Places for People Group Limited (202436910)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202436910

Places for People Group Limited

2 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. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of remedial works to the bedroom following reports of damp and mould.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a joint assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives with his partner and 2 sons. The resident has mobility issues and 1 of his sons has a chronic cough.
  2. The landlord carried out an internal inspection on 9 May 2024 and a damp and mould survey on 24 June 2024 following reports of damp and mould. The landlord agreed to undertake works to the bedrooms to address the damp and mould. Works to the bedrooms began on 8 November 2024.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint on 13 November 2024. He said the landlord’s maintenance team had not completed the work to a satisfactory standard. He said an operative had told him that a painter and decorator would finish the job. He said he had contacted the landlord to check when the painter and decorator would be coming but the landlord said the job had been marked as complete. The resident told the landlord that the operatives had destroyed his bedroom and ruined the carpet. The resident said he could not use his bedroom.
  4. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 22 January 2025. It said the resident had declined a temporary move while it undertook the works. It said its contractors had since completed the remedial works to the bedroom and it had offered the resident £75 for carpet cleaning. It apologised for the unsatisfactory level of service and it offered the resident £675 for stress, inconvenience, and poor service.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 31 January 2025. He told the landlord that it had failed to acknowledge his complaint about his request for a management move.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 14 March 2025. It repeated the offer made at stage 1 and offered an additional £100 decoration allowance. The landlord said it had offered a temporary move in line with its procedure. However, it acknowledged that the resident felt the accommodation was not suitable for his household’s needs and it confirmed it had approved the resident’s management transfer request. It also offered the resident an additional £250 for poor customer service and prolonged distress, £100 for complaint handling delays and £100 in relation to the suitability of the temporary move. This was £1,300 compensation in total.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident said he wanted the landlord to move him to a different property and assign him a different housing manager.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the complaint and in communication with this Service, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on his and his son’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord had not responded to his complaint about his management transfer request. Although the landlord mentioned this within its stage 2 response, this aspect of the resident’s complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process as it did not investigate the matter or consider it at both stages of the complaints process. Therefore, this will not form part of this investigation. However, we have considered whether the landlord’s actions amount to a complaint handling failure.

The landlord’s handling of remedial works to the bedroom following reports of damp and mould

  1. The evidence shows the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 9 May 2024 following reports of damp and mould. The landlord said, in internal emails, that the resident should be moved urgently on a temporary basis for a period of 8 weeks. This was because the resident’s GP thought his son’s chronic cough might be related to their living conditions.
  2. The landlord sourced 2 temporary properties based on information provided by the resident in relation to the family’s needs. It offered the resident a 2 bedroom apartment and a 1 bedroom apartment with a sofa bed. The landlord confirmed, in an internal email dated 16 May 2024, that the resident had declined both properties.
  3. The email said the resident did not want to move until the work was due to start. The email also confirmed that the landlord had told the resident it might place him in a hotel, rather than an apartment, nearer the time. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the properties offered were the only ones available or whether the landlord was willing to make any further offers. However, the offers were in line with the landlord’s temporary moves policy which says it will assess the housing and support needs of customers so a suitable property can be identified. It also says it will ensure any property offered is large enough for the current household.
  4. Following a damp and mould survey on 24 June 2024 the landlord agreed a schedule of works and the works to the bedroom began on or around 8 November 2024.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 13 November 2024. He said the maintenance team had only partially completed the work to the bedroom. He said 1 of the operatives told him on 11 November 2024 that he would arrange for a painter and decorator to finish the job as a matter of urgency as the resident was sleeping on his sofa in the living room. The resident said he contacted the repairs team to check when the painter and decorator was coming but the landlord told him the job had been marked as complete on the system. The resident said the operatives had destroyed the bedroom, ruined his carpet, and left him waiting when they knew he was finding it difficult to sleep on his sofa due to his health condition.
  6. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 21 November 2024 as a follow up to his complaint. He explained that the landlord had offered him a temporary move but the offer was for a 1 bedroom flat. He said he had to decline the property as it was too small for his family. The resident said the landlord had also offered a 2 bedroom flat, but he could not accept it due to his mobility issues as there was no lift available. He said the landlord did offer him a stay in a hotel nearer the time, but it did not mention that offer again.
  7. The landlord asked the resident on 22 November 2024 if he would be open to sourcing his own decorator, with the costs paid for by the landlord. The resident said he would see whether a decorator he had used before was available. The landlord also offered to cover the cost of cleaning the carpet. The resident told the landlord on 25 November 2024 that he was waiting to hear from decorators he had found online, as his preferred decorator had not responded. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord did not raise the remedial work with its own contractors, considering its own operatives had failed to complete the work to an acceptable standard. Placing the burden on the resident to arrange to rectify the landlord’s poor work was unreasonable in the circumstances and likely caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
  8. The resident received a text message from the landlord on 2 December 2024 informing him that the work to the bedroom was provisionally booked for 23 December 2024. It said it would get back in touch 1 week before to confirm. This was likely confusing for the resident as he was still under the impression that the landlord would be paying for his own decorator to complete the work, particularly as he was still arranging for quotes from decorators to send to the landlord. The resident queried the text with the landlord and it said on 5 December 2024 that it was unable to give the resident an explanation. It said it would ask the scheduling team to provide a response.
  9. The landlord contacted the resident on 13 December 2024 and asked whether the resident would prefer its contractors to complete the works or whether he could provide a second quote for reimbursement. The resident said he had already sent 2 quotes in but he was happy for the landlord’s contractor to do the work. Although it was reasonable of the landlord to agree to instruct its own contractors to rectify the work, its attempts to get quotes from the resident had caused unreasonable and unnecessary delays in arranging the work.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 December 2024 as he had received a call from the contractors scheduling the work in for 7 January 2025. The resident asked about the appointment made for 23 December 2024. The landlord contacted the resident by telephone and said the appointment for 23 December 2024 was being cancelled. The landlord did not offer any reasonable explanation as to why the job was to be cancelled, which was unreasonable. It did, however, offer the resident temporary accommodation, which was reasonable in the circumstances, but the resident declined the offer.
  11. The landlord’s contractors completed the work on 15 January 2025. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 22 January 2025. It said it had offered the resident a temporary move because of his and his family’s medical conditions. It said the temporary move would have given it the time to find a suitable solution to the damp and mould and complete the remedial works. It said the resident had considered the move impractical and declined the landlord’s offers.
  12. The landlord said it had offered to cover the cost of cleaning the carpet and it offered the resident £75 to cover the cost. It said if the cleaning was unsuccessful, it would refer the matter to its insurers. It apologised for the level of service provided and offered the resident £675 for stress, inconvenience, and poor service.
  13. Following escalation of his complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 14 March 2025. It offered the resident a further £100 decoration allowance in recognition of the impact of the process on the resident and his family. It said it had offered a temporary move in line with its policy and it acknowledged that the resident felt it was not suitable for his needs. It said finding temporary accommodation that fully met the needs of each household member could be challenging and it was sorry the offer did not meet the resident’s expectations. The landlord offered, in addition to the £750 offered at stage 1, £250 for poor customer service and prolonged distress, and £100 in relation to the suitability of the temporary move. This was £1,200 in total.
  14. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s apology, the completion of the remedial work to the bedroom, and its offer of £1,200 compensation represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. The compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where there were serious failings by the landlord which had a severe long-term impact on the resident.
  15. Therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to show it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and put things right in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaint policy says it will acknowledge Stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It will acknowledge Stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 13 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 November 2024 and said the resident should expect a response by 4 December 2024. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 22 January 2025. This was 2 months from the date of acknowledgement and significantly outside of the timeframe of 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The landlord escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 31 January 2025. He said the landlord had failed to acknowledge his complaint about his management move.
  5. The landlord responded on 5 February 2025. It said it had reviewed his email dated 21 November 2024 and it had found no mention of a management move. It said it had asked the housing team to contact him to discuss a management move. It said if he was unhappy with the outcome, he could raise a new stage 1 complaint.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 February 2025 to request an update on his management transfer request. He said he had made a formal complaint about it, which was at stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord responded and told the resident his complaint relating to his management transfer request would be reviewed as part of his stage 2 complaint. This was unreasonable in the circumstances and not in line with paragraph 6.8 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code says “Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.”
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 14 March 2025. It offered the resident £100 for the delay in processing his complaint. It also provided an update in relation to the resident’s management transfer request. However, it did not investigate the related complaint as it had said it would. Although the landlord was adhering to the Code, it had unfairly raised the resident’s expectations that his complaint would be investigated within the stage 2 response. This likely caused the resident confusion and time and trouble.
  8. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, while the landlord has recognised that it delayed in providing the complaint responses, as set out above, it has not shown it recognised its complaint handling failures in relation to the management transfer request. On that basis, we find that there has been service failure. Therefore, we consider the offer of £100 insufficient to reflect the resident’s circumstances and the effect of the landlord’s failings, particularly as the resident has not yet received a response to his complaint.
  9. We consider an order for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s original offer) to be appropriate in the circumstances. This is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failing and has made no attempt to put things right. This is also in line with the landlord’s complaints policy which says it will award compensation of £100 to £600 in recognition of service failure that impacted a customer for a medium duration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of remedial works to the bedroom following reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £150 (the landlord may deduct from this amount the £100 compensation it previously offered if this has already been paid) in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by its complaint handling.
    2. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
    3. Contact the resident to see whether he wishes to raise a further formal complaint in relation to his management transfer request, if he has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should, if it has not already done so, pay the resident the £1,200 it offered in relation to its handling of remedial works to the bedroom following reports of damp and mould in its stage 2 response.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions regarding the above recommendations.