Places for People Group Limited (202407584)

Decision
Case ID	202407584
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

 

Background

1. The resident complained about poor management of grounds maintenance, including a parking area and the associated service charges.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of poor grounds maintenance and the associated charges.
   2. Complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of poor grounds maintenance and the associated charges.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Reports of poor grounds maintenance and the associated charges

4. The landlord acknowledged some failings and offered compensation. However, it failed to carry out promised actions, leaving the issues unresolved.

The complaint

5. The landlord acknowledged its delays in the handling of the complaint. It apologised and offered redress in line with our remedies guidance.

 

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	Clarification order The landlord must write to the resident with the following by the due date: a full specification of grounds maintenance works, including expected tasks, visit frequency and how it monitors this clarification of its position regarding the parking area and what steps it proposes to take a full breakdown of the service charges, including any year end accounts from April 2021 to date  an explanation of the 6 week credit issued for the 6 missed appointments in its complaint response	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £350 for distress and inconvenience, as offered in its complaint response. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payment it has already paid.	No later than 27 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 offered in its complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for its complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 May 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about poor grounds maintenance. She said the work quality was poor and the charge had increased without explanation. She said it lacked transparency and had been unable to evidence the costs. She also said no credits were applied for missed visits and added it was maintaining and charging for a parking area that was not used by its residents.
10 November 2023	The Landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It acknowledged grounds maintenance visits had been missed and said operatives would now attend fortnightly. It explained how it had calculated the charges and said the amount was acceptable. It said previous discussions had covered the parking area and that no further action was possible, but it would continue to maintain and charge for this. It offered to compensate for a valet of the resident’s car.
8 March 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said the grounds maintenance had not improved, and its stage 1 response had taken 9 months.
30 May 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It provided a detailed explanation of its service charge calculation. It confirmed 6 missed grounds maintenance visits in 2023 and said it would credit the cost. It said enhanced monitoring and ad-hoc checks were now in place. It was considering warning signs for the parking area as a deterrent to non-residents. It explained any enforcement action would require consultation. It apologised for its grounds maintenance failings and delays. It offered £500 compensation comprising: £150 for distress and inconvenience £350 for time and trouble
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and asked us to investigate. She said the charges lacked transparency and the grounds maintenance remained poor. She wanted additional compensation, clear confirmation of the charges, and a change in its approach.

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	Reports of poor grounds maintenance and the associated charges
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

6. The resident told us the situation was causing stress and affecting her mental health. The courts are best placed to deal with these types of disputes as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
7. The resident disputed the service charge costs. We may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. We can, however, consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

 

What we did investigate

8. The landlord provided limited evidence in relation to this case which has affected our ability to accurately assess the timeline of events. This suggests a record keeping failure. Our investigation has therefore relied on the available evidence.
9. It is unclear when the resident first reported poor grounds maintenance to the landlord. After making her complaint, she said the operative was careless, leaving debris on her car and property. She also said it proposed restricting the parking area to residents only but felt this would cause road congestion and would leave the spaces unused. Its stage 1 response addressed some issues but gave limited clarity and did not resolve her concerns.
10. On 26 March 2024, the landlord met with the resident on site, 10 months after she raised her complaint. She again raised concerns about the grounds maintenance. Two days later she reported further poor service. It said it would speak with the operatives. While this was a positive step, it could have acted sooner and prevented the delays she experienced.
11. The landlord’s final response to the resident showed some consideration for signage and parking enforcement for the parking area but there is no evidence it progressed this further. Her desired outcome was unclear. Evidence shows it did not carry out promised monthly monitoring and ad hoc visits. Evidence shows 2 site inspections in July 2024 and January 2025 which raised no concerns, yet she continued to report poor service. There is also no evidence that it progressed consultations for the parking area or offered alternatives. She advised the dispute continues. This shows it failed to deliver on its promised actions to carry out monthly and ad hoc visits, as promised in its stage 2 response, to monitor the grounds maintenance service.
12. In October 2023, 5 months after the resident raised concerns about transparency of service charges, the landlord provided a break down of costs. It also explained how it calculated charges. This response was reasonable, but the delay falls short of expected standards.
13. The landlord’s complaint responses to the resident gave provided some explanation. However, 5 weeks later, she questioned the credit and asked for more detail on the charges. It appears it credited 6 weeks payments, rather than 6 visits. This likely led to confusion. In September 2024, she raised a separate complaint about charging errors. There is no evidence it addressed these concerns which likely increased her frustration.
14. In summary, while the landlord apologised for its poor service and offered £350 for distress and inconvenience, it failed to carry out promised actions, leaving the resident’s concerns unresolved. Our outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. We have therefore ordered it to complete the outstanding actions and provide clarity of its position. It compensation offer was, however, within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code. However, the Code allows extensions of up to ten working days at each stage, and the landlord’s policy did not state any timescales.
16. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint 9 days late, outside the 5 working day target in its policy. It requested a 3 week extension but then took a further 177 working days to issue its response, 167 days later than its 10 working days policy timescale.
17. The landlord sent its stage 2 response 30 days late based on the 20 working days set out in its policy. It did however request an extension which it complied with.
18. There were inaccuracies in the landlord’s complaint responses, including the stage 1 response being dated November 2023 but not issued until 16 February 2024, as confirmed at stage 2. The total compensation stated at stage 2 was also incorrect. Landlords must ensure accuracy in complaint responses.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delays at both stages. While it did not specify an amount of compensation for its complaint handling, we have taken the view that its £150 offer related to this. This was in line with the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance.

Learning

General learning

20. The landlord’s £500 compensation offer lacked clarity, as such we made an assumption about its breakdown. It should consider defining its offers to reflect the relevant complaint element to improve understanding.
21. Landlords must ensure accuracy of information in complaint responses to avoid confusion.
22. Landlords must ensure they provide clear information about service charges.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord’s lack of evidence made it challenging to assess the timeline of events. Accurate records must be kept and shared during investigations. It should view our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

24. Landlords must maintain clear communication with residents, so they are aware of actions taken and progression of queries and complaints.