Places for People Group Limited (202343788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202343788

Places for People Group Limited

16 December 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, which is a 2-bedroom house and has lived there with her daughter since 2014. The landlord has told this Service it is aware the resident has vulnerabilities.
On 24 August 2022 the resident reported to the landlord there was a crack in her kitchen wall and the rear door to the property could not be opened. The landlord attended the property the following day and established a specialist surveyor would be required to advise on further works. The landlord attended the property in September 2022 but was unable to gain access.
The resident complained to the landlord on 3 November 2022 that the repairs remained outstanding. On 25 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that she was unhappy it had refused her request for a management transfer (to be moved to a new property within the landlord’s existing stock where criteria defined by the landlord is met) and said she wanted the decision to be reviewed.
In its stage 2 response dated 8 April 2024 the landlord stated while it had not identified any failings in its service, it recognised that on occasions, its service could have been better. The landlord stated:
1. It would instruct a full inspection of the property. However, the resident was required to provide access to ensure the repairs could be completed.
2. The resident had been placed on the management transfer list, but it was unable to provide definitive timescales on when a suitable property would become available.
3. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the distress she had experienced with the delays to the repairs.
The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised matters that occurred both before and after those subject to this complaint, which have not been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 8 April 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The evidence shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. The resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.
This complaint involves a large volume of correspondence and other documents in addition to multiple formal complaints. While not all documents and events are explicitly referred to, all have been examined and taken into account during this investigation.

Repairs to the property

On 24 August 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that there was a crack in her kitchen wall and the back door (situated in the kitchen) could not be opened. It is noted that prior to this, the last recorded repair to the resident’s property was reported in July 2021.
The landlord raised an emergency repair for the door and attended the property the following day. The repair log stated it was “made safe”, but further specialist work would be required due to concerns of subsidence. A further repair was raised for the wall and scheduled for 1 September 2022.
The landlord’s repair policy states it is responsible for repairs to the structure of the building and external doors. The policy gives the following timescales for repairs:
1. Emergency repairs – 24 hours.
2. Appointable repairs – 28 days, with some repairs taking up to 60 days.
The evidence shows the landlord’s initial actions following receipt of the resident’s reports were conducted in accordance with its policy and were reasonable.
The landlord attended the property on 1 September 2022 to assess the crack in the kitchen wall. The resident was not home and no access to the property could be obtained. The landlord left a calling card at the property to inform the resident it had attended and left a message on her voicemail. The resident did not contact the landlord to rebook the appointment.
The landlord’s repair policy states that if a tenant is not at home or misses an appointment, it will leave a card at the property to advise the resident they must contact the landlord to arrange another appointment. The policy also states if contact is not made, the repair will be cancelled. The landlord’s actions were in accordance with its policy and were reasonable.
Paragraph 3.21 of the resident’s tenancy agreement places an obligation on the resident to allow the landlord access to the property for inspections and repairs. The resident did not give the landlord access on this occasion, contrary to the terms of her tenancy and this prevented the landlord from carrying out any inspection or repair of the kitchen wall in a timely manner.
At some point during October 2022 the resident was admitted to hospital for a period of time. It is unclear from the documentation provided the exact dates when this took place. During this time, the landlord tried to contact the resident by phone unsuccessfully. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 November 2022 and asked her to let it know when she was out of the hospital so it could arrange a loss adjustor and surveyor to attend the property.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 3 November 2022 and was advised that the loss adjustor and surveyor would attend the property on 22 November 2022 for an inspection. The landlord advised the resident that she would need to allow access for the visit. On the same day, the resident complained to the landlord that the repairs were taking too long, and she stated the issues were impacting the health of her and her daughter.
The landlord attended the property to carry out the inspection on 22 November 2022. The resident was not home, and no access could be gained to the property. The landlord rescheduled the appointment and left a voicemail for the resident. On 8 December 2022, the landlord reattended the property on 2 occasions and was unable to gain access. On both occasions the landlord attempted to contact the resident by phone but was unsuccessful. The landlord attempted to schedule a further appointment for the surveyor but was unable to get an appointment before February 2023.
The resident has informed this Service that she stopped staying at the property in December 2022, although she remained on the tenancy, and has not since returned to live there. Landlord records suggest the landlord was unaware that the resident was moving out of the area at this stage.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 19 January 2023, the landlord confirmed it had attempted to complete an inspection at the property so it could determine what repairs were required but was unable to gain access. The landlord informed the resident that a new appointment had been made for 20 February 2023.
The surveyor and loss adjustor attended the property on 20 February 2023 and identified the repairs that were required. The landlord attended the property on 13 March, 23 March, 31 May and 1 August 2023 but was unable to gain access. On each occasion a card was left at the property, and attempts were made to contact the resident by telephone. Landlord records show that it continued to try and arrange access with the resident over the following months but was unsuccessful.
On 19 February 2024, the landlord installed a key safe at the resident’s property and asked the resident to ensure a key was left in the safe in order for the repairs to be carried out. This was a solution focused approach for the landlord to take. The landlord attended the property again on 20 February 2024 and was unable to gain access as no key had been left.
The landlord made further visits to the property on 14 and 19 March 2024. Prior to each visit the landlord contacted the resident to request that a key was left in the safe. On both occasions no key had been left and the landlord was unable to access the property.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 8 April 2024, the landlord committed to completing the outstanding repairs but advised the resident would need to facilitate access for the repairs to be carried out. Given the evidence available, the landlord’s actions complied with the requirements of its policy. The landlord offered the resident £150 for the distress she had experienced even though it had not identified any failings in the service it had provided.
It is clear the resident was frustrated with the progress of the repairs. However, based on the evidence the Ombudsman has reviewed, the landlord made reasonable attempts to access the property to progress the inspection and works. The fact that it was not able to access the property means the Ombudsman cannot fault it for the delays.
It is understood that most of the repairs identified following the surveyor’s inspection on 20 February 2023 remain outstanding. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord tried to support the resident on multiple occasions to complete the necessary repairs.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

The resident’s request for a management transfer

A management move / transfer is a process where tenants who are unable to live safely in their current property can apply to their landlord for a high–priority transfer to a new property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2022 and requested to be moved on the grounds that she was experiencing harassment from her ex-partner and had previously been a victim of domestic abuse. The landlord contacted the resident on 31 October 2022 to obtain further details and completed a management transfer request form on her behalf. The landlord informed the resident that further information was required, and she agreed to provide it by email.
The landlord contacted the resident on 2 November 2022 and reminded her to provide the information in order to complete her application. The landlord also offered to have the locks changed on the resident’s property. The resident supplied the landlord with the details of 2 crime reference numbers on 3 November 2022.
The landlord liaised with the police the same day and submitted a homelessness prevention referral form to the local authority. The police later informed the landlord that they were unable to provide any evidence of harassment or domestic abuse based on the investigations they had conducted. It is not clear from the documentation provided what date this communication took place. The resident has told this Service that she left the property in December 2022 and was residing in a different area.
On 7 February 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the management transfer request had been declined as there was insufficient evidence to support her application. The landlord advised the resident to consider registering with other landlords in the area she wished to move to.
The landlord’s management transfer policy states a transfer can be considered for urgent circumstances, which includes:
1. Fleeing domestic abuse where the customer needs to move away from the current area that they live, and evidence has been supplied by the local police or equivalent.
The landlord raised an application for the transfer based on the resident’s circumstances, as described by her. The police were unable to provide evidence to support the application and the application was declined in line with the landlord’s policy. This decision was one the landlord was entitled to make in the circumstances, and the landlord signposted the resident to alternative means of securing a new property.
On 21 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report she had been assaulted and provided it with the crime reference number for the incident. She again asked for a transfer out of the area. The resident contacted the landlord again on 27 June and 6 July 2023 requesting to speak to someone about a managed transfer. The landlord did not reply to the resident or liaise with the police for further information. The landlord’s management transfer policy is silent on what approach it will take when a tenant provides new information to support their application for a management transfer. The landlord’s lack of action in these circumstances caused the resident to feel further distress and was unreasonable.
On 22 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again and asked it to reconsider its decision to provide her with a managed transfer. The landlord replied on 12 September 2023 and stated it would not provide a transfer as the police could not provide it with evidence of “harassment or stalking”. There is no evidence to suggest that the new information provided by the resident was taken into account when making this decision.
On 25 October 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the way her transfer request had been handled. She stated she was still living out of the area and was upset her request had been declined. She requested the decision be reconsidered.
The landlord replied to the resident the following day and acknowledged the resident’s request for an “appeal” on the decision to provide her with a transfer. The landlord stated that a decision would be reached by the end of the following week, and it would then provide her with a written explanation of the decision. This Service has seen no evidence that a decision was made, or communicated to the resident, prior to the stage 2 response being issued over 5 months later.
While the landlord’s policy does not state what action it should take when new information is presented, the landlord had told the resident her decision would be reviewed. The landlord’s failure to carry out a review, after informing the resident it would take this action, was unreasonable. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations and caused her to feel further ignored and distressed. This is likely to have strained the landlord and tenant relationship.
On 21 February 2024, the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord. She stated she had previously complained about the decision and had not received a reply. On 5 April 2024, the resident submitted a letter from her GP, which supported a move out of the area, citing the resident’s health and well-being. An internal landlord record dated 21 May 2024 indicates that evidence was also received from the police before the decision was reviewed. It is unclear from the documents provided what date this was received or what information was provided by the police.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 8 April 2024. It stated that it had reconsidered its decision and offered the resident a management transfer. It stated the move would be on a like-for-like basis and would be dependent upon stock availability in the area she wished to move to. The landlord also highlighted that normally, it would be a requirement for the tenant to have no arrears on their account before a management transfer would be considered. However, it stated it had waived this based on the resident’s situation.
While the landlord initially declined the resident’s application as she did not meet the criteria for a management move, it subsequently altered its position and approved the resident’s application for a management transfer in order to provide an acceptable outcome to the resident. The landlord cannot be responsible for any delay that subsequently occurs while awaiting the availability of a suitable property, when considering the limitation of supply of social housing. Landlords are limited by the stock they hold.
However, the resident’s request for the decision to be reviewed, after providing further information was not acted upon until the resident escalated her complaint 6 months later. The landlord’s failure to review the decision in light of the new information and reassurances it had given the resident was significant and did not give her confidence that it had taken her concerns seriously.
This leads to a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £600 compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration, where there has been a significant impact to the resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings.

Complaint handling

A landlord’s complaint handling process is an essential aspect of its overall service delivery provision. An effective complaints process will enable a landlord to identify and address service delivery issues in a timely manner. It will also provide learning for future service provision.
On 3 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and stated she had several repairs at the property that the landlord was taking a long time to address. The resident said that “property mis-maintenance” had impacted her health. The landlord did not record a complaint about the repairs. The resident contacted the landlord again on 26 October 2022 regarding the repairs, but this was recorded as a service request. On 6 January 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord and requested it send the resident a response to her complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord, which affects a tenant. The resident’s email on 3 November 2022 expressed her dissatisfaction with the outstanding repairs at her property. The landlord should have registered the resident’s complaint on this date to comply with its policy. Its failure to do so led to delays in the complaint being addressed and this was unreasonable.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in relation to the repairs on 19 January 2023, 9 working days after the Ombudsman’s request. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a stage 1 response will be issued in 10 working days. While the landlord responded quickly following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the stage 1 complaint response was over 2 months after the resident initially raised her complaint.
On 25 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and stated she had been advised to make a complaint about the landlord’s refusal to provide her with a management transfer. Internal landlord records dated 26 October 2023 stated, “until there is evidence that we have failed to follow our policy and procedure it is an appeal rather than a complaint.” The landlord did not record the resident’s complaint, nor did it inform her that this was the case.
The landlord’s management transfer policy states that if a transfer has been refused and the tenant feels the policy has not been fairly applied to them, the matter should be dealt with as a complaint. The landlord did not record the matter as a complaint in line with its policy. This was unreasonable.
Paragraph 1.9 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022) (the Code) states that if a landlord decides not to accept a complaint, a detailed explanation must be provided to the resident setting out why the matter is not suitable for its complaint process. The landlord failed to communicate its decision not to accept the complaint to the resident. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and left the resident feeling further ignored.
The resident escalated both of her complaints on 21 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged her escalation request on 5 March 2024, 9 working days later. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will acknowledge escalation requests within 5 working days. The landlord failed to meet the timescales set out in its policy.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 8 April 2024, 33 working days after the complaint was escalated. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days and if it cannot meet this time frame, it will contact the resident and agree an extension. The landlord failed to communicate the delay to the resident. This was a further missed opportunity to manage her expectations.
The landlord made errors in how it initially assessed and recorded both aspects of the resident’s complaint. This is likely to have caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. Its subsequent responses were not issued in line with its policy timescales, specifically its stage 1 response for repairs was over 2 months overdue. The landlord also failed to provide a stage one response for the management move.
This leads to a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation to the resident for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused. This is line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where the effect to the resident was minimal and may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident £700 compensation, made up of:
  1. £600 for its failures in handling the resident’s request for a management transfer.
  2. £100 for its failure in complaint handling.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman has highlighted that the landlord delayed responding to the resident’s review/appeal request for a managed move. The landlord may wish to conduct a review to understand why this was delayed and provide feedback to the department and individuals responsible for those delays.