Places for People Group Limited (202419212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419212

Places for People Group Limited

8 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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident’s property is on an assured tenancy of a ground floor 1-bedroom flat which started on 3 November 2021. This had a fence that separated the resident’s garden from the communal garden. The resident has a connective tissue and circulatory disorder and experiences panic attacks, migraines, weight loss, fatigue, and nausea. The landlord was aware of these conditions.
Between 17 May 2022 to 2 June 2023 the resident provided the landlord with noise diaries and noise recordings. She also reported her neighbour engaged in threatening and aggressive behaviour.
The resident complained on 8 March 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the neighbour’s alleged behaviour and her management transfer request.
The resident left the property and moved into self-funded private accommodation in August 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 30 November 2023 and said:
1. it partially upheld the complaint because of service failure.
2. it apologised for the delay in responding.
3. as a gesture of goodwill, it agreed to cover 50% of the resident’s accommodation costs until the end of the week on receipt of evidence of her expenditure.
4. it had reinstated the resident’s fence at a 3 ft height, but it agreed to replace the fence with a 6ft fence if the resident moved back.
The resident escalated her complaint on 20 May 2024 and again on 9 July 2024. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 October 2024 and said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as there were no service failures.
The landlord has paid the resident £6,265.62 which amounted to half of her accommodation costs up until early December 2023. The resident wants the landlord to cover the full cost of alternative accommodation while it finds her a suitable management transfer. The resident also wants compensation for the expenses of moving and for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reported ASB to the landlord as early as 2021. The resident told this Service she complained about this between December 2021 to February 2022. The evidence shows she made a formal complaint on 8 March 2023. The Ombudsman expects residents to raise formal complaints within a reasonable time, this is usually within 12 months of matters arising. Therefore, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of ASB reports from March 2022 (which is 12 months before she complained).

The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour

The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure stated that it will:
1. use “preventative and early intervention measures” where appropriate.
2. record and monitor ASB.
3. complete a risk assessment with the resident to establish the level of harm the ASB caused.
4. complete a written action plan outlining the action the resident should take and the action it will take.
5. work with other agencies to take reasonable, proportionate, and decisive action to deal with any ASB.
Between 17 May 2022 to 8 March 2023 the resident reported her neighbour was:
1. shouting, screaming, playing loud music, having parties, and possibly throwing objects around.
2. punching in her door and making threats to burn the building down.
3. acting aggressively and banging on her ceiling and walls.
4. spitting outside the window.
5. inviting a visitor who put his foot in the front door to stop the resident closing it.
The evidence the resident provided the landlord with on 24 February 2023 and 14 April 2023 showed the neighbour’s behaviour had caused the resident alarm, distress and was a nuisance to her. The resident said she was unable to do regular exercise, sustained injuries, experienced panic attacks, weight loss and could not accept deliveries, leave her property, enjoy life, or let her cat out. The landlord accepted the resident experienced ASB and acknowledged its severe effect on her.

Safeguarding

The landlord took the following steps:
1. it applied for and obtained an interim ASB injunction against the neighbour in 2022.
2. it spoke to the neighbour’s support worker on 26 September 2022 to ask that the worker discourage the neighbour from perpetrating ASB.
3. it spoke to the police on 26 September 2022 and obtained their agreement to monitor the ASB.
4. it obtained the neighbour’s agreement to an acceptable behaviour contract on 8 June 2022, which the evidence shows the neighbour signed.
5. it agreed to send a management transfer request for the resident in February 2023.
6. it offered the resident advice on applying for emergency accommodation with the local council.
While these steps were in line with its ASB policy there was no evidence it completed a risk assessment or action plan. This was a failure as this was not in line with its ASB policy. It also meant it lost an opportunity to show it had assessed the effect of the neighbour’s behaviour on the resident. The landlord’s failure to provide a written action plan also meant it lost an opportunity to manage her expectations. We have made an order in relation to this to remedy these failures.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord that it had not acted on her suggestions to move her neighbour to another property. We note that the resident first suggested this in September 2022. While she said on 19 May 2023 and on 11 September 2023 that this was her preference the resident also pursued a management transfer herself from 2022.
The landlord explained to the resident on 21 September 2023 that it could not rehouse her neighbour. This was because the neighbour needed supported accommodation, and the landlord did not have anything suitable. The landlord acted reasonably in providing the resident with this explanation.
The resident disclosed to the landlord that she felt suicidal on 8 March 2023. Despite this the resident told the landlord on 10 March 2023 that she did not want to access mental health services. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for not making a referral to mental health services given the resident’s instruction and her later refusal of a safeguarding referral on 1 August 2023.
The resident informed the landlord that she was too scared to accept deliveries or mail at the front door out of fear of meeting the neighbour. On 2 June 2023 the landlord ordered a camera, a wireless and battery powered video doorbell, personal alarms, and alarms for the resident’s doors and windows. The resident confirmed she received these by 9 June 2023. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to help make the resident feel safer.
The resident asked if the landlord could connect the video doorbell to the mains electric, so she did not run the risk of meeting the neighbour when replacing the batteries. The landlord told the resident that there was no provision to get the doorbell fitted to the mains. It is not clear why this was the case, and we note the specification of the doorbell the landlord ordered allowed for an electrical connection. Therefore, without evidence of the considerations the landlord had we cannot say the landlord’s refusal was reasonable. Therefore, we have made an order in relation to this.
The resident decided to leave her property in August 2023 to move into self-funded accommodation. She explained that this meant she:
1. sustained injuries in car journeys and because she did not have suitable adapted furniture in her self-funded accommodation.
2. no longer had easy access to furniture, the gas meter or her possessions which caused her problems.
3. incurred damage caused by mould or mildew to possessions left in her property.
4. was unable to access medical, dental, and social care.
5. experienced costs and stress involved in funding and living in alternative accommodation with a loss of self-control.
6. had her benefits stopped and got into debt.
7. lost her pet cat and friendships.
The resident considered the landlord responsible for her experience in self-funded accommodation as she felt she had to leave her property. It is evident that the resident experienced upset and hardship on account of the move. However, the landlord sought to allow the resident to remain in her property safely and avoid moving which was a reasonable aim.
The landlord ordered more alarms, a security camera, and window and door locks again on 7 August 2023 after her neighbour was released from prison. This was a reasonable response to help protect and safeguard the resident. Overall, this Service is satisfied the landlord’s actions, including agreeing to a management transfer and the advice it offered on rehousing, were reasonable steps to safeguard the resident.

Fence

The resident expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s actions regarding replacing a fence that separated her garden from her neighbours. This is because this had been damaged and there was no longer a barrier to stop her neighbour entering her garden. The resident requested the landlord repair or replace the fence on 2 June 2023, after a report on 30 May 2023 of a neighbour’s associate entering her property from the garden. The resident said the landlord replaced this in October 2023, but the resident complained on 11 October 2023 that the replacement offered no security.
The landlord told the resident it would raise a job for a priority repair of the fence on 2 June 2023 but then said on 12 September 2023 that this was not a priority as it was not a safeguarding concern. It was unreasonable, given the history of the resident’s ASB reports that the landlord did not inspect the property and determined what work it needed to do within a reasonable time. The landlord did not show that it did this which was a failure.
It was reasonable of the landlord to offer to erect a 6-foot fence after the resident’s complaint about its height. As the resident told the landlord on 3 January 2024 that there was little point in doing this, we cannot fault the landlord for not completing this. We have recommended the landlord re-offer this.

Actions against the neighbour

Between 27 September 2022 to 3 February 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was not interested in supporting the eviction process. Furthermore, she also asked the landlord 3 times between 10 February 2023 to 14 April 2023 not to share the evidence she provided. This was because she was fearful of reprisals.
The landlord said on 26 June 2023 it had requested information from the police and explained to the resident on 22 September 2023 that there were “constant delays, refusal to share info and non-contact from Police”. Overall, the Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for not taking legal action against this background. This is because it would have only been able to do so if it had evidence from either the resident or the police.
The landlord told the resident on 28 June 2023 that it would start possession proceedings now the neighbour was in prison after a court convicted him of an offence involving assault. Despite this there is no evidence that the landlord took any further action against the neighbour or updated the resident. Having told the resident it would be taking certain action it was unreasonable that it did not update the resident, even just to say it would not be taking any further action.
It then told the resident on 7 August 2023 that it would decide if it could take possession proceedings now that the prison had released the neighbour. The landlord took legal advice which was appropriate. The landlord told the resident on 31 August 2023 that it planned to get a “second opinion” but the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord updated the resident concerning this. While the landlord was under no obligation to share third party information with the resident it was unreasonable that it did not explain to her how it was managing her ASB case to manage her expectations.
The landlord told the resident on 22 September 2023 it felt it had enough evidence to support possession proceedings. We also note that the resident told the landlord on 27 September 2023 that the police caught the neighbour in possession of “30 wraps”. The landlord also said that it would issue possession proceedings once the police charged the neighbour. It added it would explore whether the police would support a closure order to stop or restrict the neighbour’s access to his property. As above there is no evidence that, having informed the resident that it would be taking certain action, that it kept the resident updated about how it was managing her ASB case.

Management transfer

The resident requested a management transfer on 13 December 2022, but the landlord did not action this request until 27 February 2023. In the absence of an explanation for the time it took the landlord to act we cannot be satisfied that this was reasonable.
The landlord told the resident on 9 March 2023 that it needed more medical information. It offered to write to the resident’s GP on 13 March 2023 to request this. When the resident provided this on 11 April 2023, the landlord resubmitted its request 2 days later and it approved the management transfer on 24 April 2023. The landlord’s actions from February 2023 were reasonable and in line with its management transfer policy.
The landlord made the resident 4 offers of ground floor flats that it found on 24 April 2023, 24 October 2023 and 28 March 2024. The resident refused 3 of these and told the landlord they were unsuitable while not responding to the fourth offer.
While the landlord was unable to find a suitable property through the management transfer process it:
1. noted the resident’s stated social and medical needs on 12 and 15 May 2023
2. agreed on 15 May 2023 that its first offer was not suitable and agreed to continue to look for other properties
3. checked the availability of ground floor properties in the resident’s preferred area on 7 August 2023, after the resident asked it to
4. considered the availability of properties in further areas on 16 August 2023 after the resident asked it to on 9 August 2023
5. considered the availability of ground floor flat properties on 24 October 2023 after the resident told it the day before she was open to offers in another city.
6. found a property in the other city on 28 March 2024 after the resident confirmed on 5 February 2024 this was an acceptable area.
The landlord’s decision to look for another comparable property (1 bedroom ground floor flat) for the resident on account of the ASB was in line with its management transfer policy. The landlord explained in both its stage 1 and 2 responses that it had limited availability of like for like properties that met all the resident’s stated needs. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord offered a reasonable explanation for why it had been unable to find a like for like property.
On 18 August 2023 the resident requested the landlord consider a lower ground floor flat in a particular county. On 5 February 2024 the resident also asked if the landlord could consider her for 2-bedroom properties to widen the search criteria. The landlord has not shown that it considered the resident’s request for a lower ground floor property. It told us that it would not offer a 2-bedroom property as this would not be a like for like property. While this position was consistent with its management transfer policy the landlord accepted the resident had a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, it was under a duty to consider:
1. if the policy or practice of only making a like for like property placed the resident at a substantial disadvantage compared to another resident without her disabilities
2. if so, whether it would be reasonable to amend its policy (or practice) to help the resident move by considering her for lower ground floor or 2-bedroom properties, if this removed or minimised any disadvantage.
There is no evidence that the landlord had regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when considering the search criteria for rehousing the resident. This amounts to a service failure. We have therefore made an order to address this.

The resident’s request for compensation for alternative accommodation

The resident requested alternative accommodation from the landlord on 31 July 2023. This is because she felt unsafe remaining in her property. The landlord told the resident on the same date that it does not offer temporary accommodation. It suggested the resident contact the local council for emergency accommodation which was in line with its management transfer policy.
While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s reasons for leaving it was under no duty to offer alternative accommodation. Its temporary moves policy did not apply to the resident’s situation. As such, it was appropriate for it to signpost the resident to the local council.
The resident decided not to approach the local council as she felt it would be unable to offer suitable accommodation.
As the landlord was not under a duty to offer alternative accommodation and it had appropriately signposted the resident, we cannot say it is responsible for funding the costs of the resident’s private, alternative accommodation.
We note the landlord paid 50% of the resident’s alternative accommodation costs as part of its stage 1 complaint offer as a “gesture of good will”. It told the resident it would only pay this until early December 2023.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer and actions were reasonable. The landlord showed a willingness to support the resident, on a discretionary basis, while allowing her the opportunity to contact her local council for further assistance.

Summary and findings

In summary the landlord took the following action in response to the ASB:
1. it applied for and obtained an interim ASB injunction and signed her neighbour up to an acceptable behaviour contract.
2. it agreed to a management transfer for the resident to enable the resident to move.
3. it sent the resident alarms, locks, a camera, and a video doorbell.
4. it worked with the police to monitor the ASB and discussed the case with them.
These steps, which involved a combination of non-legal and legal methods of dealing with the ASB, were reasonable and in line with its ASB policy. The resident told this service it accepted that the landlord communicated with the police. We have seen communications on 21 September 2023, 6 October 2023, 9 January 2024, 8 February 2024, 25 March 2024 and 18 September 2024 that shows the landlord engaged in partnership working. This again was in line with its ASB policy.
We have identified the following failures as the landlord did not:
1. complete a risk assessment or provide a written action plan.
2. show it acted within a reasonable time to request a management transfer between 13 December 2022 and before February 2023.
3. update the resident after 31 August 2023 on how it was managing her ASB after informing her it would be taking legal action.
4. show it inspected and identified what work it needed to do to the fence within a reasonable time.
5. show what consideration it made when deciding it could not connect the video doorbell to the electricity.
6. demonstrate that it had regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010 when considering the resident’s request for a lower ground floor flat or 2-bedroom property.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and good will payment) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord apologised to the resident in its stage 1 response and compensated her £6,265.62. It explained to the resident what steps it was taking to help the resident. This was in line with the principle aimed at putting things right and acting fairly. This Service’s remedies guidance allows for compensation of £1,000 or more where failures have had a severe and long-term effect on the resident.
Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the amount the landlord compensated the resident by amounted to sufficient compensation for these failures. However, the landlord did not identify any failures or learning in its stage 2 response. We also note that the ASB is still outstanding. Therefore, while the level of compensation was proportionate and the landlord took some steps that were reasonable, we have found service failure.
We have made an order for the landlord to complete a risk assessment, action plan, and consider the resident’s outstanding requests regarding her management transfer and video doorbell.

Complaint handling

The landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy. It needed to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The resident complained on 8 March 2023. It provided its stage 1 response on 30 November 2023. It took the landlord 186 working days to respond which was not in line with its complaints policy. The resident agreed to extend the deadline for dealing with the complaint at stage 1 while the landlord considered the management transfer request.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to limit any extensions to 10 days and not to delay providing a response until it can complete any agreed actions. This was set out in paragraph 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) in force at the time the resident complained. The landlord’s actions where therefore not in line with paragraph 5.5 of the Code. The landlord provided the resident with no less than 24 communications between 8 March 2023 and its stage 1 response which amounted to a reasonable attempt to update the resident.
When the resident escalated the complaint on 20 May 2024 the landlord agreed to escalate this to stage 2 of its process. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 October 2023. The landlord asked the resident on 20 May 2024 to provide any “additional issues” for consideration which the resident only provided on 9 July 2024, but the parties did not agree any extension. Therefore, the landlord ought to have dealt with the complaint at stage 2 within 20 working days. The resident or their MP chased the landlord for a stage 2 response 4 times between 26 July 2024 to 10 September 2024. It took the landlord 104 working days (from 20 May 2024) to respond which was not in line with its complaint policy.
The delays in the landlord responding caused the resident to incur time and trouble in pursuing her complaint in having to chase responses. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in dealing with the complaint at stage 2. In fact, the landlord only provided its stage 2 response after the resident referred the complaint to this Service.
We have made an award of additional compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience this caused in line with our remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. contact the resident and offer to arrange a time to complete a risk assessment and ASB action plan. While the landlord must make contact within 28 days of the determination date and offer dates the appointment can be at a future time to suit the resident given her vulnerabilities
2. contact the resident setting out whether it can connect the video doorbell to the mains electric and explain if it will agree to do this, giving reasons and any conditions
3. consider whether it can accommodate the resident’s request for lower ground floor properties and 2-bedroom properties, providing the resident with a decision
4. pay the resident directly £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling, including an element for time and trouble.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord should re-offer the resident to erect a 6 foot fence at the resident’s property, for a date to be agreed and on the terms it offered during the complaint process.