Places for People Group Limited (202228963)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228963

Places for People Group Limited

23 December 2024

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Leaks at her property.
    2. A rat infestation.
    3. Its handling of her decant.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy began on 2 September 2013. The property is a 2-bedroom flat, within a block of flats with communal areas. The resident lives in the property with her 10-year-old son. The resident made the landlord aware she has mental health issues during her complaint.
  2. The landlord’s records show that on 26 November 2022, the resident’s property was leaking through to the property below. Multiple callouts were made to try and find the recurring leak. On 30 November 2022, the landlord noted an issue with rats living in the walls at the block, and on 13 December 2022, it recorded that the rats had chewed through the heating pipes causing the leak.
  3. The landlord re-piped the heating system in January 2023, while the resident was decanted to a hotel for a week. The resident returned to the property but was then decanted again between 14 February 2023 and 20 April 2023, so the landlord could resolve the rat infestation.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 20 April 2023 as she had been told by the landlord that her property was ready to move back into; however, she stated that the holes had not been filled in and the property had not been sanitised as agreed. The resident further complained that the heating pipes were not boxed in, her property had been left unlocked, and some of her kitchen items now needed to be replaced.
  5. The landlord provided it stage 1 response on 10 May 2023. This included the following:
    1. It acknowledged the length of time it took to carry out works and that, at times, its communication had fallen short of what was expected.
    2. It agreed to replace the kitchen worktops, sink, taps, and plinths. It also agreed to cover the copper heating pipes with white plastic covering in her son’s bedroom.
    3. It agreed it could have handled the expiry of her decant booking better.
    4. It apologised for its contractor not treating her property with respect while she was decanted, including leaving dirt on her carpet, and the resultant distress and inconvenience this had caused. It also acknowledged it was unacceptable for the contractor to leave the property unlocked.
    5. It offered £100 as a gesture of goodwill for the crockery the resident had to replace due to the contractors placing it on the floor where rat poison had been present.
    6. It offered a further £350 compensation which included:
      1. £200 for the length of time the work had taken.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 June 2023. She stated that she had stayed 3 months in a hotel, was moved rooms on several occasions, and had to chase up meal vouchers from the landlord throughout her stay. She also advised that there were several times where the booking had not been extended and she had to contact the landlord. The resident did not accept the amount of compensation offered by the landlord.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023. This included the following:
    1. It upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledged, and apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the leak and rat infestation.
    2. It had arranged for a contractor to box in all the copper pipework with white talon pipe covers on 27 July 2023.
    3. It agreed to have the resident’s carpets cleaned throughout the property as a gesture of goodwill.
    4. It would carry out the kitchen repairs on 8 August 2023, as stated in its stage 1 response.
    5. It offered £1,000 compensation, which included:
      1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience.
      2. £600 for time and trouble.
    6. It is not clear if this amount replaced its offer of £350 compensation within its stage 1 response.
  8. On 12 September 2023, the resident stated that the work promised in the landlord’s stage 2 response was still outstanding. The landlord advised the Ombudsman in April 2024 that works were now completed and that no further repairs had been raised for the kitchen since 6 October 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Evidence has been seen which suggests the situation has impacted the resident’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.

Leak

  1. The landlord’s records indicate it found that rats had chewed through the heating pipes causing a leak on 13 December 2022. Given that it required access to the whole property to complete the remedial works required to re-pipe the heating system and resolve the leak, it was reasonable for the landlord to decant the resident between 13 January 2023 and 20 January 2023. Its repair policy says appointed repairs will be carried out within 28 days. While the time period for the works went beyond this period, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord unreasonably delayed in arranging the works and or that the resident was without any heating or hot water throughout this period. Therefore, the amount of time taken to complete the repairs was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. To alleviate the issue of the chewed piping under the floor, the landlord ran the copper heating pipes up the walls of the property; however, they were not boxed in. It is not evident that the resident was informed in advance about what the remedial works would entail. The landlord noted that the resident had requested the pipes be boxed in on 27 January 2023 as they get hot, and she was worried about potential burns to herself or her child. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) notes that “bare hot surfaces of 70 degrees C or more” are potential hazards. It is not evident that the landlord considered its responsibility at the time the resident reported her concerns. This led the resident to expend time and trouble chasing the landlord through multiple further communications.
  3. On 25 April 2023, the resident advised the landlord within an email that her son had brushed past one of the pipes and burnt his arm. The landlord apologised in its stage 1 response on 10 May 2023 that her son had burnt his arm and advised it would box in the piping in her son’s bedroom, but said this was not normal procedure. While it was appropriate that it took action to address the issue, it took 3 months for the landlord to respond to the resident’s concerns about the pipework, which was not reasonable.
  4. Within its stage 2 response on 21 July 2023, the landlord confirmed no pipework had been covered to date and it further agreed to cover all the pipework where practically possible. Although it advised of an appointment to carry out this work in its stage 2 response, the work was not completed until September 2023. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what the cause of this delay was. Despite having raised the resident’s expectations that it would take action, it did not demonstrate any urgency in raising these repairs. This would have caused the resident distress given her safety concerns. The resident had to escalate her complaint in order to get the work completed, causing frustration and damaging the landlord-tenant relationship.
  5. On the basis that the landlord’s offer in its stage 2 response replaced its offer made at stage 1, the landlord offered £1,000 compensation in total. However, this was across all 3 elements of her complaint. While there were multiple failings identified in the landlord’s service delivery, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its offer was in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances where the landlord’s failure has adversely affected the resident. Its offer amounted to reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience across all 3 elements of the complaint, as further expanded on below. Therefore, there is a finding of reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Rats

  1. It is not in dispute that the rat infestation was within the flat block and therefore was the responsibility of the landlord, as detailed in its own policy. The landlord advised the local environmental health office that its contractor had been instructed on 8 December 2022 to attend and treat the communal areas. It is not clear from the records on what dates the pest control contractor attended but a report noted that one of the attendances occurred on 21 December 2022 to treat rats in the communal areas. From its records, the next appointment was not until 1 February 2023. Its contractor advised the landlord that this delay was due to staff absence. However, it is evident that the landlord proactively chased up its contractor for a second visit in January 2023, which was appropriate and demonstrated its commitment to resolve the issues as early as possible.
  2. The contractor recommended that gaps under the kitchen units be sealed by the landlord. The resident was decanted from 14 February 2022; however, it is not clear from the landlord’s records when the work took place at the resident’s property. It subsequently advised the resident that the holes had been sealed on 9 March 2023. No evidence has been seen that suggests the resident was kept up to date on the repairs or given a timeframe for her decant which was not reasonable. It is best practise when a resident is decanted to have a clear plan, which includes timescales, in order to manage expectations.
  3. Clear record keeping is core to a repair service and assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate, complete, and accessible records ensure that the landlord can understand what repairs are required, monitor outstanding repairs, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. A system should be in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.
  4. The landlord arranged for the property to be deep cleaned as the resident raised concerns about the disease rats can carry. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the property to be cleaned following the pest control measures taken and was an appropriate use of its discretion.
  5. The resident advised the landlord on 21 April 2023 that the holes had not been filled in and the property had not been sanitised as agreed. The landlord confirmed that its contractor had advised the works had been completed and provided photographs, which it forwarded to the resident and asked for her for further clarification on what she thought was outstanding. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its qualified contractor at this time.
  6. However, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the work completed while the resident was decanted was done to a poor standard and had not resolved the issue of the rat infestation for the resident. It therefore arranged to carry out the blocking up of holes amongst other works on 23 June 2023 but was unable to access the property so rearranged this for 8 August 2023. The landlord’s records do not indicate why it did not gain access, many of the records the landlord provided showed cancelled appointments without explanation. Nor do the records indicate that it attempted to follow up these appointments with the resident. However, the landlord acknowledged throughout its complaint process that it took too long to resolve the issues for the resident and offered redress for its failings.
  7. In summary, the landlord failed to keep the resident updated with the progress of works at her property while she was decanted and failed to follow up on her concerns with additional works in a timely manner. However, as noted above, the total offer of compensation was proportionate to the impact this would have caused. Therefore, there is a finding of reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

Decant

  1. The resident was decanted between 14 February 2023 and 20 April 2023 for the works to address the rats. From its records, the resident requested to be moved out due to a fear of rats. As the landlord had noted the infestation to be serious, it was reasonable for the landlord to use its discretion and to decant the resident under the circumstances.
  2. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about how its contractors had treated her property whilst she was decanted. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its contractors placing the resident’s items from the kitchen where rat poison had been and it apologised for its contractors not using shoe covers, leaving the residents carpet dirty. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer £100 as a goodwill gesture for the replaced crockery, which demonstrated an attempt to put things right for resident.
  3. In addition, the resident raised the issue of having to chase the landlord for meal vouchers throughout her decant, in her escalation to stage 2. It was appropriate for the landlord to then include this within its investigation and respond to her concerns within its stage 2 response. The landlord’s records indicate that a meal allowance was included in the hotel bookings, but its records do not show how this was communicated to the resident and the landlord did not dispute the resident’s comments. It appropriately acknowledged the resident’s concerns, apologised for her experience, and for its poor communication while decanted within its stage 2 response.
  4. From its records, the landlord failed to demonstrate throughout the decant process that it communicated in a timely and empathetic manner. It failed to demonstrate that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities once it had decanted her, and it failed to manage her decant in an efficient way. This resulted in the resident experiencing distress and spending time and trouble in escalating her complaint.
  5. The landlord’s present decants policy came into effect after the period of the complaint and it is not evident what policy, if any, was in place at the time. However, it would nevertheless have been best practise, as noted above, to keep the resident up to date on the repairs or given a timeframe for her decant.  It is not evident that the landlord had a plan of works, including timescales at the time it decanted the resident. It therefore failed to manage the resident’s expectations which resulted in the resident spending time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates and a prolonged stay in a hotel with limited facilities.
  6. As the landlord did not have a plan of works, the resident’s hotel booking was extended multiple times, causing distress. The initial booking was for just 7 nights and was extended 8 times. It is evident from the information provided that this was usually done on the day of the booking expiry, the resident advised the landlord of the distress this caused her on 27 February 2023 and requested the landlord inform the hotel prior to the booking expiry. It is not evident that the landlord took this into consideration when extending future bookings. The resident was clearly left upset by this and contacted the landlord on numerous occasions to advise the impact this was having.
  7. In addition, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it communicated to the resident that she could return to her home in a clear and empathetic way. The resident was advised that her property was habitable on 20 April 2023. She stated that she received a message out of the blue confirming the property was now habitable and that the hotel would not be extended. The resident advised that she was expected to leave the hotel at 8pm, with no support from the landlord to do so. In the circumstances, the landlord should allow for a reasonable amount of notice and provide a high level of communication. However, the landlord did not dispute this and acknowledged in its stage 1 response it could have handled the end of the decant better.
  8. The resident said she did not feel comfortable returning as the work had not been completed as agreed, she therefore spent time on a family members sofa for a number of weeks. As noted above, the landlord had been provided with evidence from its contractor works that had been completed and there was no evidence to suggest that the property was not habitable. Therefore, aside from the short notice it gave, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to return to the property.
  9. In summary, there was a pattern of poor communication and oversight by the landlord in this case. It is clear that it did not have a plan to carry out remedial works in a timely manner whilst the resident was decanted which prolonged the time the resident remained in a hotel. This caused inconvenience as the resident had limited facilities on a daily basis. Overall, the landlord did not dispute that its service fell below its expected standard. The landlord appropriately identified its service failings in its stage 2 response, apologised and offered financial redress. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
  10. As noted above, the landlord offered £1,000 in its complaint, for the distress and inconvenience caused, time and trouble due to the delays experienced. The landlord also acknowledged the length of time take and poor service Having considered the available evidence, the Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the leak, subsequent rat infestation, and decant.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its response to reports of a leak at the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its response to reports of a rat infestation at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its handling of the resident’s decant.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pay the resident its previous offer £1,000 alongside the £100 goodwill gesture made at stage 1, if not already done so. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress finding is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord review its handling of this case. It should consider the processes it has in place for communication during decants, its record keeping, and how it will avoid similar failings in future.