Places for People Group Limited (202340632)

Decision
Case ID	202340632
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	17 December 2025

Background

The resident lives in a house with her 2 children. The resident and both her children have disabilities. The household were put in temporary accommodation while works were carried out to address damp and mould at the property. On return to the property some works still needed to be completed.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Damp and mould at the property.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould at the property.
2. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould at the property

The landlord did not carry out repairs within the timescales in its repairs policy. Ongoing lack of oversight of the repairs and lack of ownership of the case caused repeated delays and some works to not be raised.

Complaint handling

There were considerable delays in the landlord issuing both its stage 1 response and stage 2 response. These greatly exceeded the timeframes stated in the landlord’s complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord made an appropriate offer of redress for the failings.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident an additional £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to damp and mould at the property. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 30 January 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the following aspects of the property and produces a written report with photographs: roof guttering external stack pipe the whole property for damp and mould The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of any problems with the roof, guttering, external stack pipe and damp and mould within the property Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to any repairs identified The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 30 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident an additional £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to damp and mould at the property. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

30 January 2026

Inspection order

The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required.

If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.

What the inspection must achieve

The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the following aspects of the property and produces a written report with photographs:

roof
guttering
external stack pipe
the whole property for damp and mould

The survey report must set out:

Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards
The most likely cause of any problems with the roof, guttering, external stack pipe and damp and mould within the property
Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible
A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to any repairs identified
The likely timescales to commence and complete the work
Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works

No later than

30 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 September 2023	The resident made a complaint. She said there was damp and mould throughout the property and was chasing up an inspection. The resident said the gutters needed to be cleared and the walls replastered.
9 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged there had been mistakes and delays in addressing repairs at the property. The landlord listed the repairs that had taken place while the household had been in temporary accommodation. It said there had been further work identified which would be carried out when the household moved back into the property. The landlord detailed the package of financial support that had been offered to the resident while in temporary accommodation. It also said it had made a payment of £3,000 to the resident to replace internal soft furnishings and a new shed. The landlord agreed to cover the resident’s costs for heating, electricity and the cost of cleaning clothes.
19 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the repairs were taking too long to complete. The resident wanted the outstanding work completed.
25 February 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said roof replacement work was completed on 24 October 2024. The landlord said it was sorry it had taken a long time to complete the roof repair. It advised due to sickness that the guttering appointment had been postponed to 25 March 2025. The landlord said damp and mould works were delayed by communication problems with contractors and a change in contractor. It said there were some further damp and mould work that was needed at the property. The landlord acknowledged it had failed in its service to the resident and that this had impacted the household. It also identified complaint handling failures. It awarded the resident £2,250 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said the damp and mould in the property was unresolved. She said she had paid for her own surveys which had identified there were still problems with the roof and guttering. The resident wanted these issues resolved.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Damp and mould at the property
Finding	Maladministration

We are unable to investigate the response of other agencies that may have been involved with the resident such as local council departments, support agencies or charities. This investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to damp and mould at the property.
The resident’s complaint dated 5 September 2023 chased up a damp and mould inspection. We were unable to identify when this inspection had initially been requested. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 13 September 2023. This was 6 working days after the resident chased the inspection up.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy does not state a timeframe for a response to reporting damp and mould, but it states it will provide a prompt response. Carrying out the damp and mould inspection 6 working days later would be a reasonable timeframe. However, the nature of the resident’s complaint suggested she had raised a report of damp and mould at an earlier date but had not received an inspection.
The resident should not have needed to have chased up an inspection. We expect landlords to ensure their responses to damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. We expect landlords to recognise the detrimental impact damp and mould can have on a household.
The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 9 April 2024 said there had been delays and mistakes in its response to carrying out works to the property. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this. However, the landlord did not learn from outcomes and put things right because the delays continued. Almost 11 months later, it apologised again for delays in its stage 2 response issued on 25 February 2025.
After being in temporary accommodation from the end of December 2023, the household returned to the property in April 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated some “further improvements” had been identified which it would carry out when the household had moved back to the property.
The landlord did not state what these improvements were. It was unclear why these had not been identified sooner considering the household had been in temporary accommodation since the end of December 2023.
Just over 4 months after the household had returned to the property, the resident escalated her complaint on 19 August 2024. She said the repairs were taking too long. It was unclear to us what work remained outstanding at this point and why the work was still outstanding after 4 months.
This length of time far exceeded all the timescales for the different categories of repairs in the landlord’s repairs policy. This was not appropriate and was unfair on the household, especially after the disruption they had already experienced moving into temporary accommodation. This was also nearly a year since the resident had raised her complaint.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated the delays had been caused by the contractors. It said there had been communication problems with the contractors. While a landlord can contract out its repairs service, the obligation to repair remains with the landlord and not the contractor.
We would expect the landlord to ensure that it has adequate oversight of its outsourced services. As these delays were significant, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed the communication problems with the contractors at an earlier date.
The landlord advised in its stage 2 response that there had been a change of contractor mid-way through the works. However, the delays continued despite the change of contractor. This suggested the oversight of the contractors was where the failings laid.
The landlord completed several repairs to the property to address the damp and mould. These included mould washes, repairs to guttering and downpipes, repairs to the external soil stack, a roof replacement and plumbing repairs that included fixing an overflow pipe and sink waste pipe.
The resident repeatedly expressed her dissatisfaction at the standard of some of the work. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that there had been issues with the quality of the repairs. It said this had required a further schedule of works. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge that there had been these problems.
The problems with the quality of the repairs appeared to have affected the resident’s trust in the work carried out at the property. The resident arranged for her own contractors to attend to carry out damp and mould and roofing surveys.
The landlord’s internal emails at the time of gathering records for our information request showed that the damp and mould was still present in the property and work was outstanding. This was over 8 months after the landlord issued its stage 2 response and over 2 years after the resident had made her complaint.
The landlord identified it had carried out a damp and mould survey of the property on 22 October 2025. The survey found that work was still needed. However, a schedule of works had not been raised. A landlord internal email stated this was because the damp and mould team did not make an official request and no reference number from the landlord’s systems was provided. This showed there was a continued lack of adequate oversight of the jobs raised for the property and a lack of ownership of the matters.
As a result of our information request for this case, the landlord chased up the outstanding work. It also identified there were unscheduled guttering works on the system waiting to be carried out at the property. The landlord’s internal emails stated another damp and mould survey would be carried out and then a schedule of works raised. It was not appropriate or reasonable that work was still outstanding and that this only got identified and progressed because of our information request.
On 11 December 2025 the resident told us that there was still damp and mould at the property. Based on inspections she had paid to be carried out she stated the stack pipe was too short and did not have an end cap, the roof tiles were cut too short and there were problems with the guttering. The resident said there was damp throughout most of the property and mould around the window seals and in the bathroom.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord that her and her children had disabilities. We are satisfied that the landlord took the appropriate steps in relation to the vulnerabilities within the household. This included liaising with social services and a support agency and inviting these to accompany the landlord on visits.
However, the ongoing delays with repairs to resolve the damp and mould was likely to have caused the resident and her children distress and inconvenience. This potentially was at an increased level due to the nature of the vulnerabilities within the household. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said there was a considerable and sustained impact on the household due to the length of time repairs were outstanding. It was appropriate of the landlord to acknowledge this.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it had missed opportunities to provide the resident with a single point of contact at an earlier date. In addition to providing additional support for the resident, it appeared the single point of contact may have helped the landlord manage the volume of communication it received from the resident. Overall, the landlord managed its communications with the resident well.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response that it had paid the resident £3,000 to replace internal furnishings and get a new shed. It also stated it had provided a food allowance for the household and covered transport costs for the resident’s daughter to get to college during their hotel stay. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that it would cover the resident’s costs for heating, electricity and cleaning of clothes. This was reasonable.
In its stage 2 response the landlord awarded the resident £2,000. This was made up of £500 for time and trouble pursuing the matters and £1,500 for the delays in addressing the damp and mould and other related repairs in the property. This was reasonable. The resident received this compensation from the landlord.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £400 in compensation. This is to recognise the likely distress and inconvenience caused by the continued delays in completing the work after its stage 2 response.
We have made an order for an independent inspection to be carried out at the property to look at the roof, guttering, external stack pipe and the whole property for damp and mould. This is to resolve the differing opinions of the outstanding issues and to bring resolution to the complaint.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The resident made her complaint on 5 September 2023, but the landlord did not issue its stage 1 response until 9 April 2024. This was 150 working days after the resident made her complaint. This greatly exceeded the 5 working days for an acknowledgement and the 10 working days for issuing a stage 1 response as stated in its complaints policy and the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 19 August 2024, but the landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 25 February 2025. This was 132 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This greatly exceeded the 5 working days for an acknowledgement and the 20 working days for issuing a stage 2 response as stated in its complaints policy and the Code.
We have not seen evidence of any acknowledgements being sent to the resident regarding her complaint or escalation request. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the resident’s escalation request was not logged until 29 September 2024. This was 28 working days later which exceeded the 5 working days timeframe for acknowledging complaints as stated in its complaints policy and the Code.
The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures in its stage 1 response. This was not appropriate. However, the landlord did acknowledge the considerable delays in its stage 2 response. The landlord said the delays were due to the volume of correspondence it was dealing with at the time and the complexity of the resident’s case.
The landlord awarded the resident £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This was a proportionate amount of compensation in line with our remedies guidance. We have found the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving its complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We would encourage the landlord to review our recommendations in our Spotlight Report on damp and mould to ensure reports of damp and mould are logged appropriately and responded to in a timely manner. We would also encourage the landlord to review the key learnings in our Spotlight Report on repairs to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its record keeping and oversight of repairs.

Communication

We would encourage the landlord to consider appointing a single point of contact earlier in the process for future cases of a similar nature. Communication was improved and the volume of communication from the resident was better managed when this was in place.