Places for People Group Limited (202448017)

Decision
Case ID	202448017
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Origin Housing Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	23 October 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. For context, we have previously determined case 202123756 for the resident in January 2024 which related to handling of garden repairs. We made orders to complete outstanding work to the resident’s garden and pay compensation.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about a landlord staff member’s conduct.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, with respect to its staff member’s conduct, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
There was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord apologised promptly, and offered compensation in line with our remedies guidance, which were reasonable actions to put things right.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 September 2023	The resident received information from the landlord after making a Subject Access Request.
2 January 2024	The resident complained about a landlord staff member’s comments in an email dated 29 September 2023. She said: The landlord’s comments that the resident could see a financial benefit in continuing to frustrate the work and that there was an unwillingness of both residents [the resident and her neighbour] to accept contractors working at their homes and tendency to change their minds regularly were outrageous. She would not tolerate the landlord talking about her in such a way. She wanted to know which staff member made the comment, and what action would be taken against the staff member in regard to such “slanderous and unprofessional emails.”
15 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, in which it upheld the complaint. It said: The staff member that made the comments advised he was providing some background on the case to colleagues and agreed his framing of certain statements could have been better. The staff member expressed sincere apologies for the wording… and agreed some of the content was speculative and unreasonable. Any action taken against the staff member is confidential between the landlord and staff member. It unreservedly apologised to the resident for the wording and statements made in the email. It said sometimes colleagues need to share their frank opinions on matters – but there was no evidence to suggest that progress with the works was hindered for financial gain.
24 January 2024	The resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She said: The investigation into the incident was vague and unacceptable. The staff member’s comments were not speculative they were slanderous and in accordance with the Deformation Act 2013.
28 February 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response, where it partially upheld the complaint. It said: The staff member had asked to share a personal written apology, written by him, and expressing his apologies, which was attached to the complaint response. The staff member had offered to meet the resident face to face or via an online meeting so he can further express his apologies. It asked the resident to let it know if she would like this to be arranged. It accepted the comments were unreasonable and recognised the distress caused, but it could not find that it was a deliberate attempt to cause distress to the resident. The email was sent prior to the Housing Ombudsman’s previous determination, which ordered work to be completed in the resident’s garden. It had not found evidence the comment was intended to diminish the resident’s character and project the staff member’s narrative about the case. It would be for a court of law to decide if the statements were slanderous in accordance with the Defamation Act 2013. The landlord’s CEO was satisfied the stage 1 response and stage 2 investigation were appropriate and proportionate and the apology was sufficient. However, did acknowledge the distress and alarm the situation caused, and also offered an apology. It recognised the resident’s strength of feeling that she was being singled out and targeted. However, it found no evidence of corporate bullying. It accepted it identified a failing in service and wanted to offer £200 compensation to acknowledge the impact of the issue.
17 April 2024	The resident accepted the compensation.
26 February 2025	The resident referred the complaint to us. She said she wanted to know: What the landlord’s CEO was going to put in place to safeguard her household. The consequences to the landlord if this situation happened again. What was going to be implemented to clear the name of her household of the slanderous and false statements.

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 staff member’s conduct
Finding	Reasonable redress

When a resident complains about how staff have behaved, the Ombudsman looks at whether the landlord has done enough to address the problem and settle the complaint. To decide this, we check if the landlord’s response was fair, helped put things right, and showed that they’ve learned from what happened.
We acknowledge the alarm and distress the comment caused to the resident. However, the evidence showed that:
1. The landlord conducted a thorough investigation into the comment.
2. The landlord acknowledged the internal communication may not have been as professional as it should have been.
3. The landlord’s Chief Executive Officer has offered her apologies.
4. The staff member that made the comment has:
  1. Sincerely apologised.
  2. Offered to meet the resident either face to face or online to apologise in person.
5. The landlord paid £200 compensation to the resident.
Further, there was no evidence to suggest wider evidence of bias towards the resident or that there was any wider pattern of discrimination by the landlord and this was more than an isolated event.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the comment was inappropriate and apologising to the resident. It put things right by awarding £200 compensation by way of apology. The compensation offered was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings in this case. Taking account of all the circumstances of the case, we find that the landlord’s response to the complaint was appropriate and proportionate. A finding is made that the landlord had offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The evidence showed the landlord responded to the sent its stage 1 complaint response 9 working days after receipt of the complaint, in line with its complaint policy. It acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate the complaint on 31 January 2024, in line with policy, and sent its stage 2 response 21 working days later. This was 1 day over the landlord’s policy timeframe. However, there was no evidence to suggest the 1 day delay caused any inconvenience to the resident.

Learning

The landlord should remind its staff to be mindful of comments made in relation to its residents, contractors and other landlord staff in internal communications.