Places for People Group Limited (202333234)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333234

Places for People Group Limited

31 March 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. a low frequency noise nuisance, historic enforcement action, and its activation of the resident’s home swapper account.
   2. historical anti-social behaviour (ASB).
   3. a recent eviction and the resident’s reports of the landlord’s bullying and harassment.
   4. its correspondence with the local council in 2018 and the resident’s request for a managed transfer in 2022.

Background

2. The resident has moved from the property but at the time of the complaint she was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced in January 1996 and ended in April 2024. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat and the resident lived alone.
3. The landlord advised that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident when the tenancy commenced, however it is evident that it became aware of mental and physical health issues as the tenancy progressed. The resident has told us that since approximately 2017, her mental and physical health issues were exacerbated by her living conditions.
4. On 29 March 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint to her landlord. She said that:
   1. she had not slept in the property for 6 years due to an electrical noise, which had made life difficult.
   2. around this time (2017) she had issues with ASB from her neighbour’s, which resulted in damage to her front door. She said that rather than the landlord helping her they gave her more problems.
   3. she had rent arrears and was unable to pay for 2 properties and could not afford heating.
   4. in 2018 the local council were supportive of a managed move, but her landlord ‘ignored’ the local council’s requests for information.
   5. in 2022 she met with 3 of the landlord’s housing managers and discussed a managed move but there was no further contact or follow-up.
   6. she was diagnosed with toxic optic neuropathy and the condition was exacerbated by a leaking boiler. She said that the housing association was ‘entirely complicit and it would not have happened if she had been able to live in her property.’
5. The landlord acknowledged and logged the complaint on 30 March 2023. On 14 April 2023, it provided the stage 1 complaint response. It said the complaint was about the landlord’s behaviour towards the resident, a low-frequency noise nuisance and a lack of follow-up from meetings held. The landlord said that it partially upheld the complaint and:
   1. apologised that the resident was unable to sleep in her home for 6 years due to an electrical sound and confirmed the resident’s desired outcome was to move to another property.
   2. apologised for administrative delays and the problems the resident had encountered over the years.
   3. explained that there had been many historical issues dating back to 2017, which due to the elapsed time could not be investigated.
   4. acknowledged that the resident contacted the local council in 2018 to request a move.
   5. explained that it did not follow–up on a management transfer request due to a member of staff’s workload at that time but confirmed that it was committed to supporting the resident to move.
   6. allocated a single person contact to the case to ensure actions were completed.
   7. offered £100 compensation for the transfer delay.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 24 April 2023. On 18 May 2023 the landlord provided its response, it said the resident escalated her complaint because she felt £100 was an ‘insult’ for 6 years of not being able to sleep in her home and the damage done to her mental health. The landlord said:
   1. in relation to its behaviour towards the resident, a low-frequency noise nuisance and a lack of follow-up from meetings, the complaint was not upheld. This was because it had been previously investigated.
   2. it was reliant on the local council to find alternative accommodation for residents. In this case, the local council were prepared to support her under a managed transfer.
   3. the managed transfer was progressed with the local council, and all information provided.
   4. an allocated single person contact was appointed to the case.
   5. as a result of the investigation, it had identified 3 service failures, which included:
      1. in 2017, it failed to authorise the residents home swapper account. This was due to a process error which was rectified in 2017 when contacted by the Housing Ombudsman. Compensation of £200 was offered in respect of the failing.
      2. in 2018, a safeguarding request by the local council was delayed by the landlord for 3 months. Robust procedures were put in place, and £200 was offered in respect of the failing.
      3. in 2022, it acknowledged that a transfer request with the local council could proceed, but due to a member of staff’s workload it failed to follow–up. Compensation of £200 was offered in respect of the failing.
   6. the compensation offered was for administrative failings in 2017, 2018 and 2022 and was not intended to be compensation for the resident being unable to sleep in her property, or for her mental health.
   7. it acknowledged and apologised for the failings identified and distress caused. It recognised that, whilst the delays were not the cause, they have added to the distress.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

7. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
8. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of a low frequency noise nuisance, historic enforcement action and its activation of the resident’s home swapper account

9. Paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. The complaints detailed above have been previously investigated by the Housing Ombudsman and were determined on 18 June 2019, therefore we are unable to investigate these matters again.
10. It is noted that within this investigation that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response has raised its failing in activating the resident’s home swapper account in 2017 and has offered £200 in respect of this failing. As this was investigated by the Housing Ombudsman and determined on 18 June 2019, under paragraph 42.l., as detailed above, we are unable to include this within our investigation and this will not be commented upon further within this report.

The landlord’s handling of historical ASB

11. Paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme states that 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 12 months of the matter arising. The resident reported ASB to the landlord in 2017 and raised it again within her complaint to the landlord on 29 March 2023. The landlord’s complaint response on 14 April 2023 said it was unable to investigate due to the length of time that had elapsed. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not investigate this in accordance with paragraph 42.b.

The landlord’s handling of a recent eviction and the resident’s reports of the landlord’s bullying and harassment

12. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. this Service is unable to consider the complaints regarding the landlord’s handling of a recent eviction and the resident’s reports of the landlord’s bullying and harassment as these issues have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. The resident may wish to contact the landlord to make a complaint about these issues which could then be brought to the Ombudsman if she is not satisfied at the end of its complaints process.

Scope of investigation

13. The resident has told us that the issues, which she outlined within her stage 1 and 2 complaints severely affected her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of a service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of its communication with the local council in 2018 and the residents request for a management transfer in 2022

14. The landlord’s management policy states that a managed transfer is for urgent circumstances which are not adequately reflected within the local councils’ allocations processes or through the landlord’s own transfer policy. A transfer is considered where the problem cannot be resolved by normal housing management action under the tenancy conditions. A resident under occupying their home and who is in financial difficulties because of the size of the property due to rent and utility costs is given as an example of this.
15. The policy states that the application for a managed transfer is the responsibility of the housing team to complete. They should manage residents’ expectations and requirements, coordinate between the customer and lettings team and review the management transfer every four weeks.
16. The resident was under occupying her home and as such she had a 14% reduction to her housing benefit entitlement. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in the consideration of a managed transfer and in line with its policy on managed transfers.
17. The resident said that she approached the local council in 2018 about a move. The local council agreed and wrote to her landlord to request further information, which was not provided. The evidence provided to us suggests that the information requested was a safeguarding report. The landlord acknowledged missed opportunities in 2018 to provide the required information, which contributed to a delay in the consideration of a move by the local council and was a failing by the landlord.
18. On 19 April 2023, the landlord confirmed that it had considered a managed transfer for the resident within its own housing stock, however it did not have any suitable homes available. This was appropriate action to take and in line with its policy.
19. On 25 May 2022, the landlord’s internal emails show that it attempted to discuss a managed transfer for the resident with the local council. A meeting was not scheduled because of workloads. On 24 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged that a meeting to discuss the transfer had not taken place but wanted to support the resident to move. Given that it was aware of the resident’s situation, the delay to her request for a managed transfer was not appropriate or in line with its policy and represented a further failing.
20. It is evident that the landlord communicated with the local council regarding the managed transfer throughout March and April 2023. The landlord completed the managed transfer application, which was acknowledged and approved by the local council. The landlord’s actions at this time were appropriate, in line with its policy and its agreed actions from the internal complaints process.
21. Between 20 April 2023 and 18 May 2023, it is evident that the landlord contacted the resident on a regular basis to offer support and encourage her to complete the local council’s housing allocation form. It is recognised that the landlord made a reasonable attempt to engage with the resident in order to complete the required forms, which was appropriate, in line with its policy and its agreed actions from the internal complaints process.
22. The landlord has a homes plus compensation procedure, which outlines the circumstances in which it will consider re-imbursement or compensation for service failures. The landlord will consider compensation where the resident has experienced either a quantifiable loss, other financial redress, or distress and inconvenience. Further, the procedure states that when considering compensation there are 3 levels based on the length of time the resident was impacted, short term £50 to £100, medium term £100 to £600 and long term £600 to £1000.
23. Where there are admitted failings, as in this case, it is our role to determine whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles which are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
24. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings and offered the relevant compensation in line with its policy and the Ombudsman remedies guidance to put things right. It also advised that it had learnt from its findings and has implemented further procedures as a result. It offered the resident:
    1. £100 for service failure.
    2. £200 for a delay in contacting the local council in 2018.
    3. £200 for a delay regarding the managed transfer with the local council in 2022.
25. This Service therefore finds that the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress, prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the landlord’s handling of its communication with the local council in 2018 and resident’s request for a management transfer in 2022.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a low frequency noise nuisance, historic enforcement action and its activation of the resident’s home swapper account is outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
27. In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of historical ASB is outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
28. In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of a recent eviction and the resident’s reports of bullying and harassment is outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
29. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of its communication with the local council in 2018 and the resident’s request for a management transfer in 2022.

Recommendation

30. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation offered in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. This was:
    1. £100 for service failure.
    2. £200 for a delay in contacting the local council in 2018.
    3. £200 for a delay regarding the managed transfer with the local council in 2022.

i. Compensation payments should be made directly to the resident and not credited to the resident’s rent or service charge account.