Places for People Group Limited (202431739)

Decision
Case ID	202431739
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	28 January 2026

Background

The landlord uses a managing agent, both are referred to as ‘the landlord’ throughout this report. On 21 November 2023 it issued an invoice advising that the service charge accounts for the year ending 31 March 2023 were in deficit, with £2,800 payable by the resident. The resident requested further details, including a full breakdown of the works. The landlord advised it had put her account on hold for 28 days while it dealt with the issue. The resident had not received its response when it deducted the full amount from her bank account on 18 January 2024.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Query about the service charge deficit.
2. Direct debit query.
The landlord’s complaint handling

Our decision (determination)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s query about the service charge deficit.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s direct debit query.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have treated the resident’s request as engaging in the section 21/22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord did not recognise this. While the landlord recognised it had not issued the section 20B, it did not review which invoices were still chargeable. We have not seen evidence the landlord emailed the resident with invoices as it promised to do. The landlord repeatedly did not recognise its failings and made no attempt to put things right.
The landlord recognised its direct debit error and, prior to our involvement, offered reasonable redress for this failing.
While the landlord should not have issued a second final response letter, we believed this was an administration error rather than a complaint handling failure.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s query about the service charge deficit. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This does not include any previous compensation offer made by the landlord.	No later than 26 February 2026
3	The landlord is to review whether it included costs which it incurred more than 18 months prior to the demand. If it did, it is to remove these. The landlord is to communicate its findings to us and the resident.	No later than 26 February 2026
4	The landlord is to provide the resident with the invoices it said it would in its second final response letter. This is to include the scope of the work, the date, and cost of them. If the landlord has already done this, it is to resend this email to both us and the resident.	No later than 26 February 2026

Recommendation

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

Our recommendations
We emphasise that we made the reasonable redress finding on the provision the landlord has either paid or offers again to pay the resident the £100 for its direct debit failures. If the landlord does not do this, it would undermine our finding, and we may revisit this decision.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 January 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about her disappointment and frustration as it took £2800 from her despite its reassurances that her account was on hold. She also said she had repeatedly asked the landlord for the deficit details, but it had not yet provided her with them.
1 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It apologised and: Said the payment was taken due to a system error. Offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience and for any bank charges the resident had incurred. Confirmed it had returned the funds and cancelled her direct debit. Explained, as it said it already had in the service charge demand, that the deficit arose from works at the resident’s block. This included bin, bike store, and riser cupboard clearances. Also, fire and safety works, and it did not budget for the 10-year electrical check. Acknowledged it should have notified residents of any expected deficit once it became aware of this under a section 20B notice. It apologised that this had not happened. Offered to set up a direct debit for the ongoing charges and a separate one, to pay the deficit over 12 months.
7 February 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said she was willing to pay the ongoing charges but did not agree to pay the deficit while the matter remained unresolved. She said the landlord’s response lacked sufficient detail. The resident queried the cost and work involved in the clearances and the smoke seals and intumescent strips. She also asked what remedial fire compartmentation works had been required, given that the building was less than 10 years old. She asked which doors had required repair and whether any fire doors should have been replaced rather than repaired. The resident requested a full breakdown of the works, including dates and costs, a copy of the most recent fire inspection, and clarification as to why a 10-year electrical inspection was required when the buildings was under 10 years old. She also asked whether the landlord had assessed or recertified the electrics following a fire in the block.
6 March 2024	The landlord issued its final response letter. It agreed to set up a direct debit for the ongoing charges only. It offered for the resident the opportunity to attend its offices to view the invoices. The landlord said the bin, bike stores and the riser cupboards clearance works had been carried out on more than one occasion. It said the fire compartmentation works had previously been signed off, but changes in regulations had meant that improvements were required. These included additional works to smoke seals, intumescent strips, and repairs to fire doors, with replacement if necessary. The landlord reoffered the £100 compensation and it would contact her once she had seen the invoices.
16 April 2024	The landlord issued a second final response in reply to an email from the resident after its initial final response. It offered to email copies of the invoices to the resident. It reiterated that it had not issued a section 20B notice in relation to the service charge deficit.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said she brought the case to us due to her concerns about the size of the deficit and the landlord’s handling of the direct debit. She said the landlord had not provided the invoices it said it would in its second final response letter. As a resolution she would like the landlord to provide these so she can decide what further action to take.

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	The landlord’s response to the resident’s query about the service charge deficit.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

We do not investigate complaints about the level or reasonableness of service charges. As the resident’s complaint centres on the service charge deficit being too high, we recognise that the resident may also be seeking for us to establish whether the service charges were reasonable. This will not form part of our investigation, however, as the tribunal or court are better placed to consider such matters, given their powers and expertise. We have only considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries, and how it handled her direct debit issue.

What we have investigated

After receiving the landlord’s invoice, the resident telephoned the landlord twice before emailing on 30 November 2023 to request a breakdown of the deficit. She set out specific points on which she sought further information. The resident followed up on at least 4 occasions before she raised her formal complaint on 18 January 2024.
In both the landlord’s deficit letter and stage 1 response it referred to the requirement to do the 10-year electrical testing. The resident raised her query that the building was not 10 years old. The landlord did not address this point. We have seen in the budget the landlord stated it needed to do the electrical testing every 5 years. This was a query the landlord could have easily answered, and it is disappointing it did not.
The resident’s request should have been a clear signal to the landlord that she was seeking to exercise statutory scrutiny rights. It would have been reasonable for it to have treated her request as engaging with section 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. While we have not seen evidence the resident explicitly asked for the summary of costs, we saw her asking for the invoices. This was premature because the section 21 summary needs to be requested first. However, the landlord should have recognised what the resident wanted. Under section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is obliged to provide the resident with a summary of the service charge costs within a month of her request. The landlord did not do this.
When the landlord responded in its stage 1 response, it largely reiterated the information already given in the deficit demand. This did not answer the resident’s questions and was not positive complaint handling.
The landlord, in its final response letter, provided some further insight into the deficit breakdown, but not the detail the resident requested. It offered for the resident to view the invoices at its offices. We believe it should have offered this resolution sooner. It should have recognised the resident was seeking to exercise her rights under section 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. If the landlord were unsure about whether this is what the resident wanted, it should have clarified this with her.
The resident contacted the landlord to say she did not think it was reasonable for her to take time off work to travel to their offices. We recognise the landlord, in its second final response letter, offered the resident a more practical solution of emailing the invoices. The landlord could have offered this sooner.
The resident advised us that the landlord did not email the invoices to her. The landlord has not provided us with the evidence it did this either. In our view, this was a clear failure in service. We have made an order for the landlord to share this information or to provide evidence that it already has.
Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to either demand service charges within 18 months of it incurring the costs or notify a resident within that time that it incurred the costs and will charge them later (via a notice). Issuing a valid section 20B notice allows the landlord to recover charges even if the actual accounts are provided after 18 months.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged and apologised it had not issued the section 20B. Once it had recognised it had not issued this, it should have reviewed what charges it could legally recover. It should have then confirmed this to the resident. As the landlord did not do this, we have made an order to this effect.
The landlord repeatedly did not provide the resident with the information she requested. It did not act in line with its legal obligations. It did not recognise or provide any redress for this. The resident clearly verbalised her frustration to us on this matter and the stress she feels having a debt outstanding.
The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with the information, in addition to its lack of recognition of its failings lead us to make a finding of maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s direct debit query.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord put the resident’s account on hold for 28 days while it resolved her deficit query. When it did this, it said it should not need to be on hold for that length of time. However, during the 28 days it had not progressed the query and then took the full amount of the deficit from the resident’s account.
Through its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for its system error and offered the resident £100. This was to compensate for the distress and inconvenience and any bank charges.
While undesired, we recognise errors do happen. The landlord subsequently acknowledged and apologised for its error and took steps to make an appropriate remedy. As such, we have determined that the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord acted within the timescales set out in its complaints policy when issuing its stage 1 and final response letters.
The landlord acted outside its complaint policy and not in line with our Code when it issued a second final response letter. The landlord, in this response, addressed an issue which the resident had not previously raised. It also offered to email the invoices to the resident which was a more reasonable solution. However, this should not have been issued as a further final response.
We believe the landlord was attempting to resolve the resident’s new and existing concerns. We also do not believe that there was any significant impact in the landlord’s error in providing a second final response but have identified below how the landlord can learn from this for future complaints. We found no maladministration in relation to complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did not provide us with evidence that it included the summary of rights and obligations with the deficit letter / accounts for the year ending 31 March 2023. The landlord may have sent this to the resident, but we have not seen evidence of this. We would like to remind the landlord of its legal obligation to send a summary of the resident’s rights and obligations when it sends a service charge demand.

Communication

The landlord should recognise that it is likely to cause frustration when it largely responds to a query with the information it already provided. The landlord should identify the specific concerns of the resident and respond to them.
The landlord should not send residents more than one final response letter for a complaint it has taken through its process.