Places for People Group Limited (202528423)

Decision
Case ID	202528423
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	1 April 2026

 

Background

1. The landlord previously identified damp and mould in the resident’s property, but remedial works that were carried out failed to resolve this. The resident is elderly with health conditions, and her representative made a complaint on her behalf about the ongoing damp and mould and the condition of the kitchen. The landlord agreed to carry out repairs to the kitchen, however, the representative asked it to put the work on hold due to concerns about the disruption this may cause to the resident. The resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responded to her concerns.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and repairs to the kitchen at the property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and repairs to the kitchen at the property.
5. We have found service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord has acknowledged that there were errors in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. It has apologised and offered the resident proportionate compensation for this.
7. The landlord has apologised for its complaint handling failures. However, we have ordered additional compensation as the amount the landlord offered is not proportionate to the time, trouble, and inconvenience the errors in its complaint handling caused the resident.

 

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident an additional £100 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in responding to the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 29 April 2026

 

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord carry out a further damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property.
We recommend that the landlord consider following its access procedure in relation to the repairs to the kitchen.
We recommend that the landlord confirm to the resident in writing whether it will agree to offer her temporary accommodation (a decant) should she allow it to proceed with the works to her kitchen. If the landlord decides that a decant is not necessary, we recommend that it set out in writing to the resident, the reasons why.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 October 2024	The representative complained to the landlord. They said the landlord had confirmed there was damp and mould in the resident’s property but had not taken steps to address it. They said the resident was in her 80s and that the condition of the kitchen posed health risks. They also said the landlord had promised that a manager would contact the resident, but no one had done so.
11 March 2025	The landlord’s records show that the resident’s representative raised a further complaint about damp and mould in the property.
25 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It apologised for the delay in carrying out works to remedy the damp and mould in the resident’s property. It had installed a window fan on 30 August 2024, carried out a mould wash, resealed the windows in the bedrooms and lined the window reveals on 7 November 2024, and repainted on 20 November 2024. It had arranged a further damp and mould inspection as the resident had told it that the damp and mould remained unresolved. It would also carry out a mould wash on 2 April 2025. The resident had refused repairs to her kitchen. However, as the kitchen was deemed repairable, it would repair rather than replace it. It would arrange a further inspection of the kitchen on 31 March 2025, to determine what action it would take. It offered the resident £250 compensation, broken down as £150 by way of apology and £100 for the inconvenience caused and its lack of communication. It said it would credit this to the resident’s rent account as she had outstanding arrears.
2 April 2025	The representative escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure. They said: The resident had not refused the works. The landlord had advised that works would be spread out over several months. However, this was not suitable for the resident, and the landlord had not provided an alternative solution. They wanted the landlord to replace the resident’s kitchen. The landlord had not considered the pain and stress its handling of the repairs was causing the resident. They had asked the landlord to ensure all communication was in writing, however the landlord had called them for background on the complaint.
22 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It: Reiterated that it considered that the resident’s kitchen was repairable. Confirmed the recommended works included the replacement of drawer and cupboard fronts, the installation of new worktops, sink and taps, as well as the provision of new flooring and repairs to the tiling. Explained a policy change meant that residents were now responsible for flooring. It offered the resident £400 towards the cost of the kitchen floor, should she decide to replace this. Acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the impact of the works on her health. It had therefore checked whether the works could be carried out over a shorter timeframe, however it said this may not be possible due to staff shortages and the multiple trades needed. It was looking into whether it could schedule the necessary works in a continuous block to minimise the disruption to the resident. Offered the resident additional compensation of £200, broken down as £150 for the delays in reaching a resolution regarding the kitchen repairs and £50 for the delay in it responding to her stage 2 complaint. It advised that this further compensation would also be deducted from the resident’s rent arrears.
3 June 2025	The representative contacted the landlord. They said that the landlord should: Offer the resident temporary alternative accommodation (a decant) for the duration of the works to her property. Confirm that it would complete the works within 1-2 weeks. Repair the floor and ceiling and repaint the kitchen. They asked the landlord not to start the work nor pay any compensation until their requests had been met.
14 July 2025	The landlord contacted the representative. It said it could not complete the work on the same day. The ceiling repair would be scheduled either before or after the kitchen repairs. It would then paint the kitchen ceiling. It reiterated it would not repair the floor. It said the resident was responsible for the redecoration of the kitchen. It advised it would not consider a decant until the works were booked in.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 1 October 2025. She said the damp and mould in her property was uncomfortable and posed a potential risk to her health. She said her kitchen was in an unsafe condition. She said that the landlord had called her in relation to her complaint despite her requesting that all communication should be in writing.

 

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and repairs to the kitchen at the property.
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The landlord identified in November 2023 that there was damp in all the bedrooms in the resident’s property. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete appointable repairs within 60 days. The landlord completed works to remedy the damp between 30 August 2024 and 20 November 2024, including installing a fan and Therma board and resealing the windows. This was 7 to 8 months outside of its timescales for completing appointable repairs. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord apologised for this delay and offered compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience this likely caused the resident.
9. Under the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, she is obliged to provide access for the landlord to complete repairs. The landlord has said that the representative refused works in December 2024. The representative has disputed this and says they had simply asked the landlord to consider completing the works over a shorter timeframe to minimise disruption to the resident. On 3 June 2025, the representative wrote to the landlord to ask it not to carry out any works to property unless it would agree to decant the resident and ensure that the works were carried out within a timeframe of 2 weeks. The concerns that were raised by the representative are noted, and we understand why they were seeking to minimise disruption. However, during this period the works could not progress, and this was not as a result of a failing by the landlord.
10. The landlord acted reasonably in explaining that it could not guarantee it could complete the works in the timeframe requested. It was also reasonable that it put the repairs to the resident’s kitchen on hold until such time that the resident advised that she would like the works to go ahead. However, given the representative’s comments that the condition of the kitchen is affecting the resident’s health, the landlord may wish to explore what action it can take in the interim to ensure she is adequately supported.
11. On 12 March 2025, the representative asked the landlord to ensure all communication was in writing. In their stage 2 complaint, they said that despite this request, the landlord had called them for background information. It is noted that the landlord may have felt that a call would be beneficial. However, it is important that landlords communicate using the method residents request, where possible. The landlord may wish to review its processes to ensure staff follow a resident’s communication preferences.
12. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that it would arrange another survey, as the resident had reported that damp in her property remained unresolved. This was appropriate. Its surveyor carried out an inspection on 8 May 2025 and did not identify any damp or mould. It is acknowledged that the representative raised concerns about the adequacy of the survey. However, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its qualified surveyor. The representative also said that the landlord had not installed an extractor fan in the bathroom as it had said it would. While we haven’t found a failing in relation to the survey, given the ongoing concerns and comments that an extractor fan has not been installed as agreed, we recommend that the landlord carries out a further inspection of the property, subject to the resident allowing access.
13. The landlord decided to repair the resident’s kitchen rather than replace it. Landlords are not obliged to replace kitchens if repairs can resolve the issue, as this helps ensure value for money and reduces costs passed on to residents through rent and service charges. We recommend that the landlord carry out the repairs it has identified in the kitchen, subject to the resident allowing access. If the resident does not allow access, the landlord should consider following its no‑access policy, given the representative’s concerns about the impact of the kitchen’s condition on the resident’s health.
14. On 3 June 2025, the representative asked the landlord to decant the resident while it carried out the necessary repairs to her property. The landlord said it would consider a decant once the works were booked in. This was reasonable. However, given the representative concerns and that the potential disruption was a cause of concern for the resident, it would have been helpful for the landlord to confirm whether it would agree to a decant before scheduling the works. This was a shortcoming in its approach.
15. The landlord told us that, contrary to what it said in its stage 2 complaint response, there has been no change in its policy on responsibility for repairing floor coverings. It clarified that floor coverings have always been the resident’s responsibility to repair. However, the landlord acted reasonably in offering the resident £400 towards replacing the kitchen flooring. The landlord appropriately advised the resident that the redecoration of the kitchen was her responsibility, in accordance with her tenancy agreement.
16. The resident mentioned in her complaint that her health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Her concerns have been noted. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience. On this occasion we have not awarded additional compensation as the landlord’s earlier offer of compensation was proportionate, as explained in more detail below.
17. Our remedies guidance states that where there are errors by the landlord which adversely affected the resident, £100-£600 compensation may be appropriate. The landlord has apologised for its errors in this case and has offered the resident £400 for the delay in it carrying out repairs. This offer is in line with our remedies guidance and is sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience the landlord’s errors will have likely caused the resident. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what we would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is reasonable redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
18. The resident has told us that she wants the landlord to pay the compensation it has offered her, directly to her, rather than offset against any rent arrears. However, the landlord’s compensation policy states that where a resident is in rent arrears, any compensation it offers will be offset against the rent arrears. The landlord’s explanation that it would credit the resident’s rent account was therefore reasonable. It was also fair given that landlords are encouraged to ensure that they are taking steps to help residents maintain rent payments and avoid arrears accruing further, where possible.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

19. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must have a 2 stage complaints process. They should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlords need more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2.
20. It is unclear why the landlord did not respond to the initial complaint. However, as it did not, its stage 1 response was delayed by approximately 5 months. This was a failing. The landlord did not acknowledge this and therefore did not take steps to put things right. This was a missed opportunity. Its stage 2 response was also delayed, by 2 weeks. When the landlord issued its stage 2 response, it appropriately apologised for the delay and offered £50 compensation.
21. The amount of compensation the landlord offered is not proportionate to the time, trouble, and inconvenience the delays in its complaint handling will have likely caused the resident. As the landlord did not initially provide a stage 1 response, the resident’s representative had to raise a further complaint, and the resident did not have an answer to her concerns for nearly 5 months. We have therefore found service failure for this aspect of the complaint and have ordered the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £100, in-line with our remedies guidance.

 

Learning

22. It is positive that the landlord has identified that it needs to ensure that survey recommendations are translated into work orders promptly and tracked more robustly.
23. It has also committed to training for its complaint and repairs teams so that, in future cases, the link between surveys, works and complaints is clearer and it can provide residents updates about repairs and the progress of their complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. We asked the landlord to provide a copy of its inspection report for the damp and mould survey it carried out on 8 May 2025. However, it did not do so. Given that the resident has disputed the findings of this survey, the landlord may want to consider keeping records of inspections in the form of reports and photographs, so that it can provide these to the Ombudsman when requested.

Communication

25. The landlord may wish to consider reviewing its processes to ensure that where a resident or their representative have asked that it communicate with them in writing, that it adheres to this request where possible.