Places for People Group Limited (202528828)

Decision
Case ID	202528828
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 March 2026

 

Background

1. The resident reported damp and mould in her home and concerns about the condition of the windows. She complained about the landlord’s handling of her request to replace the windows and complete the related repairs. She also complained about how it dealt with her request for a replacement bathroom and kitchen, and its handling of those related repairs.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlords handling of repairs and requests for property improvements. Including:
   1. reports of damp and mould and a request for replacement windows
   2. request for a replacement bathroom and kitchen and related repairs
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and requests for property improvements.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not complete the repairs in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It did not progress necessary works within a reasonable timeframe and did not explain the reasons for its decisions or delays.
7. The landlord did not meet the timescales in our Complaint Handling Code for its complaint responses and did not acknowledge these delays. It also did not address all the concerns the resident raised.

 

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 22 April 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £950 compensation made up as follows: £800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs and requests for property improvements £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made from this total figure. It must pay this amount directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 22 April 2026
3	Action Order The landlord must write to the resident by the due date and clearly explain why it rejected her request for replacement windows, kitchen, and bathroom. It must set out the reason for the decision. It must provide us with a copy of this letter by the due date.	No later than 22 April 2026

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 October 2024	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said the landlord had completed a window survey in 2023, but it had not completed any work. The windows had caused damp and mould in her property, and this had affected her son’s health. It had not completed a mould wash or fitted a new shower screen. She also asked it to confirm if it would be replacing her windows, kitchen, and bathroom.
17 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said its panel had rejected the request for a new kitchen, bathroom, and windows. It acknowledged delays in completing repairs and offered £400 for the missed timescales and failed appointments. It confirmed it had booked a bath panel renewal for 10 July 2025 and work to renew the kitchen hinges for 8 October 2025. It also said it would seek an update on the outstanding window repairs.
10 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said her home was in disrepair, including faulty electrics, cracks in the walls, and mould. She asked why the landlord had replaced her neighbour’s windows and bathroom but had denied her request.
14 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it would not change its decision not to renew the windows, bathroom, and kitchen. It would complete work to the kitchen hinges and bath panel by 8 October 2025 and window repairs by 4 November 2025. It also raised a job for electrical work in the kitchen. It confirmed it had completed a mould‑wash, and it offered £100 as a goodwill gesture for repainting.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with its decision to not replace her kitchen, bathroom, and windows. She also said she was unhappy with its handling of the related repairs. She asked for the landlord to reconsider its decision and to award compensation for the delays.

 

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	Repairs and requests for property improvements.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

8. The resident says her son experienced ill health due to the landlord’s handling of her complaint. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we have investigated

9. The resident raised multiple concerns in her complaint, some of which relate to issues that have been ongoing for several years, including damp and mould around the windows. Our investigation focuses on the period from May 2023 to the end of the complaint’s procedure in August 2025. This timeframe reflects the events that directly led to the complaint and means the landlord had fair opportunity to respond to the specific concerns raised during that time.
10. We have considered each aspect of the resident’s complaint below.

Reports of damp and mould and request for replacement windows.

11. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will inspect the home and complete repairs in line with its repairs policy. Its policy defines appointable repairs as routine works needed to prevent damage to the property. It must complete these repairs within 60 days. It also says that planned repairs are non-urgent involving replacement rather than repair. It must complete this work within 90 days.
12. It is not clear when the resident first reported damp and mould around her windows. However, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 23 May 2023. Its surveyor found damp and mould around all the windows in the property and recommended that it replace the windows.
13. However, by October 2024, over a year later, the issue was still unresolved. There is no evidence that the landlord progressed the window replacement or completed any temporary repairs to address the damp and mould. This was inappropriate and significantly outside of its time scales for appointable and planned repairs in its repairs policy.
14. On 9 November 2024, the landlord booked an appointment to carry out a mould wash but cancelled the visit. There is no evidence that it arranged a new date to complete this work. It did not attend again until 20 March 2025, when it inspected the windows and again found that it needed to replace the windows. It told the resident that it had submitted this recommendation to its panel for approval and would update her once it had made a decision. In June 2025, the panel rejected the request.
15. In its stage 1 response on 17 June 2025, the landlord informed the resident that it had rejected her request for replacement windows. However, it did not explain the reasons for its decision. It also did not explain why it had not completed any repairs to address the damp and mould after the May 2023 survey.
16. The complaint handling code says landlords must give clear, evidence‑based reasons for their decisions and explain how they reached them. By not doing so, it did not give the resident the information she reasonably needed to understand the outcome of her request. This caused avoidable distress and inconvenience and led to time and trouble as she had to seek this information when escalating her complaint.
17. The landlord completed a mould wash on 7 July 2025. This was over 2 years after it found damp and mould around the windows during its survey in May 2023. This delay was significant and not in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy.
18. In its stage 2 response on 14 August 2025, the landlord again did not explain why it had decided not to replace the windows. While it was entitled to rely on its panel’s decision, it did not explain how it reached that decision or what evidence it considered. This lack of explanation was unreasonable, particularly as its own qualified staff had previously recommended replacement.
19. In its response, the landlord confirmed that it had completed a mould wash and offered the resident a £100 goodwill gesture to repaint the affected areas. It also said it would repair the windows. It completed the repairs to the windows on 8 October 2025 and replaced the window openings on 4 November 2025.
20. However, this was 2 years after the landlord found it needed to complete work on the windows in its May 2023 survey. This was significantly outside the timeframes in its repairs policy. During this period, the resident continued to experience damp and mould linked to the condition of the windows. The prolonged delay caused avoidable distress, inconvenience, and had a detriment to her living conditions.
21. Overall, the landlord delayed seeking approval for the recommended window replacement for over 2 years. It did not complete repairs within its timescales, explain the delays, or explain why it would not replace the windows. This caused prolonged inconvenience and distress. For these reasons, we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and request for window replacement.
22. We order the landlord to pay £600 compensation for the failings identified in this report. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Request for a bathroom and kitchen replacement and related repairs.

23. The evidence from both parties does not show when the resident first asked for the landlord to replace her kitchen and bathroom. We have therefore assessed the landlord’s actions from the date of her complaint on 28 October 2024. On that date, the resident asked whether it intended to replace her kitchen and bathroom, as she believed it needed to renew both. She also said it had recorded that it had installed a shower screen in her bathroom, but it had not completed this work.
24. Following the complaint, the landlord did not attend to install a shower screen until 5 March 2025, 128 days after the resident raised this concern. This was significantly outside the 90‑day timeframe for planned repairs set out in its policy. At this visit, it found that it could not install a screen and noted that a shower curtain and pole were already in place. Although it offered compensation for delays in its stage 1 response, it did not explain why the delay occurred. This likely left the resident feeling that it had not taken her concerns seriously.
25.  On 20 March 2025 the landlord inspected the kitchen and bathroom. It said it recommended that it needed to replace both. It sent a replacement request to its panel in April 2025, but the panel rejected the request in June 2025. It took 143 days for it to inspect the kitchen and bathroom after the resident asked it to replace these in October 2024. This was significantly outside the 90‑day timescale for planned repairs in its policy.
26. In both complaint responses, the landlord did not explain why it had decided not to replace the bathroom and kitchen. In March 2025, it had told the resident that it had submitted a recommendation to its panel for these replacements. It would therefore have been reasonable for it to explain why the panel had rejected this recommendation. The Code requires landlords to give clear, evidence-based reasons for their decisions, which it did not provide. This left the resident without the information she needed and caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.
27. In its complaint responses, the landlord committed to completing repairs to the bathroom and kitchen. It completed repairs to an electrical socket in the kitchen on 18 August 2025. This was 4 days after it committed to do this in its stage 2 response. This was in line with its repairs policy timescales, which says it must complete appointable (routine) repairs within 60 days.
28. The landlord replaced the bath panel and kitchen hinges on 8 October 2025, which was 113 days after it said in its stage 1 response that it would complete this work. This was outside its 90‑day timeframe for planned repairs. It is unclear why it scheduled the work beyond this timescale, and it did not explain the reason for the delay in its complaint responses.
29. In summary, the landlord did not meet the timescales set out in its repairs policy and did not provide explanations for the significant delays. Although it offered compensation at stage 1 for some delays and missed appointments, it did not acknowledge further delays or explain why it scheduled repairs outside its policy timescales. It also did not explain why it rejected the request to replace the kitchen and bathroom or how its panel made that decision. This caused the resident avoidable distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble pursuing the issues. For these reasons, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a request for a replacement bathroom and kitchen and related repairs.
30. We order the landlord to pay £200 compensation for the failings found in this report. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where a landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.

Conclusion

31. Overall, the landlord did not meet the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It did not progress necessary works within a reasonable timeframe and did not explain the reasons for its decisions or delays. It awarded £400 at stage 1 for missed timescales and failed appointments, and a further £100 goodwill payment for redecoration at stage 2. However, it did not identify or address all of its failings. It did not acknowledge further delays, and it did not explain why it scheduled repairs outside its own policy timescales. It also did not provide clear reasons for rejecting the recommended replacement of the windows, kitchen, and bathroom.
32. We have ordered the landlord to pay £800 in compensation. This is for the failings identified in this report that resulted in distress, inconvenience and delays for the resident. This is inclusive of the £500 offered through its complaints process. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

33. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to issue a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. Its definition of a complaint and its response timescales were compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (The Code).
34. The resident raised a complaint on 28 October 2024. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 June 2025, nearly 8 months later. This was significantly outside the timeframe in the Code. It did not acknowledge this significant delay in its complaint response.
35. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 July 2025. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 August 2025, which was 5 working days late. It again did not acknowledge this delay in its response.
36. In her escalation request, the resident asked why the landlord had replaced her neighbour’s bathroom, windows and kitchen but had rejected her request. It did not address this issue in its stage 2 response. This was not in line with the Code, which requires landlords to respond to every issue raised and to give clear reasons for their decisions. By not addressing this concern, it missed an opportunity to fully investigate and put things right.
37. Overall, the landlord did not meet the Code’s timescales for its complaint responses and did not acknowledge the delays. It also did not address all the concerns the resident raised. This caused her inconvenience and unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. For these reasons, we find maladministration in its handling of the complaint.
38. We order that the landlord must pay the resident £150 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance when there was a failing by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident.

 

Learning

General learning

39. This investigation highlighted the importance of progressing repairs in line with its repairs policy. Not doing so led to unnecessary delays and inconvenience for the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. In this case, the landlord did not keep clear records of the actions it took. It may benefit from reviewing our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023), available through our website’s Centre for Learning.

Communication

41. The investigation found gaps in the landlord’s communication, particularly in keeping the resident updated during its investigation. It did not consistently provide timeframes or explain delays. This created uncertainty and increased the resident’s need to chase for information.