Places for People Group Limited (202412680)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412680

Places for People Group Limited

9 September 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. This complaint is about how the landlord handled a leak into the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is the owner of his flat under a shared ownership lease. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 27 March 2024, a leak from the flat above started in the resident’s property. He reported this to the landlord’s managing agents (who manage the communal areas of the block) by email on 28 March 2024. He made a complaint about the leak in the same email.
  3. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 15 April 2024 and a stage 2 response on 22 May 2024. It said that claims for leaks from other flats can be reported to insurers, and any excess would be the resident’s responsibility to pay.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. When referring his complaint to us, the resident raised concerns about the level of soundproofing between properties. This was not part of his complaint to the landlord so we cannot consider it as part of this investigation.

Leak

  1. The resident is the shared owner of his property, while the flat above is a tenanted property owned by the landlord. The landlord therefore has different repair obligations for each of the flats.
  2. While the landlord is responsible for repairing the internal pipework (amongst other things) in the flat above, its repair obligations for the resident’s property are limited to those set out in the lease. Under the terms of the lease, the landlord has no responsibility for internal repairs to the resident’s property. Such repairs are the resident’s responsibility. This includes the walls, floors, ceilings, and electrics.
  3. The leak from the property above started on 27 March 2024. There is no evidence that the leak was a continuation of any previous leaks, or that the landlord had been notified of the leak before that date. The landlord’s repair obligations arose when it was told about the leak.
  4. The evidence provided shows the landlord logged an emergency repair, inspected the leak on 28 March 2024, and identified the cause of the leak. It fixed the leak that day. This was in line with both its responsive repairs policy and good industry practice. It also followed up with its tenant to confirm the repair had fixed the leak, which was good practice. As such, there were no unreasonable delays in resolving the leak, and nothing which would prompt a need for further action by the landlord.
  5. We do not dispute that the resident may well have been put to a significant amount of time and trouble dealing with the aftermath of the leak, and that the repairs needed to his property may have been significant. However, damage to the interior of the property would fall under the leaseholder repair obligations, not the landlord’s.
  6. In the absence of any evidence demonstrating that failings on the landlord’s part (such as delays in fixing the leak), rather than the leak itself, led to the damage to the resident’s property, we cannot reasonably conclude that the landlord is responsible for repairing any damage the leak caused to the resident’s property. Such repairs would be for the resident to carry out, either himself or through the buildings insurance.
  7. We understand that the resident made a buildings insurance claim, and that the insurer has settled the claim, less the excess. He has raised concerns about delays in the claim, and said he believes the landlord was required to make the claim for him, and to pay the excess.
  8. The landlord takes out an insurance policy for the building under the terms of the lease. The policy is for the benefit of all leaseholders in the building, not just the landlord. Such policies usually include an excess for each claim. It is for the leaseholder who has suffered a loss to make a claim for that loss. And it is for the leaseholder who has made the claim, not the landlord, to pay the excess.
  9. While the landlord arranges the policy, it is not responsible for the actions of the insurer, or for making claims on behalf of residents. The landlord is not responsible for any delays by the buildings insurer in accepting the claim or carrying out any repairs, save for where the landlord has caused those delays. We have seen no evidence which suggests the landlord delayed the resident’s insurance claim. Any complaints about delays with the claim would be for the insurer to address.
  10. It may have been helpful for the landlord to inform the resident at the outset that it had fixed the leak on 28 March 2024, given that he had contacted the managing agent to report this. We would have expected there to be an arrangement between the landlord and its agent that anything which required the landlord’s attention (and not the agent’s) be forwarded to it.
  11. However, we have seen no evidence that this caused the resident any specific detriment. This is because the leak repair was still completed within a reasonable timeframe, and the resident was aware of the need to make an insurance claim for the damage to his property. As we have seen no evidence that this caused any detriment, we find there has been no maladministration. However, we have made a recommendation in this regard below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of a leak into the resident’s property.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend that the landlord reviews the communication arrangements it has in place with its managing agent to ensure all communication which is not related to the communal areas is promptly forwarded to the landlord.
  2. The landlord should let us know its intentions with regard to the above recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this report.