Places for People Group Limited (202412933)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412933

Places for People Group Limited

30 April 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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Repairs to the windows.
3. Repairs to the fence.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 28 February 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that some of the fence panels had come loose during a storm. In May 2022, the landlord’s repair logs noted that there were signs of damp and mould within the property.
On 3 July 2023, the resident reported the presence of black mould in the bathroom. She advised that it kept returning despite attempts to clean and paint over it.
Throughout 2023, the resident reported that the windows in the property were no longer suitable and needed to be replaced. The landlord attended on at least 3 occasions between July and September 2023 to carry out repairs to the windows. On 31 August 2023, an order was raised for the bedroom window to be measured for a replacement. A further order was raised on 25 January 2024 to inspect the windows because they were “in bad condition and very noisy.”
The landlord attended on 21 May 2024 to assess the fence to the side of the property, it recommended the removal and replacement of all fence panels and posts.
The resident complained on 14 June 2024. She expressed frustration that the fence had not been replaced, there was damp and mould in the property, and she did not know when the works would be carried out. The resident also noted that her neighbours’ windows had been replaced but hers had not, and that this made her feel “victimised”.
The landlord carried out an inspection in July 2024 and a scope of works it intended to carry out was provided on 6 August 2024. This included mould washes throughout the property, improvements to the ventilation, and redecoration works.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 12 September 2024. It acknowledged that the delays in resolving the damp and mould were “unacceptable” and noted it was waiting for a quote to be approved for the fence to be replaced. It outlined that it had done a stock audit in 2022 which noted the windows were due for replacement in 2027.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 October 2024. She stated that the fence had not been replaced and she was worried it would fall over. She also raised concerns that she had previously been told the windows needed to be replaced.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 28 November 2024. It apologised for the length of time it took to address the damp and mould in the property, works were completed on 25 October 2024 in line with its scope of works. The landlord outlined it had decided that the fence did not require a replacement and apologised that this decision had not been communicated to the resident prior to the complaint response. It reiterated its position that the windows were not due to be replaced until 2027. The landlord offered the resident compensation £1100, this wascomprised of:
1. £300 for the delay in completing the damp and mould works.
2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
3. £300 for poor communication relating to the fence.
4. £200 for delays in responding to the complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service in December 2024 because she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident outlined that the mould is returning because the windows needed to be replaced, and fence was at risk of falling down.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has explained that she has experienced damp and mould in the property since she moved in approximately 8 years ago. This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports throughout 2022 and up to the landlord stage 2 response, as this is what was considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses.
When the resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern that the landlord’s handling of the issues reported had impacted on her health and mental wellbeing. This aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
The resident 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 lack thereof by the landlord.

Damp and mould

The resident has reported the presence of damp and mould in her property. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will address damp and mould in a proactive and reactive manner. It will investigate the cause and carry out remedial repairs and actions.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Damp & Mould (2021) report states that ‘Landlords should ensure they have strategies in place to manage these types of cases with an emphasis on ensuring that the resident is kept informed, feels that the landlord is taking the issue seriously and that the matter is progressing’.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
When the resident reported damp and mould, the landlord did not act appropriately to inspect and repair it within a reasonable time. The landlord attended in May 2022 and August 2023, but a damp and mould survey was not carried out until July 2024. This meant the resident was living with the damp and mould for longer than was reasonable. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations or demonstrate it was taking the matter seriously. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction at the condition of the property and described how she wished she could go back in time and return to her previous home. She noted that living with the damp and mould was impacting her mental health and said she was “at the end of her tether.”
It is disappointing that the landlord did not complete a damp and mould survey until after the resident had complained. While the landlord did take a positive step by outlining the scope of works it intended to carry out, the landlord’s records show that the work was not booked in by its contractors which caused delays in resolving the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by not knowing when the works would be completed. The landlord failed to effectively engage with its contractors to ensure the work was completed in good time.
The landlord did not communicate appropriately with the resident throughout the matter. The resident needed to chase the landlord for updates which ultimately led to the resident making a complaint. Proactive and clear communication is important in the management of repairs because it means that the resident’s expectations can be managed and assurances provided that the matter is progressing.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had not completed remedial works in good time and described the delay as “unacceptable”. While this Service welcomes the landlord’s candour, it is disappointing that it did not complete the remedial works until after the resident had escalated her complaint to stage 2. Additionally, the landlord has not provided evidence that it has reflected on its actions and taking learning that it can use to stop the same issues happening again.
Overall, the landlord did not complete its follow up inspections in good time and the remedial works took too long. The landlord’s inspection took place 12 months after the resident’s July 2023 report and the works took a further 3 months to complete. The landlord did not communicate with the resident regarding the cause of the delay, or provide assurances for when the works would be completed. The resident was evidently distressed by the condition of her property and by not knowing when it would be resolved. As a result, the landlord’s handling amounts to maladministration.
The landlord has offered the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the impact of the delays regarding the damp and mould. While it is noted that the landlord has made some attempt to resolve the matter by offering compensation, it has not gone far enough to fully reflect the resident’s experience. The length of time the resident had to live with damp and mould, the distress the resident reported, and the continued failure to complete remedial works after the resident had complained are aggravating factors. This Service considers that the landlord’s offer for the delay should be increased to £600 to reflect the resident’s experience and the failures identified in this report.

Repairs to the windows

The resident has reported that the windows in the property are not fit for purpose and need to be replaced rather than being repaired, she asserts that the poor condition of the windows is one of the causes of the damp and mould. The landlord’s position is that the windows are due to be replaced in 2027, and it does not consider that this needs to happen sooner.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord attended on 7 occasions between May 2023 and the resident’s first complaint to inspect the windows or carry out repairs. 2 entries in the landlord’s internal logs suggest it attended to measure for replacements. The logs refer to the works being for a “repeat repair” which indicates that the landlord was aware there was an ongoing and unresolved issue with the windows.
The landlord did not tell the resident that it did not intend to replace the windows until its stage 1 response, this was 16 months after the landlord’s attendance in May 2023. The landlord’s failure to set out its position at the earliest opportunity was inappropriate and caused distress to the resident who did not have an answer to her concerns.
The landlord did not provide any explanation to the resident about why it did not consider the windows needed replacing. While the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff when deciding what works it needs to complete, it is unclear how the landlord arrived at this decision or what evidence it relied on.
Internal correspondence seen by this Service suggests that the landlord considered the windows to be in “poor condition” and it sought further information and an inspection to be carried out because it was unclear what its own position was. This suggests that the landlord itself was unsure what it should have done. The landlord failed to take steps to assure itself that it was managing the resident’s concerns in the most appropriate way. There is no evidence to support the landlord’s final position that the windows did not need replacing until 2027.
In its complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to tell the resident its position at the earliest opportunity. It missed the opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and provide an explanation for its position. The resident was evidently distressed by the condition of the windows and this was exasperated by the landlord’s vague response.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows amounts to maladministration because of the reasons outlined in this report. The landlord has not offered compensation to the resident for in relation to the windows. In determining compensation the distress caused to the resident, the landlord’s lack of explanation, and its failure to identify its inconsistent information have been considered as aggravating factors. This Service considers that £300 compensation is appropriate to reflect the resident’s experience and the failures identified.
The landlord should reinspect the windows in the resident’s property and confirm and evidence its position to the resident regarding their replacement. It should also arrange any work it feels is required based on the condition of the windows. This will go some way to repair the landlord tenant relationship.

Repairs to the fence

The resident is first recorded as reporting issues with the fence in February 2022. She reported that the panels had come loose in a storm. The landlord’s records show that the repair was not completed because fencing repairs were still on hold following the Covid-19 pandemic. The evidence suggests that this was not followed up when the landlord resumed fencing repairs because the resident reported the same matter again in March 2024.
The landlord’s internal correspondence suggests that the removal of the fence and its replacement was recommended. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it outlined that it was waiting for a quote to be approved so it could undertake the work. In its stage 2 response, it told the resident that it no longer considered that the replacement was necessary and apologised that this was the first time the resident was hearing this information.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It failed to inform her of its decision to not replace the fence outside of its complaint response which was inappropriate. The landlord should have told the resident as soon as the decision was made to manage her expectations. The resident was inconvenienced by not knowing why the landlord had changed its position and distressed by the condition of the fence, which she feared would fall on someone.
While the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff when deciding what works to do, its contractor had recommended a replacement. It is unclear what the landlord relied on to make its decision. Internal correspondence suggests that landlord thought the fence “looked okay” from the photographs rather than basing its decision on the outcome of the inspection. This was inappropriate and the landlord missed the opportunity to consider the contractor’s recommendation in its final decision and provide an explanation to the resident.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that its communication about the fence was “unacceptable” and upheld this element of the resident’s complaint. It offered £300 for its communication failures. While it is positive that the landlord has addressed where it went wrong regarding the communication, it has not provided the resident with clarity about its change of position for the fence repair. The resident is still unclear about why the decision was changed between the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a replacement fence amounts to service failure. The landlord is also ordered to reinspect the fence and confirm its position to the resident about any work that is required. The landlord must also explain its decision to the resident.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days responded to within 20 working days.
The resident first complained on 14 June 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 September 2024. This was a period of 63 working days which is outside of the landlord’s timeframe for a response and represents a failing.
Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a failure of service. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. In these cases, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. The landlord is also expected to provide a new timeframe whereby the resident would expect to receive a response. However, the landlord did not provide any updates nor reasoning for why it had exceeded the promised timeframe. This response was inappropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 October 2024, the landlord advised on 23 October 2024 that it was experiencing delays and could not escalate the resident’s complaint at that moment in time. The landlord did not provide any indication of when the resident could expect an acknowledgement or response, this was inappropriate. The complaint was acknowledged on 1 November 2024 which is outside of the 5 working day time frame. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 November 2024, 34 working days after the resident first requested the complaint be acknowledged.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for the delays in its complaint handling process. While this offer is considered proportionate to the delays, it is disappointing that the landlord did not offer any apology or reflection in its complaint responses to acknowledge the delay. The resident was inconvenienced by not knowing when she would receive a response and the landlord failed to demonstrate it was taking her complaint seriously.
This Service considers that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because the only acknowledgement of the delay was an offer of compensation. Where a complaint response has been delayed, we would expect to see an apology and some reflection from the landlord to prevent the same issues happening again. This has not happened in this case. The landlord should apologise to the resident for its delay in responding to her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the fence.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the failures noted in this determination. A copy should also be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this determination.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total compensation of £1400. £1100 of the landlord’s previous compensation offer can be deducted from this amount, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £600 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the damp and mould.
2. £300 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the windows.
3. £300 to acknowledge and redress the failures identified in relation to the fence.
4. £200 in recognition of the complaint handling failures.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord should carry out an inspection of the property and set out its position on any replacement required in relation to windows and the fence. The landlord must write to the resident with the outcome of the inspection and include time scales of when the work will be completed. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman.