Places for People Group Limited (202531150)

Decision
Case ID	202531150
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	14 May 2026

Background

1. The resident has reported incidents of antisocial behaviour (ASB) since April 2023. She has previously made complaints to us about the landlord’s handling of her reports. This investigation focuses on what action the landlord took in response to the ASB.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about proposed ASB solutions.
   2. Handling of a request for a gate and fence.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about proposed ASB solutions.
   2. Service failure in the handling of a request for a gate and fence.
   3. A reasonable offer of redress in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord’s failure to produce a written action plan at the outset affected its ability to track completed actions.
   2. Its communication was unclear and inconsistent, including a failure to explain decisions, changes in position, and available housing options.
   3. It did not manage expectations appropriately or explain the limitations of what it could achieve.
   4. Limitations in the landlord’s record-keeping and loss of information caused further delays and inconvenience.
   5. The landlord identified a delay in its complaint handling and offered an appropriate level of redress.

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 provided by a manager. 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 12 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £150. This is made up of: £100 (£50 in addition to the £50 offered during the landlord’s complaint response) for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about proposed ASB solutions. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of installation of a gate and fence. 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 made.	No later than 12 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £25 compensation offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling. Our finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis that this amount is paid.
The landlord should write to the resident to confirm its position in relation to the management move application. It should also set out any alternative housing options available to her and offer support to progress this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 July 2025	The landlord visited the resident and completed a risk assessment regarding her previous reports of ASB. These reports related to the neighbouring property and included: the smell of cannabis entering her property the neighbour’s children knocking on her door and running off the neighbour’s dogs jumping at the fence when her children were in the garden It noted how the situation had affected her and her family, but this did not warrant a management transfer. It recommended that bid for alternative properties via the local council.
12 August 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She alleged that incidents of ASB were continuing. She said to help mitigate this, her housing officer had offered to install a gate, but this had not happened. She also asked it to review her previous request to change the existing picket fence to a solid panel. She said this would help stop the neighbour’s dogs reacting to her children playing.
10 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: it had visited the resident and completed a risk assessment and agreed an action plan it would start a management transfer request and contact her to begin the process this process was subject to approval and not guaranteed it would not replace the garden fencing as it had not identified any health and safety risks it would also not install the requested front gate for the same reasons she could install both herself but would require permission before arranging any work
11 September 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord kept giving her conflicting information. It had requested measurements and agreed to provide a gate and was now refusing to fulfil this. She said she had lost faith in the information it was giving her.
17 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it had contacted the resident to request further evidence to support the management transfer request it apologised that it had lost the original evidence during an IT equipment change the transfer could not progress without the information it had not received any new reports of people coming on to her property the neighbour had offered to install bamboo on the garden fence to stop the dogs reacting to her children it could not enforce this, as it was the neighbour’s choice it upheld the stage 1 decision not to install a gate or replace the garden fence she should continue to keep a diary of any incidents and to report anything serious to the police there had been a delay in issuing its stage 2 response and apologised for this as a resolution for the delay and loss of her evidence it offered £75 compensation
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy and brought her complaint to us. She said the ASB issues remained unresolved and it had lost her evidence to support her application for a managed move. She also said the landlord was still refusing to fulfil the promise to install a front gate. The neighbour had also not installed bamboo to the garden fencing.

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	Concerns about proposed ASB solutions
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

5. The resident says she experienced ill health due to the landlord’s handling of her ASB reports. 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.
6. We have previously determined a complaint about ASB on 12 August 2025 under reference 202448602. The landlord sent its stage 2 response for this complaint on 13 February 2025. Therefore, this investigation will not reconsider any matters already determined. We will focus on the events following the landlord’s risk assessment meeting on 24 July 2025.

What we did investigate

7. The landlord’s ASB policy states it will agree an action plan with the parties and provide this in writing at the outset. It will also provide regular updates to residents. The evidence shows the landlord completed a risk assessment and agreed a verbal action plan on 24 July 2025. However, it did not issue a written plan at that stage. It delayed sharing this until it had completed its actions, citing concerns about contact levels from the resident. This approach was not transparent and failed to manage the resident’s expectations. This caused the resident additional time and trouble later in the complaint timeline.
8. The evidence shows that the community housing manager (CHM) did not support a management transfer based on the assessed risk. It instead recommended the resident should bid through the local council or seek a mutual exchange. This suggestion was reasonable and there is no evidence that the landlord di not follow it policy at this stage. However, there is no evidence it communicated these recommendations to her.
9. By 3 September 2025 the landlord’s records show the CHM began a management transfer request for senior approval. The evidence does not explain this change in position or what information it shared with the resident. This lack of clear and consistent communication caused further inconvenience for the resident.
10. On 16 September 2025 the landlord asked the resident to resubmit the supporting documents it had already collected on 24 July 2025. It said it had lost the original documents. It also confirmed it would issue the action plan as it had completed the actions it had originally agreed. Whilst it is positive that actions were completed, the landlord took around 6 weeks to progress the management transfer. The lack of updates provided to the resident during this time was not appropriate or in line with its policy.
11. In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay. It said it contacted the resident again on 30 September 2025 and was awaiting her reply. Therefore, the application remained incomplete. It attributed the issue to a change in IT equipment and loss of records. This indicates further delay and gaps in the landlord’s communication and record management, which delayed progress toward a resolution.
12. The landlord offered £75 compensation for the loss of information and a delay in complaint handling. As outlined above, it lost documents needed to progress the resident’s management transfer request and asked her to resubmit them on 16 September 2025. This delayed the proposed ASB actions and caused the resident time and trouble. It also failed to provide clear updates during this period. As the landlord has not provided a breakdown, it is reasonable to refer to its compensation policy. We have therefore attributed £50 to its handling of the proposed ASB solutions.
13. However, it has failed to recognise the impact of its communication and lack of proactivity in its approach throughout the complaint timeline. As such, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £50 compensation for the time and trouble it caused her. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance for a failure in service and not appropriately acknowledging these or putting them right. We have also made a recommendation for it to provide the outcome of the management transfer application.

Complaint	Installation of a gate and fence
Finding	Service failure

14. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is not responsible for maintaining the garden areas and fencing. The evidence shows that during its previous ASB investigation it was investigating possible solutions to the reported ASB. These included an offer by the resident’s neighbour to install bamboo screening to the garden fence and for the landlord to consider installing a front gate.
15. In relation to the screening, the neighbour had agreed to install this to mitigate their dogs reacting to the resident’s children. The landlord relayed this information to the resident, advising that the neighbour would install this by 28 February 2025. However, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations by explaining it would not be able to enforce this.
16. The landlord also explored the possibility of the addition of a front gate. It is unclear from the evidence when the discussion took place. However, the evidence confirms a contractor attended to assess for a gate and referred this back to the landlord. The records show the landlord decided that it could not proceed with this this due to budget limitations. There is no evidence to show it advised the resident of this decision.
17. In the resident’s complaint, she has raised concerns about the landlord’s implementation of these actions. In its complaint responses the landlord confirmed the neighbour had opted not to install the bamboo screening and confirmed it was unable to pursue this. It also stated as there was no health and safety risk, so it would not install this itself. It also confirmed it would not be installing a front gate for the same reason.
18. The landlord’s delayed communication caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing a resolution. While it agreed to explore solutions to address the ASB, it did not keep the resident updated on its decisions in a timely way. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider financial constraints when assessing requests outside its obligations, but it should have explained these earlier. Its failure to do so caused avoidable time and trouble. The landlord must therefore pay the resident £50 to recognise this impact. This is in line with our compensation guidance for a service failure that has not been appropriately acknowledged.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

19. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2024. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
20. The resident raised a complaint on 12 August 2025. The landlord acknowledged the request on 18 August 2025 before requesting an extension 11 working days later on 2 September 2025. It issued its stage 1 response 6 working days later on 10 September 2025. These are broadly in line with the timescale stated in its policy and caused minimal detriment to the resident.
21. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 September 2025. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge this request until 2 October 2025. It requested an extension 9 working days later on 15 October 2025. It issued its stage 2 response 2 working days later on 17 October 2025. These are outside of the timescales stated in its policy.
22. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered a total compensation of £75. Having referred to its compensation policy we attributed £50 to the ASB complaint, with the remaining £25 being attributed to the delay in its complaint handling. This is an appropriate amount and in line with our compensation guidance for a failing that caused a resident to chase for a response.

Learning

23. A consistent approach to following policies is essential for good ASB case management. Ensuring that the landlord provides frequent updates to residents, along with providing clear written action plans will support proactive management of ASB. Landlords should also ensure that they manage residents’ expectations in terms of the actions that it is able to take. A proactive and transparent approach will reduce delays, support effective resolution, and minimise avoidable distress and inconvenience for residents.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

24. The landlord should keep accurate and secure records, including risk assessments, action plans, and supporting documents. This will help avoid the loss of information and minimise the need for residents to resubmit evidence. It should clearly record decisions, any changes in position, and communication with the resident. This will support transparency, continuity of service, and timely progression of cases.

Communication

25. Through regular communication with the resident, the landlord should explain decisions, and any limitations, such as budget constraints, at the earliest opportunity. This will help manage expectations, maintain transparency, and reduce avoidable time and trouble for residents.