Places for People Group Limited (202446442)

Decision
Case ID	202446442
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 December 2025

Background

The resident has health diagnoses including chronic fatigue syndrome and respiratory illness. The resident reported issues with the property to the landlord including noxious odours and damp. He said the property was uninhabitable and asked to be moved. The landlord advised the resident that it could not authorise a move to another property because he had rent arrears. For the purposes of this report both the resident and his representative are referred to as ‘the resident.’

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s report that the property was not fit for habitation
2. handling of the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that the property was not fit for habitation
2. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The property was not fit for habitation

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it undertook a thorough investigation by a qualified surveyor to assess if the property was fit for habitation.
It failed to consider the resident’s individual circumstances and its response lacked empathy.
It also failed to manage the resident’s expectations around his request to move to alternative accommodation.

Handling of the associated complaint

There were delays at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process.
The landlord failed to acknowledge its failures at stage 2 and therefore failed to try to put things right.

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 09 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s report that the property was not fit for habitation £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures 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 payments it has already paid.	No later than 09 January 2026
4	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: inspects the drains in the immediate locality of the property and, the concrete floor, for evidence of damp and mould and odours. It must produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works If the landlord finds that the property is unfit for habitation it must consider its position regarding the rent arrears. It must write to the resident to set out the reasons for its decision.	No later than 09 January 2026
5	Review order The landlord should review the resident’s request to move in line with its policy. It should write to him to set out the reasons for its decision.	No later than 09 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord could write to the resident to confirm how he can make a personal injury claim on its insurance in line with its compensation policy.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 January 2025	The resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint about issues at the property which were affecting his health. He said the property was uninhabitable and asked for an immediate investigation.
5 February 2025	The resident emailed the landlord to make a formal complaint about its inaction which was damaging his health, as follows: he had suffered gas poisoning and chemical exposure from the degrading floor there was inadequate ventilation in the kitchen, bathroom and boiler cupboard he needed an immediate transfer to an alternative property the landlord should carry out a full independent environmental survey of the gas and potential sewer infiltration affecting the property
2 April 2025	The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge his complaint.
16 April 2025	The landlord emailed the resident to ask to extend its complaint response to 30 April. This was so it could gather further information. On 2 May the landlord emailed again to say the deadline was extended to 15 May.
16 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and did not uphold the complaint. It said: when the resident reported the gas leak it contacted the gas network and attended alongside them it identified a leak from the main gas supply and repaired it it could raise an insurance claim on the resident’s behalf to address his concerns about the impact on his health its survey did not identify any rising or penetrating damp it attended the property on 19 February to install extractor fans in the bathroom, kitchen and to the cupboard housing the water tank but it was unable to gain access it offered to paint the floor with a suitable covering. It would provide temporary accommodation while works took place when it visited the property on 4 March there was no sign of damp or unpleasant odours, other than the smell of paint applied to the floor the resident would need to clear his rent arrears before he could move to another property it had referred the resident’s reports about his neighbour for further investigation it apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered £50 compensation
4 June 2025	The resident escalated his complaint or the following reasons: he was staying with family and friends its response downplayed the health and safety risks to him he was unhappy that it could not authorise a move until he cleared his rent arrears he requested compensation for psychological distress, displacement and disruption to his care and recovery time he asked the landlord to waive his rent arrears
18 June 2025	Following contact from the resident we wrote to the landlord to ask it to provide a response by 25 June.
25 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It identified areas where its service fell sort. It said: it did not uphold the complaint about the flooring. It offered several options which were declined by the resident the cracks were minor issues and were nothing to be concerned about when it initially booked the repair to fit the extractor fans it cancelled the repair on 25 April because its operative ran out of time. It was rebooked for 3 June which was outside of its timescales when the resident requested the appointment be rearranged it was moved to 26 June. When the resident again asked for the appointment to be moved it was booked for 8 October. This was outside of its timescales it was reviewing its failure to ensure it did not happen again in the future it reiterated the need for the resident to clear his rent arrears before he could be considered for a move it offered £60 for the failures in its response to the extractor fans the vents for the hot water tank cupboard would be booked for 8 October
4 November 2025	In the resident’s email to us he said a court claim had been adjourned to allow us to determine his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response.
1 December 2025	During his call to us the resident said the situation remained unchanged. He also said works to fit the extractor fans and vents were outstanding.

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	Response to resident’s report that the property was not fit for habitation
Finding	Maladministration

Jurisdictional points

We have carefully considered that there have been legal proceedings on largely the same matters. However, the parties have agreed – with the court – that those proceedings will be on hold pending our decision. We may not decide a complaint in the same way a court which is strictly on the law alone. Our decision may affect the parties’ rights at proceedings if they are resumed. This has been explained to them. We have investigated the complaint at the request of the resident.

Issues reported by the resident

The resident’s tenancy started on 10 January 2025. On 17 January the resident emailed the landlord to report issues with the property. This included that the concrete floor was allowing moisture and noxious odours to create a hazardous environment. He said there was damp in the property due to a lack of ventilation. He also described the impact it was having on his health and said the property was inhabitable.
On 20 January 2025 the landlord raised a damp and mould case. Its surveyor inspected the property on 22 January. On 23 January the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about the standard of the inspection, including that damp meter readings were not taken.
The landlord replied on the same day to advise that:
1. there was no smell of damp, the windows were fully open and moisture was coming in from outside
2. the floors were safe and there was no further work to be done. However, as a gesture of goodwill it would latex the bedroom floor
3. it would arrange for damp meter readings to be taken as a matter of urgency
We’ve not seen a copy of a report made at the time of the inspection which sets out the details of its process. This has impacted on our assessment.
An internal email dated 29 January 2025 confirmed that the landlord had taken damp readings and that there were no signs of damp. While this was positive it’s unclear why this did not form part of the landlord’s original inspection. Furthermore, no details have been provided to confirm where the readings were taken, by whom and what the results were. Therefore, there’s no evidence it carried out a thorough investigation of the resident’s concerns. It also said that when it was on site the resident advised he was allergic to latex.
On 24 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord a copy of a letter from his doctor dated 1 July 2024. It set out his health diagnoses and the impact of damp environments on his ear condition. It replied on the same day to arrange a settling in visit for 20 February. While this was positive its response lacked any empathy towards the resident’s situation including his concerns about his health.
On 28 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to say that when the surveyor visited they said the floor was degrading and required sealing so it did not impact on his health. He advised that the lack of extractor fans was impacting on his ability to breathe. He asserted that the property was uninhabitable and asked for a move to alternative accommodation. There’s no evidence that the landlord provided a response, which showed a lack of regard to his individual circumstances.
The resident’s email to the landlord of 31 January 2025 reported there was a leak on his gas supply which had been capped. It replied on the same day to say there was no gas to his property, only a communal gas supply. It said it had raised an urgent call with its call centre. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response advised it attended with the gas supplier who identified and repaired a leak to the main gas supply.
The landlord apologised that the incident had impacted on the resident’s health and offered to assist him to make an insurance claim. This was in line with its compensation policy which says personal injury matters will be referred to its insurer. It’s unclear if the resident pursued a claim. The landlord’s response to the reported leak was appropriate in the circumstances.
In the landlord’s email to the resident of 4 February 2025 it said it was still waiting for the surveyor’s report. We’ve not seen evidence that one was produced which was inappropriate for the reasons set out above.
During January and February 2025 the resident sent the landlord 4 emails setting out the impact the situation was having on his health. In his email of 5 February he said that during the external gas leak he’d experienced symptoms common with gas poisoning. He asked for an immediate move to alternative accommodation.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns about his health and his requests to move. This compounded the distress caused to the resident and demonstrated a lack of regard for his wellbeing.
A file note dated 10 February 2025 says a hotel booked through its temporary accommodation provider was extended to 12 February. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 16 May confirmed the resident had been moved to temporary accommodation while it painted the floor.
On 19 February 2025 the landlord emailed the resident to advise his new tenancy visit booked in for 20 February could not go ahead. The officer would contact him to rearrange.
The repair logs show it attended on 19 February 2025 to install the extractor fans but was unable to gain access. An internal email dated 24 February confirmed the resident was also unable to provide access for a further property inspection that day because he was unwell.
During a call with the landlord on 25 February 2025 the resident said he was staying at a hotel because he could not return to the property. Even though the gas to his property was capped he could smell gas fumes and odours from the external drains. He reported that cracks were beginning to appear in the floor.
The landlord’s file note of 7 March 2025 confirmed that it carried out a settling in visit on 4 March. During the visit it was unable to detect any odours, other than those related to the smell of paint on the floor, or signs of damp. While the visit was positive the inspection was not carried out by a suitably qualified surveyor. The landlord failed to provide any assurance to the resident that the property was habitable. The file note confirmed the resident remained dissatisfied.
The landlord’s response caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who requested a further inspection. The landlord’s stage 1 response dated 16 May 2025 said it visited on 24 April but could not gain access. It said that in a call to the landlord the resident asked for it to be rescheduled to 20 May. The visit was to be carried out by the Trade Supervisor. It’s unclear if they were suitably qualified to assess whether the property was habitable.
A file note dated 9 May 2025 said that during a phone call with the landlord the resident raised concerns about his neighbour disposing of liquids such as paint and varnish down the drains.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 16 May 2025 confirmed the report had been escalated to the relevant team for further consideration. There’s no evidence this was followed up with either the resident or his neighbour. The landlord failed to reassure the resident that it had taken his report seriously. This further damaged the landlord/resident relationship.
On 4 June 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate his complaint. The landlord’s failure to address his health concerns compounded his distress. Furthermore, he was unhappy that it was preventing a move from going ahead because of his arrears. His view remained that the property was not habitable.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 25 June 2025 said it had exhausted all options with the floor and there was nothing more it could do. It advised the resident that the cracks were normal. It did not uphold that part of the complaint.
It said its specialist surveyor had raised works orders to fit extractor fans and vents. It acknowledged that its scheduling of appointments was not in line with the timescales in its repairs policy.
It upheld that element of the complaint and offered compensation. While this was positive it failed to use the complaints process to expedite the repair. Given the appointment was 4 months after the date of its response it would have been appropriate to try to bring it forward. However, there’s no evidence this was considered.
The landlord failed to demonstrate empathy towards the resident’s situation nor that it had taken a robust approach to the issues reported. For example, there’s no evidence that it requested current medical evidence from the resident as part of its investigation. It failed to consider arranging an independent survey by a suitably qualified professional to determine if the property was habitable. Considering the impact on the resident’s occupation of the property this would have been appropriate.

Management move

A file note dated 2 May 2025 noted that the landlord had agreed to move the resident to another property. It said he should complete a transfer form with the relevant housing provider.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 16 May 2025 confirmed that the housing provider had contacted the resident about a potential property. It said that he would need to address his rent arrears before he could move.
Its management transfer policy says it will consider a move for medical reasons which need to be resolved as an urgent case. Its ‘requirements on approval’ does not include rent arrears. The officer is required to submit a form attached at appendix one. The form does not ask for the status of the rent account. There is an additional form at appendix 2 for exceptional management moves for tenancies which are failing. This form asks the officer to set out “details of rent account etc..” These requests are subject to a case review.
There’s no evidence that the resident’s case was exceptional or that a case review was held. Therefore, the landlord’s decision was not in line with its policy. Furthermore, the rent arrears would have been present at the time he was asked to complete a transfer form. Therefore, it was inappropriate to raise his expectations when there was no prospect of moving due to the arrears.

Summary

The landlord failed to demonstrate empathy to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. It failed to recognise his individual circumstances and failed to take appropriate steps to assess whether the property was habitable. Its decision about the resident’s request to move was not in line with its policy.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay £350 in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord may deduct the £60 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales which says that landlords should provide a complaint response within 10 working days of a complaint. It must provide a stage 2 response within working 20 days of a request for a stage 2 review.
On 17 January 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to raise a “formal complaint.” It replied on 20 January to say it would look at the issues he’d raised. It failed to raise a complaint which was inappropriate because its policy says it tries to resolve expressions of dissatisfaction as quickly as possible.
The landlord’s response caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who emailed it to make a further complaint on 5 February 2025. The landlord failed to respond causing time and trouble to the resident who emailed on 19 February to chase.
On 14 March 2025 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had raised a complaint. On 2 April it sent a formal acknowledgement. This was 59 working days after the complaint was made and 54 working days over target.
On 16 April 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident to ask to extend the deadline to 30 April. Given that the response was already significantly out of time it was inappropriate to delay further.
On 2 May 2025 the landlord emailed the resident to advise the complaint had been transferred to another member of staff. It apologised for the delay. It said it would respond by 9 May but failed to do so. It issued its response on 16 May which was 70 working days after the complaint was made. Its response apologised for its failure and offered £50 compensation to try to put things right.
In his email to the landlord of 4 June 2025 the resident asked to escalate his complaint. In its email to the resident dated 9 June about various matters it said the resident had not asked to escalate the complaint. This was incorrect.
The landlord’s failure caused time and trouble to the resident who asked us for assistance. On 18 June 2025 we wrote to the landlord to ask it to provide a response by 25 June. The landlord’s response was within the deadline.
Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The landlord’s response was within time but only because we intervened on the resident’s behalf. Its response failed to acknowledge its failure of service and therefore failed to try to put things right.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said its offer to use a paint to seal the floor was declined by the resident which was incorrect. Its own evidence shows it moved the resident to temporary accommodation to allow the work to be carried out. In addition, its stage 1 response said that when it’s officer visited on 4 March 2025 she commented that she could smell the paint. Its error was inappropriate because it demonstrated a lack of clarity.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. It has been ordered to pay the resident £100 in line with our remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact. The landlord may deduct the £50 it had offered if this has already been paid.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord has failed to evidence the process it followed during its survey carried out on 22 January and its return visit to take damp meter readings. These are record keeping failures.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident failed to consider his individual needs and failed to demonstrate empathy.