and asked for copies of complaints made about his property. The landlord responded to this on 4 and 26 October 2022, and provided a list of complaints made, and actions it had taken. The landlord told the resident he could refer his concerns to the ICO if he was unhappy with its response.
The landlord’s response time was in line with its policy, which says it will respond to an information request within 1 month. It was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the ICO if he had concerns about its response to his information request. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the regulatory aspect of the resident’s complaint, as this would be a matter for the ICO.
On 11 January 2023, the resident told the landlord he would not move his bins, as he has osteoarthritis that makes it difficult to walk. He also explained that he felt the landlord had bullied him about the placement of his bins.
The landlord responded on 17 March 2023 and apologised the resident was unhappy with the request to move his bins. The landlord provided redacted copies of the complaints made and it offered to build a hard standing near the resident’s front gate for his bins to be placed. It welcomed his feedback by 24 March 2023. The landlord said if it did not hear back, it would build the hard standing and move his bins to his gate.
It was appropriate for the landlord to provide redacted copies of the reports made about the bins. And it was reasonable the landlord chose to make a discretionary decision to build a hard standing for the bins near the resident’s gate, in attempt to resolve the dispute in line with its ASB policy.
The resident told the landlord on 14 September 2023 that since it moved the bins, they kept blowing over. The landlord responded to the resident as part of the stage 1 response on 22 September 2023. The landlord said:
1. the placement of the bins had caused nuisance to the resident’s neighbour and when the landlord visited him, it agreed to create a hard standing for the bins near his gate, rather than moving them to the communal bin area.
2. it offered to build a storage unit around the bins to prevent them falling over.
3. it removed the Tenancy Enforcement Manager from the case, due to the resident’s concerns.
It was appropriate for the landlord to continue to work with the resident in line with its ASB policy to explore ways to resolve the dispute about the bins. It was also reasonable that the landlord made the discretionary decision to offer to build a storage unit to prevent the bins falling over and replace the Tenancy Enforcement Manager on his case. The landlord reasonably communicated its decisions to the resident in line with its policies and procedures.
On 15 October 2023, the resident said he did not find the landlord’s response satisfactory. The landlord responded on 22 November 2023 and said it considered the resident’s situation and made adjustment to move his bins to the gate outside his property with a hard standing, rather than further away to the communal area. The landlord continued to offer build a storage unit for the bins to prevent them falling over.
In summary, the landlord considered the reports made about the resident’s bins and, in line with its ASB policy and the tenancy agreement, made contact and reasonable suggestions to remedy the dispute. This included:
1. acknowledging and explaining that the bins had been positioned beneath the neighbour’s window previously, but due to the issues raised about them, it aimed to remedy the complaints by moving the bins.
2. discussing the reports made about the bins and, to prevent breach of the resident’s tenancy as well as remedy the dispute, moved them to his gate.
3. giving the resident opportunity to provide feedback about the proposed plans about where to move his bins.
4. considering the resident’s circumstances and concerns and moved the bins to the gate outside his property, rather than to the communal bin area.
5. built a hard standing for the bins and had continued to offer building a storage unit to prevent the bins falling over.
6. responded to his information request within the timescales outlined in its policies and referred him to the ICO.
Taking account of the landlord’s response to the reports made about the position of the resident’s bins, it responded appropriately and in line with its policies in an attempt to resolve the issue. The landlord also responded within 1 month of the president’s request for information. Therefore, we find there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports made about the resident’s bins and his request for information.

The associated complaint

Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place when the resident raised his complaint, landlords must ensure they had:
1. acknowledged a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
2. responded to the complaint within 10 working days.
  1. if an extension was needed, it communicated the timescale to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
3. if the resident requested a stage 2 response, it should provide the final response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  1. if an extension was needed, it explains this to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. if it needs a longer extension, both parties should agree it.

The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint was aligned with the Code.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 11 January 2023 via email and so it had until 18 January 2023 to acknowledge it. The resident chased the landlord on 10 June 2023 as he had not had a complaint response.
There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint, until it asked for the resident’s concerns to be resent on 14 August 2023. The resident confirmed his concerns to the landlord on 14 September 2023. The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 22 September 2023. This was more than 8 months since the complaint was made.
The time taken for the landlord to acknowledge and respond to the complaint was unreasonable and not in line with the landlord’s policies or the Code. This likely inconvenienced the resident, as he had to chase for a response and outline his concerns again. And after chasing, it took 3 months before his complaint was answered.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 15 October 2023. The landlord had until 13 November 2023 to provide its response or confirm an extension.
The landlord provided the stage 2 response 7 working days late, on 22 November 2023. There is no evidence the landlord communicated an extension to the resident. This was not reasonable and not in line with the Code.
In summary, the landlord took 8 months before answering the resident’s complaint and was late providing its stage 2 response. The delays caused inconvenience to the resident who had to chase for a response and repeat his complaint. The landlord had not recognised this failing in its responses, and this is not in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. Therefore, we find that there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
After careful consideration and in line with our remedy guidance, a fair level of compensation would be £125. This recognises the inconvenience caused by the delay responding to the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports made about the resident’s bins and his information request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. provide an apology to the resident for the complaint handling delays identified in this report and the inconvenience caused to him.
2. pay a total of £125 to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in handling his complaint.
1. the landlord must provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of this determination. That could be receipt of payment made to the resident, as well as a copy of the letter sent to him apologising for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.