Places for People Group Limited (202435229)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202435229 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Places for People Group Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
29 April 2026 |
Background
- The resident said from the start of her tenancy she experienced multiple leaks into the kitchen. The landlord had removed part of the kitchen ceiling and she said did not have a functioning kitchen light despite multiple visits to the property. The resident added this had negatively impacted her and her children and caused damage to her belongings.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
- Reports of ongoing leaks at the property and subsequent repairs to the kitchen.
- Complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found there was:
- Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of leaks at the property and subsequent repairs to the kitchen.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
- The resident experienced significant delays in the landlord resolving the cause of the leaks into the kitchen. The unacceptable delays caused inconvenience and distress to the resident and her children. The landlord apologised for the delay, made an appropriate compensation award and agreed to carry out kitchen repairs. The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to its insurers to make a liability claim for the damage to her belongings
- The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures at the first stage of its complaint process. The resident experienced an unacceptable delay before she received its stage 1 complaint response giving its position on her complaint. Also, the landlord did not identify any learning from the complaint.
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:
|
No later than 28 May 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failing. 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 28 May 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should pay the resident the compensation it offered of £1,255, if it has not done so already. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord paying that sum to the resident. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
15 October 2024 |
The resident complained about an ongoing leak into the kitchen. She said a plumber had advised the leaks must be resolved before the plastering works could start and she also had been told the kitchen should be replaced. |
|
26 February 2025 |
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response in which it acknowledged service failures and partially upheld the complaint. It also said:
|
|
28 February 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint and disputed the landlord’s assertion she had failed to provide access for the repair appointments. She said the compensation award was insufficient and did not reflect the conditions she had been living in. The resident described the collapsed kitchen ceiling, multiple operative visits and the need to replace her carpet due to water damage. |
|
4 April 2025 |
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. The main points were:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident said she was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded. She explained she had lived with a damaged kitchen ceiling including exposed wiring for around 16 months, during that time there were leaks from different parts of the kitchen ceiling. She said the landlord took around 7 months to complete the kitchen repairs and disputed the landlord’s claim she had refused access for the repairs to be completed. |
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 |
Resident reports of ongoing leaks at the property and subsequent repairs to the kitchen |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the premises including the pipework. It is not disputed that burst pipes caused leaks into the kitchen of the property.
- In December 2022 the landlord attended the property, disconnected the kitchen light and assessed that it would need to remove and replace the kitchen ceiling. The landlord did not have complete records showing the outcome of visits or the progress of repairs until 9 October 2023 when it completed repairs to the waste fittings, repaired and stain blocked the kitchen ceiling. This is a record keeping failure.
- On several occasions between December 2022 to 9 October 2023, the landlord was unable to gain access to carry out repairs. Its records show lengthy gaps between the repair reports and appointments despite it being aware of an ongoing leak to the property. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that missed appointments will be monitored to make sure the property does not fall into disrepair. Its records do not show it actively progressed the repair appointments. There was also a lack of evidence showing the consistent progression of repairs. This was not in line with its repair policy which sets out its intention to complete repairs within a right first time ethos and the evidence does not shows this was achieved.
- The resident made further reports of leaks into the landlord on 16 November 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange to attend the following day on 17 November 2023. The landlord records show appointments made for 16 January 2024 and 14 March 2024 was cancelled. The landlord’s records do not give reasons for the cancellation. This is not reasonable as its reasons should evidence for unsuccessful appointments. On 5 June 2024 a burst pipe caused additional leaks into the kitchen. The landlord resolved the leak on 8 June 2024 which was just outside its 24 hour emergency timeframe. The landlord noted that once it had completed the plastering works, it would replace the kitchen light fittings. The kitchen ceiling was removed on 16 July 2024 and the area made safe.
- On 16 December 2024 the resident reported the kitchen light was not working and she was using a temporary light. The landlord contacted the resident to arrange an inspection on 6 February 2025 which was later rearranged with the resident to 11 March 2025. The inspection took place on 20 March 2025. This identified a large area of the kitchen ceiling was exposed and an ongoing leak from the pipework. An operative attended around 29 March 2025 and completed repairs including resealing the bath, repairing leaks from the wash hand basin and replaced any loose tiles.
- During the inspection, the landlord also assessed the kitchen units and kickboards to be in poor condition. In its complaint response the landlord confirmed these would be renewed. This was reasonable as the landlord have an obligation to maintain the property to a reasonable standard.
- The resident reported on 23 December 2024 a toilet was not working which inconvenienced her son who at the time was recovering from a hip operation. The landlord responded to the report on 3 January 2025, and 8 January 2025. The toilet was replaced on 23 January 2025. While there was some delay, this is not considered a failing as the resident had more than one toilet in the property. Also, after the toilet was initially repaired, a replacement toilet was considered necessary.
- The landlord’s repair policy sets out it operates a flexible appointment system. The resident disputed she had missed repair appointments. However, the evidence shows around 9 missed appointments by the resident between 3 January 2023 to 26 March 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord to write to the resident on 27 March 2025 to remind her of her obligations under the tenancy agreement to provide access for appointments. The landlord explained that access was required to resolve the leaks, reinstate the light fittings, complete a schedule of works and assess whether the resident needed to be offered alternative accommodation.
- The resident expressed her mental health was impacted by her living conditions. 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 his type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
- Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from mistakes. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised to the resident for the distress and inconvenience experienced and made a compensation offer of £850. The compensation award was made up of: £250 for distress and inconvenience, £150 for missed timescales, £200 for lack of communication and £250 for its failure to properly address the required repairs. This was reasonable as the overall compensation award was in line with the amounts recommended in its compensation policy which allows for payments between £600 to £1000 when the resident has been significantly impacted and a further payment is not warranted. This is also in line with our compensation guidance.
- We expect landlords to honour commitments made in its complaint responses. The landlord paid the compensation on 14 April 2025 and later decided around August 2025 to replace the kitchen rather than carry out partial repairs to the damaged units. This was a reasonable step to take to resolve matters fully for the resident. The works to the kitchen including the reinstatement of the kitchen lighting was completed around November 2025. The landlord acknowledged further failings in a complaint response in December 2025. It offered further compensation of £405 to the resident for the additional delays associated with the kitchen replacement, ceiling repairing and its communication failures.
- There were significant delays in the landlord identifying the source of the leak and taking effective action to resolve it. Whilst we acknowledge the landlord experienced difficulties in gaining access to the property, this did not fully account for the prolonged delays experienced by the resident, which caused inconvenience and distress. We consider the total compensation of £1,255 offered by the landlord to be proportionate for the impact on the resident.
- The landlord acted appropriately by explaining how she could make a claim to its insurer for the items that were damaged by the leaks. The landlord’s response was in line our insurance guidance which states where a resident believes a landlord’s action have caused damage to household contents, the landlord should explain how the resident can pursue a claim through its insurers.
- The landlord provided clear information about the evidence required to make an insurance claim including details of the affected items and the extent of the damage. It also explained that once a claim was submitted the insurers would contact the resident directly. This was reasonable to manage the resident’s expectation about the insurance claim process.
- As insurance claims are the appropriate route for considering liability for damage to personal belongings arising from unforeseen events. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to pursue a claim through its insurers.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
- The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 15 October 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident had made a complaint until 20 December 2024 when it apologised that no one had been in contact. This was unreasonable. Both the landlord’s complaint procedure and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days.
- The landlord did not contact the resident about the complaint until 21 February 2025 when it requested a time extension to 26 February 2025. The landlord said it wanted to extend the complaint timeframe as it needed more information before it could answer the complaint.
- The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 February 2025, taking 45 working days after the complaint was made. This represented a significant failure to comply with its own complaint procedure which states that stage 1 will be provided within 10 working days. The delay caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. In its complaints review the landlord missed an opportunity to fully acknowledge the impact of this delay or provide appropriate redress. Our compensation policy sets out that amounts up to £100 may be appropriate when a landlord has not followed its complaint procedure and has not recognised or put right its failings. For those reasons we have made a compensation award of £100 to reflect the inconvenience and frustration to the resident.
- The resident escalated her complaint on 28 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days on 7 March 2025 and issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 April 2025, within 20 working days. This was reasonable as it was in line with its stage 2 complaint timescale.
- Overall, the resident experienced an unacceptable delay receiving the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response as the landlord did not follow its complaint procedure or the Code. This caused the resident to chase the complaint response which likely to have caused uncertainty and frustration to the resident.
- The Code says that landlords must look beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and consider whether service improvements can be made as a result of any learning from the complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord did so in the case.
Learning
- An effective complaints process should include a review of its handling of the complaint to identify any service failings and areas of improvement.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord repair records should show the outcome of each visit.
Communication
- The landlord followed good practice when it agreed to the resident’s request for communication to by email.