Places for People Group Limited (202348597)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348597

Places for People Group Limited

26 November 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. The resident’s reports about repairs to his kitchen, including his request for a full kitchen replacement.
2. The resident’s reports about repairs to the windows in the property, including his request for all windows to be replaced.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a 2-bedroom self-contained top-floor flat. Correspondence between the landlord and resident in September 2023 shows the resident’s mother is named on the tenancy but is not currently living there. The resident’s child lives with him, however. The landlord has confirmed it has no recorded vulnerabilities for any person living at the property.
The following took place with regard to the kitchen at the property:
1. On 24 November 2022, the landlord’s records report the resident reported a dripping hot water kitchen tap. The landlord attended on 6 December 2022 to complete a repair. However, upon attendance the resident said the issue was not concerning the tap but gaps and holes in his kitchen causing a mice infestation. The landlord attempted a repair of this issue on 25 January 2023. However, its records show the resident cancelled the appointment the day before. He said, “the whole kitchen needed replacing” and he did not think “replacing the plinths would solve the issue.”
2. On 4 April 2023, the resident reported his kitchen was “old and falling apart” and he “needed a new kitchen”. The landlord arranged an appointment for 2 May, but the appointment was not attended, for unknown reasons. The resident again reported he “needed a new kitchen” on 24 July. He said his current kitchen had been in for “20 years.” The landlord raised this with a subcontractor on 28 July and completed a purchase order on 9 November. The subcontractor completed repairs to the kitchen on 9 November. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what these repairs were.
The following took place with regard to the windows in the property:
1. The resident called the landlord on 18 January 2024 regarding an “upgrade to his windows” he said window seals “had gone” and the catches were “broken.” The landlord attempted to complete a repair for the issues on 4 March, however, the resident “refused the appointment” as he wanted his windows to be replaced.
2. The landlord completed an emergency repair on 14 February 2024 to make the windows safe. This was following a report from the resident that a window was not closing properly and if opened would “drop from the top floor flat.” Further work was raised for a subcontractor to assess all “blown windows” and replace them. The subcontractor attended at the property on 5 March, finding “no fails” and cancelled the job.
3. On 5 April 2024, the resident reported his son’s bedroom window had “come away from the fitting” and “fallen to the ground below.” The landlord completed an emergency repair the same day and boarded up the window. A further report was made by the resident on 10 April that his kitchen window had dropped, and he was unable to close it. The landlord completed an emergency repair the same day to make the window safe.
4. The landlord raised a job on 15 April 2024 to repair all damaged window hinges and handles and replace the child lock in the child’s bedroom. The landlord completed the job on 28 June. It said that 16 glazing units needed to be replaced. On 6 September it arranged for this to be completed on 3 December.
5. On 27 August 2024, the landlord replaced the window in the resident’s child’s bedroom. The contractor completed an inspection of all other windows at the property at the same time. They found all windows were in a “poor condition” and letting in a “bad draught.” The landlord told the Ombudsman on 18 October it had requested for the contractor to quote for replacement of the windows. It confirmed that works to install the windows would follow at a later date.
The resident initially raised his concerns with delays to the kitchen repairs on 9 November 2023. This is the date the landlord has confirmed it recorded his initial complaint. He raised concerns about replacing the windows on 18 January 2024. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 March 2024. It told the resident the following:
1. It said it had completed a stock survey on 1 January 2024 and was due to replace the kitchen on 1 April 2025 and the windows on 1 April 2033. It acknowledged both needed overhauling which it was happy to arrange but the resident had declined this. It told him to contact it if he changed his mind.
2. It offered £100 compensation for its delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for this and confirmed it had put a weekly complaint report in place to stop this from happening again.
The resident escalated his complaint on 5 March 2024 and the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 4 April. It told the resident the following:
1. It was unable to approve new window or kitchen replacements and its stage 1 response on the matter was “fair and reasonable.” It said it had completed “numerous inspections” in the past months and was unable to offer any further at that time. It said it was not deliberately carrying out unreasonable actions as a result of a “vendetta”, as the resident believed.
2. It reiterated that it upheld its delay in responding to his stage 1 complaint error and restated it offered £100 compensation on the matter. It said the resident had rejected this.
The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 19 August 2024. In correspondence with the Ombudsman in July 2024 he said the following:
1. All locks and latches had been repaired on the windows and this resolved his health and safety concerns. He said there was still gaps around the window frames with draughts coming through.
2. He believed the landlord should have replaced his kitchen during 2021, but this was delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. His cupboard handles were falling off, the drainage board and worktops were warped, and all cupboards were in a poor state.

Assessment and findings

The kitchen

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order installations for the supply of water. It is also responsible for fixtures and fittings provided by it. The resident is responsible for promptly reporting any repair issue or defect for which the landlord is responsible. Where a resident reports a “high level of repair over a prolonged period”, the landlord will complete an inspection. This is to determine the cause and identify if further repairs can be raised.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms its service standards to attend all non-emergency appointments by appointment at a time agreed with the resident. It aims to carry out repairs in a “right-first-time ethos.” It is committed to “demonstrating a high level of resident satisfaction” and “continually monitoring and reporting performance levels.” The landlord has 3 types of repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs are those that could cause risk to a resident’s health and safety or cause damage to the property that the resident can contain or render the property uninhabitable. It will complete these within 24 hours.
2. Appointable repairs are those that can prevent damage to the property. It will complete these within 28 days.
3. Planned repairs are those that are non-urgent and can consist of a replacement rather than repair of a component. It will complete these within 90 days.
The landlord’s records show the resident reported a leaking hot water tap on 24 November 2022. Its notes show the resident stated the issue was “affecting his heating bill.” The landlord attended within 28 days for an appointable repair. It is uncertain why there was further confusion over the outstanding report at this point. The resident stated the issue was not with his tap but with gaps and holes that were letting mice into his kitchen. The landlord acted appropriately raising a planned repair for 25 January 2023. This was within 90 days. However, the resident cancelled the appointment on 24 January 2023, which was his prerogative.
The resident reported his kitchen was “old and falling apart” on 4 April 2023. The landlord acted appropriately in arranging a planned repair investigatory appointment for 2 May, within 90 days. The appointment was “not attended” and it is unclear on the reasoning for this. The landlord’s repair records provide little explanatory information which would have supported an assessment of the matter.
The resident raised the same issue with his kitchen on 24 July. The landlord passed this to its subcontractor to investigate as a planned repair on 28 July. It is unclear from the landlord’s records what work was requested and completed. However, its records show works were completed on 9 November. This took 108 days, exceeding its planned repair timescales. Its record-keeping issues again, make it difficult to assess. There is no evidence of the resident raising dissatisfaction with this repair. It did not refer to this delay in its complaint responses. It should have done so and offered an apology.
The resident raised his complaint about the kitchen on the same day as the repair was completed, 9 November 2023. The landlord failed to respond to the issue for an extended period, which is further assessed within the ‘complaint handling’ section below. It is uncertain if the resident’s contact was before or after the repair on the day. It is believed it was prior to the work as he stated he “had not heard back” from the contractor since it discussed a quote for the works. He also said he was concerned about work completed. It is uncertain what work he was referring to. There is no evidence of further work being completed in 2023.
On 29 February 2024 as part of its complaint investigation, the landlord raised the resident wanted an “urgent assessment of his kitchen.” The landlord arranged for this to be completed on 4 March 2024 when it was attending the property on an unrelated matter. Its operative “believed a new kitchen was not required.”
The landlord explained the findings of its 4 March 2024 assessment to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 5 March 2024. It provided an appropriate explanation of its completion of a stock survey of the kitchen on 1 January 2024. As such it was able to manage the resident’s expectations explaining his kitchen was not due for replacement until 1 April 2025. It explained that even if a previous contractor had recommended a new kitchen, the decision “ultimately sits with the landlord.” This addressed the resident’s concerns about delays and his belief the kitchen “would be renewed.” It agreed the kitchen needed an “overhaul” and was happy to arrange but the resident “declined.” It reiterated at the end of its response it could complete the kitchen repairs and he should contact it if he “changed his mind.” This was an appropriate response to address the resident’s concerns.
In the resident’s escalation he told the landlord he only wanted a “full replacement” of his kitchen. In its stage 2 complaint response of 4 April 2023, the landlord found its stage 1 response to be “fair and reasonable”. Its stage 1 response was still appropriate in light of the resident’s further request for full kitchen replacement. In the resident’s correspondence with the Ombudsman, he raised that the kitchen should have been replaced in 2021. He said this was delayed to 2025 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It is uncertain if he raised this with the landlord directly. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to address this point with the resident.
In summary the Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to his kitchen, the remedial repairs, and his request for a full kitchen replacement. The landlord reacted appropriately to the resident’s reports of disrepair to his kitchen but was delayed in attending to complete a repair. It should have acknowledged and addressed this in its response to the resident. This had limited impact on the resident who stated on several occasions he just wanted the kitchen to be replaced. As such the landlord will only be ordered to apologise for this service failure. Its response on the replacement of the windows was appropriate and managed the resident’s expectations. It acted reasonably in continuing to offer repairs to the kitchen. It treated the resident fairly and respectfully and asked him to contact it to arrange this. There is no evidence of the resident requesting this. Further replacement of the kitchen is scheduled for April 2025.

The windows at the property

The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms it is responsible for insecure windows. The tenancy agreement confirms it is responsible for window catches, sash cords and window frames. On 11 July 2024, the Ombudsman wrote to all social housing Chief Executives about “deep concern” about the “handling of window-related complaints.” An issue raised included an issue around delays in conducting repairs, often postponed due to cost considerations, and planned cyclical works.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards.
On 18 January 2024, the resident reported his window seals had “gone” and the catches were “broken”. The landlord did not arrange an appointment until 4 March. This was a total of 56 days and double the time of the 28 days for an appointed repair in its policy. The resident rejected the appointment when the landlord attended on 4 March. He said he wanted the windows to be “replaced.” This was the resident’s choice. However, this left his concerns unresolved despite the landlord’s reasonable attempt to address the issue.
The resident reported on 14 February 2024 that his windows were “not closing properly” and if opened would “drop from the top floor” and he had children. The landlord appropriately raised an emergency job which it completed to make the window safe on the same day. In making the windows safe, the landlord addressed the potential health and safety issues. On the same day, the landlord asked its subcontractor to assess and replace “blown windows.” The subcontractor attended on 5 March within the 28-day timescale in its policy. They found “no fails” rejecting the job. This is of concern as the landlord believed the windows were “blown” on 14 February and would later find this also in July 2023.
There is no evidence of the landlord challenging the subcontractor’s findings even in light of further reports from the resident. In particular, the landlord stated in its stage 1 complaint response of 5 March the resident said the “whole window had failed not just the glass.” It also stated on 15 April it needed to measure “all blown units.” Had it challenged this earlier it had the opportunity to resolve the issue much sooner, causing less detriment to the resident.
In its complaint response of 5 March 2023, the landlord told the resident the windows needed an “overhaul”. It said it was happy to complete repairs, but the resident had “rejected” this in conversation about his complaint. It would later reiterate this at stage 2 stating it could complete repairs as an “emergency”. This addressed the resident’s concerns the windows were “dangerous.” It told him to get in touch if he “changed his mind.” This was a reasonable approach to giving the resident control over further repairs which it promised would be on an emergency basis. The landlord managed the resident’s expectations on when the windows would be replaced. It explained following the stock survey of January 2024 the windows were scheduled to be replaced on 1 April 2033.
Following completion of the landlord’s complaint process the resident reported a number of further serious issues with his windows. On 5 April 2024, the window in the resident’s child’s room fell out to the ground below. The landlord appropriately raised an emergency repair. It attended on the same day and boarded up the window. The landlord would not replace the window in the child’s bedroom until 27 August 2024. This took 144 days to complete. This was not in accordance with the 28-day timescale in the landlord’s policy. Although the window was safe it is of concern the child’s bedroom did not have an operational and airtight window fitting for over 4 months. This was wholly inappropriate and caused inconvenience, uncertainty and distress to the resident and his family.
On 10 April 2024, the resident reported his kitchen window had “dropped” and was “unable to close.” He was concerned as it was above the exterior footpath. The landlord acted appropriately in arranging an emergency repair for the same day to make the window safe. On 16 April, the resident reported the handle had “come off” his front window. He said this was “dangerous as his son can reach and fall out of it.” The landlord acted appropriately arranging an emergency repair to make the window safe on the same day.
The landlord had taken appropriate action on 15 April to raise a repair to replace all damaged hinges and handles and replace the child locks. It scheduled this for 27 June. Its intention to complete this was appropriate but it should have arranged these much sooner. By the following day, the landlord had received 3 reports in 11 days of a health and safety issue with the resident’s windows. This should have prompted it to treat the work as an emergency. Furthermore, this was not in line with the resident’s stage 2 response to deliver any further window repairs as an “emergency.” It attempted to bring the appointment forward on 19 April but found “no available appointments.” It may have been able to prioritise this had it recorded the repairs as an emergency.
Between 23 and 30 July 2024 the landlord asked its subcontractor to assess the other windows at the property. It asked them to do this when they completed the replacement of the child’s bedroom window on 27 August. It is unclear why the landlord took this stance at this point when it had previously said it would complete “no more” assessments. Upon assessing the windows on 27 August, the subcontractor found all windows to be in “poor condition” with windows “bowed” and “letting in a bad draught”. They recommended all windows be replaced.
This raises further concerns about the subcontractor inspection of 4 March. As previously identified the landlord should have challenged the findings of that report much sooner, which may have led to an appropriate resolution much sooner. This would have caused much less uncertainty, discomfort and inconvenience for the resident and his family at the earliest possible point. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman on 18 October it has asked for the subcontractor to quote for and replace all the windows in the property.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it found “no service failures”. It therefore offered no apology or compensation relating to the windows issue. It should have done so for its failure to attend to the reported issue of 18 January 2024 in accordance with its policy. Further reports of issues with the windows took place following the completion of the landlord’s complaints policy. Therefore, they could not be considered for compensation or an apology. The following issues have been considered by the Ombudsman as part of the overall detriment caused to the resident:
1. The timescale to replace the window in the child’s bedroom far exceeded the timescale in the resident’s policy. The 4 months to complete this caused much distress and inconvenience to the family.
2. Despite having 3 health and safety concerns raised about the windows in 11 days the landlord did not treat further repairs as an emergency. This was not in line with its promise in its stage 2 complaint response. It should have managed the issues in line with HHSRS to establish if there was a wider health and safety issue.
3. The landlord had multiple opportunities from 4 March 2024 to challenge the findings of its subcontractor assessment of the windows. It would later establish the windows were in poor condition and needed to be replaced. Had it considered the reports from the resident and its own operatives more assuredly it may have been able to consider replacement much sooner. This would have fully addressed the resident’s concerns on the matter and reduced the uncertainty and distress caused to him and his family.
In summary the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to the windows, including his request for all windows to be replaced. The landlord took double the time given in its policy to attend to reports of damage to how airtight the resident’s windows were. The resident would reject the repair on the day, which was his choice. It found the windows were blown on 14 February, which its subcontractor assessed on 4 March finding no issue. It based its further inaction on this report despite continued reports from the resident.
The landlord would reassess this 5 months later finding all windows needed to be replaced. It should have acted sooner to determine this, reducing the detriment to the resident. When emergencies relating to the windows were reported the landlord acted appropriately. However, although it arranged a long-term solution, its approach was delayed and not in keeping with the potentially dangerous circumstances. It should have acted much sooner to reduce the risk to the resident, his child, and the wider general public.
The landlord in accordance with the leaseholder agreement is required to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. Compensation of £600 has been awarded as the landlord failed “promptly and effectively” to complete repairs leaving the resident in an uncomfortable and potentially unsafe environment. The landlord failed to fully consider the time and trouble, anxiety, stress, and uncertainty it caused to the resident through its poor handling of the repairs to the property. Its failure to offer compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation. Further orders will also be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaint Handling Procedure confirms it is “committed to providing high-quality customer services.” It says it “values complaint and uses this information to help (it) to improve services.” It states a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction about (its) actions or lack of action, about the standard of service provided.” Once a resident complains it will tell them who is dealing with the complaint. Its complaints process then has 3 stages:
1. ‘Put it right,’ where it aims to “put it right” within 24 hours and if it can do so will consider the complaint resolved. Where it cannot resolve the complaint in 24 hours it will escalate to the next stage.
2. Stage 1: frontline response. It will acknowledge the complaint in 5 working days and provide its response in 10 working days or less. It can extend this in “exceptional circumstances.”
3. Stage 2: investigation. It will acknowledge the escalation in 3 working days where it will confirm its understanding of the complaint and outcome sought. It will provide its full response in 20 working days. If it needs to extend this it will explain its revised time limit to the resident, updating them on the progress.
The resident initially chased the kitchen works on 9 November 2023. The landlord was unable to “put it right” within 24 hours by 10 November. It is unclear what action it took following this. In its later complaint response, it said it “allocated” the complaint to stage 1 in “December 2023.” For the purpose of the report, the date will be assumed to be 1 December 2023. It is unclear why the landlord took 20 days to raise the complaint to stage 1. However, although there is no timescale in its policy to escalate to stage 1, this was an inappropriate timescale. It delayed the resolution of the issues raised by the resident.
There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint at this time. Its later response suggests it spoke to the resident to clarify his complaint, but it is unclear when it completed this. The landlord provided its response to the resident’s concerns on 5 March 2024. This was equivalent to 64 working days from escalating the complaint, exceeding its timescale by 54 working days. The landlord did acknowledge this delay in its reply and provided an appropriate explanation. It also took reasonable steps to put further measures in place to avoid delays occurring in future. The landlord also apologised to the resident and offered £100 compensation. This was in accordance with the landlord’s Compensation Policy which suggests awards of £50-£100 for service failure having some impact over a short duration or not significantly affecting the outcome.
The landlord’s stage 1 response failed to address it was delayed in completing the repairs reported on 24 July in accordance with its policy. It should have done this to show it was taking the issue seriously. It could also have used this to focus on improving the service it offered by learning from the complaint. It would not recognise its failure to address this in its stage 2 response either.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 5 March 2024. The landlord raised his escalation the same day and managed his expectations by telling him there were “backlogs.” There is no evidence the landlord spoke to the resident about the case until 28 March. This was not in accordance with its policy of understanding the complaint and resolution within 3 working days. It provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 4 April. This took 21 working days to provide, exceeding its timescale by 1 working day. This was a minor divergence from its policy, but it did not acknowledge this in its response. It should have apologised for this.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also failed to recognise the delay in attending to the resident’s report of damage to his windows on 18 January 2024. Although the resident ultimately rejected the repair on the day, its response time was not in accordance with its policy. It should have recognised this and apologised to the resident.
A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage 1 and 2 responses. Its stage 1 response did acknowledge its delayed response and did offer appropriate compensation. However, it failed to reference the delayed kitchen repairs. Its stage 2 response did not address its failure to acknowledge the escalated complaint in a timely manner. Nor did it address its stage 2 response was delayed, (albeit by one day) or it was delayed in responding to the resident’s report of 18 January 2023. A determination of service failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £200 compensation has been ordered. This is an additional £100 to the £100 previously awarded by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with some impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to his kitchen, including his request for a full kitchen replacement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to the windows in the property, including his request for all windows to be replaced.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
A senior member of staff from the landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
1. Pay the resident a total of £800 compensation. Any additional compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £600 for the ineffective handling of the resident’s reports about repairs to his windows, particularly after the landlord’s complaint process had ended.
  2. £200 for the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
  3. The above amounts include the £100 previously awarded by the landlord.
2. Under paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord is ordered to conduct a senior review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This review must include:
  1. An explanation of how it will improve its handling of reported dangerous windows and completing repairs urgently. It should confirm whether improved processes and procedures would reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
  2. Consideration and implementation of the points raised in the Ombudsman’s open letter regarding window-related complaints of July 2024.
  3. The findings of the review should be shared with this Service within eight weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord should confirm to the resident and the Ombudsman the date for the replacement of the defective windows in the resident’s property.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide information to the resident to address his concerns that a “renewal programme” for his kitchen in 2021 was delayed until 2025.