Places for People Group Limited (202406088)

Background

1. The resident owns and lives in an apartment within a block. The landlord is the freeholder, and it employs a company to manage the block. The resident pays a variable service charge for the communal areas. He complained the landlord was not adequately managing, maintaining, or repairing the building and the estate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Management of the resident’s building and estate.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s building and estate.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s management of the resident’s building and estate

4. The landlord repeatedly failed to manage the resident’s building and estate properly. It took too long to address cleaning, maintenance, safety and repair issues and it has not resolved all the issues. The communication between the landlord and its management company was poor, which left the resident uncertain about who was responsible for resolving problems. Its offer of £500 compensation did not reflect the scale or duration of the failings.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It took 5 months to send its first complaint response. It then failed to record or acknowledge the resident’s escalated complaint. He had to repeatedly chase the landlord over 6 months and seek help from his MP and us. The landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed even further, and it did not explain why it had not escalated it sooner. Its prolonged final complaint response caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

6. The resident complained about the reasonableness of some of the service charges he incurred. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) is responsible for determining the reasonableness of service charges, so we have not considered this. The resident may wish to get further advice if he wants to pursue this matter through the FTT.
7. The resident raised old and new issues. We do not normally look at matters that happened 12 months before the complaint or new issues raised after the landlord’s stage 1 response. In this case because the landlord took too long to respond to the complaint, we have widened our investigation. However, we have not considered all the new issues. These include a repair to the balcony door, an overgrown tree, reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and alleged breaches of the lease conditions by other residents. We have advised the resident he may raise these concerns as a new complaint.

What we have considered

8. We have considered events leading up to the resident’s complaint in September 2023 until July 2025, when the landlord sent its final complaint response. We have also considered its actions to resolve the issues to date.
9. The resident’s lease says the landlord is responsible for maintaining, decorating and repairing the building’s structure and external parts. This includes entry systems, bin stores, entrance landings and landscaped areas. The landlord instructed a management company to manage the estate and communal areas in April 2024. There is a service level agreement between the parties which outlines its service standards. This includes ensuring they respond to customer emails within 5 working days.
10. The landlord’s communications with the resident were significantly delayed in this case. It was aware the resident raised numerous issues but did not keep him updated on its actions, as agreed in February 2024. The landlord’s records were limited so we could not conclude whether it did what it said it would in some instances.

Cleaning services and maintenance of communal areas and the estate

11. The resident asked the landlord to refund charges for cleaning services it had not done or that he said were unnecessary. Landlords must refund charges for services it has not provided and consider whether charges are reasonable. In this case the landlord acknowledged its contractors had been cleaning the wrong block and missed visits. It agreed to consult with other residents about the frequency of the external window cleaning, to monitor the internal cleaning services and deep clean the communal carpet.
12. The landlord’s apology and offer to credit the resident’s account with £450 for services it had not delivered went some way to resolving this part of the resident’s complaint. However, it took too long to act. It eventually monitored the site and found its services had improved. However, it did not consult with the residents in the block about altering the frequency of the cleaning. The resident said the landlord did not fully resolve the stained carpet issue or credit his account, which leaves these issues unresolved.
13. The resident complained in early 2024 that the gardens and pathways near his property were poorly maintained. The landlord’s response to this issue was delayed, and it has not fully resolved the issues. It inspected the site in early 2025 and agreed to do works including topping up the bark and clearing moss from the car park and pathways. The resident told us the landlord resolved most of the landscaping issues (we have not seen a record of this). However, he said the landlord scraped the moss off the pathways rather than chemically treating it, and the moss has returned.

Safety concerns which include fire safety and blocked guttering

14. The resident complained that the landlord’s fire procedures in the building were unclear. He was concerned the landlord had not followed recommendations in an independent fire risk assessment to remove the communal alarm. He said the landlord should consider removing the alarm because if it sounded residents may try to leave the building instead of following “stay put” procedures.
15. In February 2024 the landlord said it was reviewing fire safety on several sites. It agreed to keep the resident updated but failed to do so. The resident chased the landlord for a response on several occasions during the next 12 months. In its stage 2 response in January 2025 the landlord said it would not remove the alarm because it was risk-assessing all its cladded buildings. However, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations about how long this might take, and this issue is unresolved.
16. The resident also said the landlord had not clearly communicated safety instructions to all residents. Under Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 landlords must display evacuation instructions in a clearly visible place. The landlord provided a copy of its fire emergency plan dated May 2024. When it inspected the building in April 2025, it said it found no issues with its fire safety. However, its site report said it had not updated its notice board, so it is unclear if it displayed its fire procedures in the communal area.
17. The resident raised his concerns with the fire service in December 2025. The landlord subsequently met with the fire service later that month. Within internal communications, the landlord said the fire service were “satisfied with the building’s compliance” but they would let them know the outcome of their inspection. We have ordered the landlord to let the resident know the outcome of this inspection.
18. In September 2024 the resident also reported that his gutters were blocked, and water was overflowing onto gas meters, causing a potential hazard. He said the gutters need to be repaired. The landlord took too long to respond to this, as its policy says it should at least respond within 28 days. It acknowledged within internal emails in May 2025 that it needed to unblock the gutters as water was overflowing. However, there is no evidence it prioritised or scheduled these works which is unreasonable due to the potential hazard.

Repairs and decoration issues

19. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to appointable repairs within 28 days and planned repairs within 90 days. The resident reported several repairs to the landlord in April 2023. The landlord did not complete them within its policy timeframes and the resident complained in September 2023. The issues included problems with the entrance door, his external extractor fan cover coming off, paint peeling from wood cladding, broken bin store lock and issues with the intercom. He also asked the landlord to consider replacing the front door.
20. The landlord agreed to resolve the issues in its first complaint response in February 2024. It said it had done interim repairs to the communal door but acknowledged it would need a more permanent solution. It agreed to fix the intercom and not charge him for revisiting if it could not complete the work in one visit. It said it would be clear on what it had credited back to his service charge account. There is no evidence it resolved these issues or explained whether it credited the resident’s account.
21. The resident spent a lot of time and trouble chasing the issues for over 2 years from September 2023 to November 2025. The landlord has not scheduled any of the works. This is a failing. The resident told the landlord some issues had worsened. He said the exterior wood cladding was rotting and birds or bats were coming in through the broken extractor fan.
22. In December 2025 the landlord outlined its plans to resolve the repair issues but missed an opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations about when it would start these works. It is also unclear whether it has included all the repairs and it has not shown it consulted with other residents where appropriate. This includes considering longer-term solutions for resolving the issues the resident reported with the front entrance door banging shut.

 Overall management and communication including explaining service charges

23. Poor communication between the landlord and its management company caused significant delays and confusion about who was responsible. This left the resident unsure who to contact. He was particularly frustrated when the management company asked for communal keys it said the landlord had not provided when it took over 7 months earlier.
24. The resident also queried the landlord’s calculation and apportionment of his service charges when he complained in September 2023. The landlord explained why its charges were not as detailed as he had previously received and offered to provide a breakdown. The resident asked for further information when he escalated his complaint in March 2024. The landlord explained this when it issued its stage 2 response in January 2025. However, its response to this issue was significantly delayed.
25. The landlord agreed its service failed and offered the resident £500 compensation for his time and trouble. Where a landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether the redress it offered was in line with our dispute resolution principles: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In this case the landlord took too long to respond to the issues the resident raised and most remain unresolved. This has caused him a lot of frustration and inconvenience. 
26. We found maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s building and estate. The compensation it offered was not proportionate to our findings. We ordered the landlord to apologise and pay an additional £500 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused the resident. This amount is consistent with our remedies guidance where issues remained unresolved over a prolonged period.

27. The landlord’s complaints policy dated June 2024 says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. These response times are in line with the 2022 and 2024 versions of our Code, which both apply in this case.
28. The resident complained to the landlord through his MP on 20 September 2023. The landlord logged and acknowledged the complaint within the required timeframes. However, it failed to respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. The MP chased the landlord on 13 October 2023, but it did not provide an update or response. Its response on 22 February 2024, was significantly delayed as it was 5 months after he had complained.
29. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 8 March 2024. The landlord failed to record or acknowledge this request. Over the next 6 months the resident spent time and trouble chasing the landlord for a response on at least 6 occasions. He also sought help from his MP and us. The landlord eventually acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 November 2024. This was a long and unreasonable delay.
30. We gave the landlord a timeframe to respond to the complaint. The landlord told us and the resident it needed more time and extended its response to 10 January 2025. It asked us for a further extension to 15 January 2025 but failed to meet this deadline and responded on 23 January 2025.
31. The landlord’s internal communications in May 2025 say it could not find a record of the resident’s initial complaint, or escalation request. In its stage 2 complaint response it apologised and said it would review how this happened. However, it did not explain how it missed his earlier communications.
32. The landlord appeared to create a third complaint stage in this case. Rather than directing the resident to our service, it offered further compensation and other complaint final response on 28 July 2025. This was not in line with its policy, which operates a 2–stage complaint procedure.
33. We found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its failures led to a long and drawn-out complaints process for the resident, which delayed the resolution. The landlord offered compensation but did not explain how much of this related to these delays. We have ordered the landlord to pay £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This is consistent with the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

34. The landlord’s complaint handling was extremely poor in this case. The landlord should consider how it can improve its information for resident’s about how to escalate complaints to its central complaint handling team. It should also ensure it directs residents to our service in line with the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord’s records were extremely limited in this case and it lost records. It said it was tracking the resident’s issues on a log but provided no evidence of this. The landlord should keep thorough records so it can better manage residents’ issues and provide a good service.

Communication

The landlord’s overall communication with the resident and other residents in the building was lacking and not in line with its policies. It failed to provide information in a timely way and gave confusing messages about who was responsible. The landlord would benefit from improving its processes to ensure they are more customer focused.