Places for People Group Limited (202411539)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202411539

Places for People Group Limited

30 January 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. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) relating to noise and leaks.
2. Repairs to the resident’s property following leaks and reports of damp and mould.
3. The resident’s request for a management transfer.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives with 3 children in a 2-bedroom flat. The resident and her children have medical conditions which are known to the landlord.
The resident raised reported issues relating to the neighbour who lived in the flat above her. She made reports of noise nuisance and several reports of leaks coming from the flat above into her property. As a result of the leaks, the resident raised repairs for the damage caused and reported issues with damp and mould. Additionally, due to the ongoing problems with her neighbour the resident requested a management transfer.
On 4 June 2024 the resident raised a formal complaint. This complaint set out that she had encountered numerous leaks over the years caused by the neighbour above her. These leaks caused damage to her belongings and flooring. She was unhappy that within the prior 5 months she had to make 3 insurance claims related to flooding from these leaks. In addition, there was a problem with noise nuisance from the neighbour. The resident advised that her children’s health and wellbeing were being impacted by the leaks and persistent damp in her home.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 18 June 2024. In the response it acknowledged that the resident’s concerns were longstanding and related to multiple incidents and numerous repairs caused by the neighbour. It advised that:
1. The recurring nature of the issues was unacceptable, and it was committed to address this comprehensively. Its goal was to ensure a lasting solution. Following a survey caried out on 11 June 2024, the scope of works would be thorough and detailed focussing on the root causes of the leaks and flooding from the flat upstairs.
2. That it had previously attempted to address these issues with work orders raised on 1 July 2022, 7 December 2022, 23 October 2023, 27 January 2024, 14 February 2024 and 12 June 2024.
3. In relation to damp related damages to the resident’s personal belongings, this would usually fall under the resident’s own home content insurance. However, as the resident was attributing the damage to the conditions within her home, the resident could make a claim via the landlord’s insurance. It asked the resident to provide specific details of the damage and upon receipt, the landlord would forward this to its insurer who would communicate directly with the resident.
4. That it had organised a visit to the resident’s neighbour on 17 June 2024 to address the noise disturbance and ASB. It would also like to meet the resident to discuss her experience. It apologised for the lack of progress when the resident previously reported these concerns.
5. Its communication had not been of the standard expected in dealing with the issues raised and it would take immediate steps to improve this. Therefore, it would provide regular updates as it arranged and implemented the necessary remedial works based on the surveyor’s findings.
6. As a resolution it would offer £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused, and £800 for the time, trouble and delays. In addition to the £950 compensation, it would draft and submit a management transfer application on behalf of the resident and aim to expedite this process.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 July 2024. She was unhappy that the leak issue had not been resolved, that the damage to her property was directly attributable to the landlord and that the ASB had not been adequately addressed. She did not consider the £950 compensation was enough as it did not fully address the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 16 August 2024. In its response the landlord said:
1. In its stage 1 complaint response it arranged for a contractor to attend the resident’s property on 28 June 2024 to assess and undertake any necessary repairs caused by the leaks. However, this appointment was not attended.
2. On 16 August 2024 the contractor had contacted the resident about the outstanding repairs however, clarification was required with the contractor as to what action were to be taken. An appointment was arranged for 21 August 2024 to assess any damages.
3. That a claim for damages caused by the condition of the property can be passed to its insurer as outlined in its stage 1 complaint response. To proceed with this the resident would need to provide a detailed list of damaged items, and the reasons why the landlord should be held responsible. Once this was provided, it would pass the information on to its insurer.
4. In relation to the noise disturbance issue, it had arranged a contractor to install noise monitoring equipment. This was scheduled for 19 August 2024, but the resident did not provide confirmation this appointment was suitable. Should the resident want to proceed with this, she would need to contact the landlord to arrange a new date.
5. Both the resident and the neighbour had agreed to mediation, and this had been referred to its mediation team. This team would be in touch to arrange a date for mediation, in addition diary sheets had been sent at the resident’s request.
6. The landlord had approved the management transfer application and it had updated the resident on 1 August 2024. However, it could not provide a specific timescale on how long a transfer could take due to housing shortages.
7. It’s communication throughout the process had not been timely or comprehensive which left the resident having to chase for updates. Moving forward the appropriate teams have been informed of the need for effective communication. There was also a delay in sending the stage 2 response due to an unforeseen leave of absence.
8. In resolution, it would like to offer an additional £150 on top of the original £950 offered at stage 1. This was to cover the missed appointment and additional communication issues.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service in June 2024 as she was unhappy with the landlord’s actions. She advised that the compensation amount offered by the landlord was not appropriate and that she was still suffering with repair issues at her property.
There have been several actions since the stage 2 complaint response was issued, these were:
1. In September 2024 after communication with the mediation team, the resident’s neighbour declined to proceed with this.
2. A contractor completed some work to repair water damage in the resident’s kitchen on 5 September 2024, but the resident reported that damp and mould issues remained.
3. On 30 September 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that her property had cracks and damage due to the leaks and her flooring was damaged.
4. The resident reported a further leak from the upstairs neighbour had occurred on 10 October 2024. This was identified and fixed on 17 October 2024 as a pipe near the neighbour’s sink was seeping water. The resident reported further damage to her property.
5. On 18 October 2024, the resident was offered a move to temporary accommodation while works were carried out to her property.
6. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 November 2024 to advise that the upstairs neighbour was in the process of moving out of the property or had already moved out. Therefore, the ASB case would be closed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Complaint

Although it is noted that there is a long history of ASB and leak reports, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the recent reports from January 2024 onwards. This is because these issues were considered as part of the landlord’s formal complaint procedure. Residents are expected 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’. As the resident raised her complaint in June 2024, it is reasonable to consider the 6 months prior to this as part of this investigation.
While the Ombudsman would usually only consider the landlord’s actions up to the date of the stage 2 complaint response, it is reasonable for this investigation to consider the some of the landlord’s actions after this date. This is because the landlord set out specific actions it would take to try and resolve the resident’s concerns. This investigation has considered whether the landlord followed through with these steps and if its approach was reasonable.
However, the investigation will not consider any new issues (such as the leak reported in October 2024) as the landlord’s actions related to this have not exhausted its complaint procedure. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s actions after 16 August 2024, then she can raise this as a new complaint directly with the landlord.
While this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability, or whether the landlord’s actions or inaction have had a detrimental impact on the health of the residents or members of the household. The Ombudsman is unable to consider the personal injury aspect. However, the investigation will consider whether the landlord accounted for and acted on the reports of health concerns when it considered the appropriate actions to take.

ASB relating to noise and leaks

On 2 February 2024 the resident told the landlord that the neighbour was causing her distress because of excessive noise and persistent leaks. She advised that the neighbours flat was overcrowded, and this was likely causing constant noise and carelessness leading to leaks and flooding of her flat.
The landlord responded to the resident within 1 working day of the report. This was in line with its ASB policy which says that it will acknowledge urgent reports of ASB within 1 working day, and non-urgent reports within 5 working days. It asked the resident for further details of the noise nuisance and advised that it would contact the neighbour to discuss the issue, especially as the resident had advised there may have been an issue of overcrowding. It also told the resident that it would organise a visit to the neighbour’s property to investigate the condition of the flat to try and resolve the persistent leaks.
On 6 February 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that after discussion with the neighbour it would be taking no further action in relation to the ASB case as the leak was caused by the neighbour’s child leaving a tap on, and it did not consider the leak was caused intentionally. While it was positive that the landlord acted quickly in interviewing the neighbour, the landlord failed to follow its own ASB policy. There is no evidence that it completed a written action plan which is a key step of ASB policy. Additionally, the resident’s report of ASB included an issue with noise nuisance and the landlord failed to address this at all before deciding to close the case. The failure to follow its own ASB policy caused the resident some unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 April 2024, 6 and 7 May 2024 to report noise nuisance from her neighbour, she then contacted the landlord on 27 May 2024 as another leak had occurred from the neighbour’s property. Despite these reports, there is no evidence to show that the landlord followed its policy and completed an action plan. The failure to follow its own policy meant the landlord missed an opportunity to work with the resident and neighbour at an early stage to try and avoid escalation. In addition, the landlord has been unable to show that it acted on the reports until it made a call to the neighbour on 3 June 2024. This failure to act on the resident’s reports in line with its policy caused the resident some distress and led to a formal complaint being raised.
When it did contact the neighbour on 3 June 2024 about the reports of ASB, it acknowledged that the household was overcrowded. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider if this was a factor in the cause of the ASB, and if there were any further preventative measures it could take. For example, as there was laminate flooring installed in the neighbour’s property, the landlord could have considered if the installation of carpets or rugs would have reduced the noise. Similarly, preventative measures may have been considered to address the persistent leaks, such as stop taps to prevent accidental overflow.
The resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of ASB on 4 June 2024. Over the next 4 months the landlord:
1. Visited the neighbour to discuss the ASB concerns.
2. Agreed to submit a management transfer request for the resident.
3. Provided diary sheets for the resident to record incidents.
4. Offered to install noise monitoring equipment in the resident’s property.
5. Offered to arrange mediation for the resident and neighbour.
The landlord’s communication and actions regarding ASB between June and September 2024 shows it was working toward an effective resolution for the resident in line with its ASB policy. It agreed actions to obtain evidence of the alleged ASB and considered suitable ways to resolve the issue for the resident such as mediation.
Between June and August 2024, the landlord liaised with the resident to try and agree a date for the installation of the noise equipment. However, the resident was unable to confirm a date she was available. On 6 September 2024, the neighbour retracted her agreement to attend mediation. While noise equipment was not installed and mediation was not arranged, the landlord did make reasonable attempts to organise this.
The resident reported another leak coming from the neighbour’s property on 10 October 2024. After investigation, it was discovered that this leak was not due to the neighbour’s actions and rather was a leak relating to a pipe in the property. The landlord did not treat this incident as ASB. This decision was in line with its ASB policy as the leak was not due to the neighbour’s conduct.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 15 October 2024 that the neighbour had been offered new permanent accommodation due to overcrowding. On 12 November 2024 the landlord confirmed that the neighbour was in the process of moving out and that it would close the ASB case.
In summary, the landlord’s actions prior to 4 June 2024 did not follow its own ASB policy. It did not complete a written action plan, nor did it deal with the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance. This meant that for 6 months the resident was left feeling distressed and uncertain about what she could do to resolve the issues she was facing. It took for the resident to raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s actions, before the landlord began to take appropriate and proportionate steps to try and resolve the ASB.
Taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman would normally consider this to be maladministration. However, it is important to consider what the landlord offered in its complaint response to put things right. To resolve the resident’s complaint the landlord offered £1,100 in compensation broken down as:
1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
2. £800 for the time and trouble, including any delays.
3. £150 for a missed appointment, shortcomings in communication and the overall handling of the complaint.
This compensation related to the impact on the resident because of the landlord’s actions regarding all the resident’s complaints. Therefore, it is not clear what amount the landlord offered in relation to the ASB issue specifically.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that a payment of between £100 and £600 would be appropriate to recognise the impact to a resident that “was of medium duration”. This broadly matches the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies where maladministration has been found, but there has been no permanent impact on the resident.
As the Ombudsman has found that the actions of the landlord over a 6-month period between January and June 2024 were unreasonable, this Service would usually recommend a figure in the £100 to £600 range. Given the landlord has already offered a total of £1,100 to acknowledge the impact on the resident. In addition, the landlord recognised its failings and improved its actions as set out in its complaint response. The Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable redress.

Repairs following leaks and reports of damp and mould

The resident first reported a leak that had caused some damp issues to the landlord on 27 January 2024. The landlord arranged for an inspection to take place on 7 February 2024 to assess the repairs required. The inspection found that there was some minor repair work required but there was no sign of any damp and mould within the property. A dehumidifier was left with the resident, to dry out the affected areas in preparation for any repairs. The landlord confirmed that it would cover the additional cost of running the dehumidifier. This initial action by the landlord was appropriate, and the inspection was conducted within its 28-day policy timescale.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that once it has completed an inspection then it would conduct the relevant repairs in line with its standard timescales. This is set out in the repairs policy as 28 days for ‘appointable repairs’. However, the appointment to complete the minor works recommended in the inspection was arranged for 22 April 2024. This was outside its 28-day timescale. The landlord has not provided any reason for this, other than the appointment was the first available timeslot. The time taken to begin the recommended works was not reasonable and left the resident distressed.
The landlord attended on 22 April 2024 and 20 May 2024 to complete relevant repairs to the resident’s hallway, kitchen, and living room. The landlord arranged a further follow-on appointment for 18 July 2024 to complete work to the kitchen ceiling. However, the resident was unavailable for this appointment. The landlord offered to re-arrange this repair, but the resident advised that this specific element was no longer required as she had arranged to outsource this work herself. This shows that once the landlord arranged the initial appointment, it was prepared to complete the repair work identified in its February 2024 inspection and appropriately communicated with the resident about this.
The landlord’s repairs policy defines an emergency as a repair which is sudden, unforeseen and potentially causing uncontrollable damage to the property or immediately puts the health and safety of the household at risk. After the resident reported a leak on 27 May 2024 the landlord appropriately identified this as an emergency and attended within 24 hours to fix the issue.
In the resident’s formal complaint dated 4 June 2024, she advised the landlord that there was persistent damp in her home which was impacted her children’s mental health. She explained that her son also had allergies that were made worse by the damp present in her home. The resident also advised that each time there was a leak it caused damage to her property and belongings.
As part of its stage 1 complaint investigation the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 11 June 2024 to complete a damp and mould inspection, and to assess the damage at the property. This inspection was arranged in accordance with its damp and mould policy, which sets out that an inspection should be raised within 7 days of a report.
The landlord also appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about the health of her children and advised it would make an application for a management transfer on her behalf. It also said that it understood the impact its failings were having on the health of the household. It reassured the resident that it would look to resolve the issues raised in the complaint and set out the steps related to the repairs it was taking.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised the resident that the surveyor had recommended a scope of planned works to be completed and that it would arrange a contractor to attend the resident’s property. The contractor would assess the repairs before arranging in partnership with the landlord when they would be completed.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that ‘planned works’ will be completed within 90 days. In line with its policy, it arranged a contractor to attend the resident’s property on 28 June 2024 to assess the repairs and provide a quote for the repair work. However, the contractor failed to attend this appointment, and the resident was left having to chase the landlord for an update on 8 and 19 July 2024. Where an appointment is missed, there should be a system in place for the landlord to recognise this and contact the resident. Instead, the resident spent time and effort waiting in for the missed appointment, and then was inconvenienced as she had to chase the landlord twice before a new appointment was arranged.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 16 August 2024, the landlord advised the resident that the contractor would attend to assess the repairs on 21 August 2024. The resident confirmed that a contractor did attend the property in relation to this shortly after the stage 2 complaint response was issued.
The evidence shows the landlord generally followed its policies and conducted emergency repairs where appropriate. However, there were 3 key failings which caused the resident some unnecessary distress and inconvenience, these were:
1. The time taken to arrange the initial appointment after the inspection in February 2024.
2. The failure to communicate effectively relating to the missed appointment in June 2024.
3. The time taken for the contractor to attend after the June 2024 inspection to assess the repairs required.
Taking all the circumstances into account these failings would normally be considered maladministration. However, as set out in already in this determination the landlord offered £1,100 in total to recognise the impact caused to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy says that payments between £100 and £600 would be appropriate to recognise the impact to a resident that “was of medium duration”.
This Service would usually order compensation of between £100 to £600 where the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident was significant, but not permanent. In this instance, the failings identified were over a short period of time and had no permanent effect on the overall service provided. As the landlord has already offered a total of £1,100 to acknowledge this impact. The Ombudsman considers the offer to be reasonable redress.

Request for a management transfer

As part of the resident’s formal complaint dated 4 June 2024 she requested that the landlord consider moving her to resolve the issues she was facing with her neighbour and the condition of her property. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord advised that it had requested that a management transfer be considered for ‘exceptional’ circumstances. It advised that it would draft and submit the application on the resident’s behalf. The actions taken by the landlord after the initial request were reasonable. It considered the individual circumstances of the resident and used its discretion to apply for a management transfer.
The application was submitted by the landlord on 27 June 2024. The landlord also told the resident that even if the application was approved that a move may take a long time. This was because of the resident’s request to stay in the local area and the lack of housing availability. This shows the landlord promptly completed the application and effectively managed the resident’s expectations.
The resident chased for an update on 8 July 2024. The landlord told the resident that it would aim to provide a response by 26 July 2024. On 1 August 2024 the landlord told the resident that the management application had been approved. While the landlord responded 4 working days later that it advised, when taken in the context of the overall complaint this does not amount to a failing. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was frustrated at not receiving a response on 26 July 2024, but the landlord provided an update as soon as one was available. Therefore, when considering all of the circumstances of this complaint, the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in regard to:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) relating to noise and leaks.
2. Repairs to the resident’s property following leaks and reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for a management transfer.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not done so already, it should arrange for a payment of £1,100 to be paid to the resident as set out in its stage 2 complaint response.
It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns relating to its actions following the stage 2 complaint response issued on 16 August 2024.