Places for People Group Limited (202501083)

Background

1. The resident’s daughter complained on her behalf to the landlord in February 2025. She said her mother was unhappy with the landlord’s response to a possible gas leak. She said the landlord’s delayed response potentially exposed her mother to carbon monoxide and left her without heating or hot water. The resident has health issues that the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The boiler repair.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair.
4. There was reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

5. The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for heating repairs. It also states residents are responsible for reporting repairs to the landlord. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend all emergency repairs within 24 hours. It categorises gas leaks and loss of heating or hot water as emergency repairs which it will attend within 6 hours.
6. The landlord accepted that a suspected gas leak was reported by its staff member who was with the resident on 29 January 2025. The landlord confirmed that the staff member mistakenly provided an incorrect address for the resident’s property. The resident stated the contractor contacted her that day after attending the wrong address and she then provided the correct address. Despite this, the contractor did not attend the resident’s property.
7. The landlord did not explain why the contractor failed to attend.It stated it had reviewed its call logs but found no evidence the resident reported the contractor’s failure to attend,and it was not aware of the boiler repair until 31 January 2025. Although the incorrect address initially caused confusion, it remains unclear why the contractor failed to attend the property once the correct address was confirmed. There is no evidence that the contractor took any action to address the serious risk or that it updated the landlord on the situation. Landlords are responsible for the actions of theircontractors, and they should have effective systems in place to monitor contractor performance and the progress of works. The landlord’s lack of oversight in this matter was a service failure.
8. Once aware of the issue on 31 January 2025, the landlord attended that day within its emergency response timescales. It confirmed that no carbon monoxide leak had occurred. Records show it made safe the boiler and disconnected the flue. It stated it provided the resident with 2 electric heaters and subsequently offered her £75 compensation for additional electricity costs. It confirmed that the resident had an electric shower for hot water and that she declined an offer of temporary accommodation.
9. Repair records for 31 January 2025 note the boiler was at risk of falling off the wall and that a job was raised to remove it that day, which the landlord stated was completed. The resident disputes this and stated the boiler was not removed until 3 February 2025. The landlord’s records state it attended on 3 February 2025 to prepare the wall following removal (on 31 January 2025) for boiler installation on 5 February 2025. While we acknowledge this point remains in dispute, we have relied on the available documentary evidence which suggests that the boiler was removed on 31 January 2025.
10. Once the landlord became aware of the boiler issue, its actions were prompt and the boiler was fully replaced within 7 days, in line with its repairs policy. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised to the resident. It took full accountability for its lack of oversight of the contractor’s performance. It identified relevant learning including staff training and improvements to its communication protocols. These were appropriate steps towards putting things right and helping to prevent future occurrences.
11. The landlord also provided the resident with £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This was proportionate to reflect the understandable distress caused by its initial delayed response and overall handling of the boiler repair. This amount is also in line with our compensation guidance for failings that adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

12. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
13. The landlord acknowledged its delayed response to the resident’s complaint escalation request on 14 March 2025 and offered the resident £50 compensation for this. However, it provided its stage 2 complaint response within its overall 25-working-day response period on 8 April 2025. Overall, its complaint handling was in line with its policy timescales. Nevertheless, the landlord chose to positively exercise its discretion by compensating the resident for its minor procedural error.

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.

Recommendations

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