Places for People Group Limited (202424655)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202424655

Places for People Group Limited

15 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2018. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident’s 4 children live with her.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 18 December 2023 about the lack of progress on various reported repairs. She said there were failed call backs, missed appointments, and a lack of interest from the landlord. She said an operative entered the property to take photographs when her underage son was home alone.
  3. In its stage 1 response of 10 June 2024, the landlord upheld the complaint. It listed the reported repairs, and acknowledged older complaints it had previously responded to, accepting the lengthy time taken to resolve things. It accepted repairs had not been completed and apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused. It said it had now completed all the reported repairs, and the kitchen would be replaced in September 2024. It offered £550 (£250 for distress and inconvenience and £300 for time and trouble).
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 17 July 2024. She reiterated her complaint points and said she had been pregnant and looking after 2 children, one of whom was vulnerable. She said her carpet and flooring were damaged by the leak and the work in the en-suite bathroom was not yet completed. She said the visit where an operative entered the property while her son was alone had left them both worried and frightened, which she had reported.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 September 2024. It set out a more detailed description of the reported repairs and its actions on them. It reiterated its earlier comments and added:
    1. It would prioritise the outstanding finishing work for the en-suite bathroom, sincerely apologising for the oversight.
    2. It was genuinely sorry for stress caused by the repeated delays, failed appointments, and lack of timely communication. It fully understood how frustrating it must have been to repeatedly chase for updates and action.
    3. It was entirely inappropriate and a breach of internal protocols for the operative to proceed with the visit in the resident’s absence. It apologised for this unacceptable lapse in judgement and the discomfort caused; it would ensure this did not happen again.
    4. It was not directly responsible for personal belongings, and damage to them was typically covered by the resident’s own contents insurance. However, she should complete a formal claim form, which would be considered by its insurer. It advised this process was separate from the complaint and the insurer would communicate its findings directly to her.
    5. It offered £700 compensation (£250 for distress and inconvenience and £450 for time and trouble).
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us and said that most of the work had been completed, and the kitchen was replaced. She said the landlord had told her the boiler would be replaced as part of major works; she did not say if the advised timeframe was unacceptable to her. She wanted higher compensation for the impact of the landlord’s failures.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

  1. The resident has told us about ongoing issues she has with the landlord. Amongst other things, she says she needs a bigger property and is unhappy with the insurer’s response to her claim for damage to personal belongings. We are only able to consider issues which have first been raised with the landlord and addressed through its complaints process. Therefore, if the resident is unhappy about these matters, including any concerns about the planned major works, she should first make her complaint to the landlord (if she has not done so already). If this completes the landlord’s complaint process, the resident may refer it to us then.
  2. The landlord has fully accepted its service failures in its complaint responses. It has sincerely apologised and offered compensation. There is nothing further we can usefully add to that. The landlord’s actions demonstrate that it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Therefore, the question before us is whether these failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
  3. The resident has been candid and open about the impact on her as a single parent responsible for a vulnerable child. She has also shared that she was first looking after her terminally ill partner and then dealing with his loss during this period. She also gave birth to twins and had to return with them to the property before the repairs were completed. There is no doubt that it has been very difficult for her, and the landlord’s failures added to her stress, upset, trouble, and inconvenience.
  4. However, in identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  5. Our own remedies guidance indicates that an award of £700 compensation might be appropriate where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. That is the case here. Having considered the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we find that this sum was proportionate to the failings identified. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her reports of repairs.
  6. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the £700 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’.
  2. The policy set out timeframes; 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint at both stages, 10 working days for a full response at stage 1 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed), and 20 working days at stage 2 (with an extension of an extra 20 working days if needed). Where an extension is needed, the resident should be told why and updates should be agreed.
  3. The policy further says a complaint response will be provided when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed.
  4. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction on 18 December 2023 and explicitly told the landlord she wanted to complain on 20 December 2023. She then had to chase the landlord (while in hospital for the delivery of her twins) before it formally acknowledged her complaint on 15 April 2024. It then issued its stage 1 response on 11 June 2024 (letter dated 10 June 2024). This was 120 working days later, significantly outside its policy timeframe.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 17 July 2024, and this was acknowledged the same day. The stage 2 response was then issued on 20 September 2024, 47 working days later. This was outside the policy timeframe.
  6. We have not seen evidence of any updates provided or extensions agreed with the resident. Internal records show that repairs were arranged and monitored during the period in question. However, if the responses were on hold for this reason, this was in contravention of the complaint policy. Further, even if that was the case, we have not seen evidence that this was explained to the resident. The complaint responses did not acknowledge the delays nor explain them.
  7. We have identified maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It is ordered to write to the resident with an apology and to pay £200 compensation for the upset, inconvenience, and confusion caused by its complaint handling failures, in line with our remedies guidance.
  8. On 8 February 2024 we issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in policy and practice. The Code applied from 1 April 2024 and we have a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
  9. However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.

Determination

  1. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s report of repairs.
  2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Written to the resident with an apology (with reference to our remedies guidance to ensure the apology is sincere and appropriate) for its failures in complaint handling.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £200 compensation for its failures in complaint handling.
    3. Reviewed the complaint handling failures highlighted in this investigation alongside the provisions of the Code.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the £700 offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid.