Places for People Group Limited (202205664)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205664

Places for People Group Limited

27 October 2023

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

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

     a. damp and mould in the property.

                      b. the resident’s request to be rehoused.

  1. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has advised this service that because of the matters complained about, he has incurred financial losses. The landlord has not had the opportunity to consider these financial losses during the landlord’s internal complaints process.
  2. This service is therefore unable to consider these losses because at the time they were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention, the issues raised had not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As such, under paragraph 42 (c) of the scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to consider these financial losses.
  3. To assist the resident in the matter, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation later in this report that the landlord provide the resident with details of its insurance company.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord between 2016 and 2023. The property is a ground floor flat in a block. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. In 2017 the resident was impacted by anti-social behaviour within the block and asked the landlord for alternative accommodation because of the stress caused by the anti-social behaviour. The resident was placed on the landlord’s internal transfer list and subsequently offered alternative accommodation. The resident did not accept the offer of alternative accommodation but remained on the landlord’s internal transfer list.
  3. In October 2021, the resident reported damp and mould to the landlord. The landlord attended the property in November to inspect and assess the works needed. The landlord completed the work on 28 March 2022.
  4. The resident was dissatisfied with the amount of time taken by the landlord to carry out the works and in January 2022 complained about the length of time taken to carry out works and complained about its handling of his request to be moved.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in February 2022. In its stage 1 response the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaints. It stated it had dealt with the reports of damp and mould within a reasonable timescale. In respect of its handling of his transfer application and the time taken to move properties, it acknowledged his frustration and stated that it had a limited number of properties available to offer.
  6. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint also frequently raised the issue of the residents conduct towards staff during the year and cautioned him that it may seek to apply its unreasonable behaviour policy in the future. The Ombudsman will comment on the landlord’s approach later in this report.
  7. In May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. In June 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord maintained that it had responded to the reports of damp and mould in a reasonable timescale.
  8. In respect of its handling of the resident’s transfer application the landlord’s stage 2 investigation found that it had not informed the resident of an important change in how it managed its internal transfer waiting list and considered this a service failure on its part. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint about its handling of his transfer application and offered £50 in compensation.
  9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and referred his complaint to this service. To resolve the complaint the resident would like increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property

  1. Appendix C of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that all reports of damp, mould and condensation are triaged through a dedicated process. The policy indicates that damp, mould, and condensation is considered an ‘appointable repair’ (a repair that can prevent damage to the property).
  2. The landlord’s policy states, “timescales for the commencement and completion of works will be arranged within response timescales under the following categories: Emergency Repairs (“P1”) 24 Hours, Appointable Repairs 28 Days (currently 60) Planned Repairs 90 days”.
  3. The records provided by the landlord show the resident reported the damp and mould on 25 October 2021. The landlord inspected 3 weeks later on 16 November 2021 and on 24 November 2021 it raised a works order to treat the mould in hallway and bathroom with anti-fungal paint.
  4. The documents provided indicate the landlord did not inform the resident when this work would be carried out. It was only when the resident telephoned the landlord on 5 January that he was informed the works would start on 19 January. The landlord did not keep the resident up to date with the progress of the issue which caused annoyance and frustration to the resident.
  5. The landlords repair records reflect the operative could not finish the works in the amount of time assigned and another appointment was made for the operative to return for the full day on 28 March 2022. This suggests the landlord failed to fully understand the extent of the problem from the beginning, resulting in an unrealistic and inappropriate amount of time assigned to the job order.
  6. The records provided by the landlord show the treatment of the mould in the hallway, bathroom and application of anti-fungal paint was completed on 28 March 2022.However, the landlord did not replace the faulty extractor fan in the bathroom until 18 May 2022. This means the time taken from first report to full completion of the damp and mould works calculates as 29 weeksand 3 days(206 days).
  7. In view of the landlord’s published timescale of 28 days to complete appointable repairs, the landlord’s position that it had completed works within a reasonable timescale was unfair and unreasonable. The Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord’s own complaint investigation failed to identify that it fell short of its published timescales.
  8. The Ombudsman finds the landlord unreasonably delayed at every stage. It took the landlord 21 days to inspect the damp and mould after it was first reported,and a further 63 days after theinspection before itbegun works, it failed to schedule the appropriate amount of time so work could not be completedfirst time around resulting in a further visit almost 10 weeks later to finish the work started on 19 January.
  9. The Ombudsman expects that where there is going to be delays outside of the landlord’s published timescales, the landlord clearly communicates the reasons to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord gave an explanation to the resident about the reasons for its delays. This was a failing on the part of the landlord and meant the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations appropriately.
  10. The documents provided show the customer contacted the landlord’s customer focus team on 13 May 2022 to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He became emotional when describing the impact, the damp and mould had on his life. He explained he “felt ashamed to allow people into his home due to the mould and smells” and “felt ashamed of the smell of damp which lingered on his clothes” and told the call handler that he had strong feelings of upset and frustration towards the landlord.
  11. The landlord arranged to visit the resident at home the next day. This was timely and appropriate considering the resident’s distress during the telephone call to the landlord.
  12. The delays had a negative impact on the resident and led to the resident having to suffer the damp and mould problem for longer than was necessary and caused frustration, disruption, and distress to the resident.
  13. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the works had taken an extended period to resolve but provided no explanation or apology for this and did not seek to put this right. This was unfair and unreasonable.
  14. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents reports of damp and mould.

The landlords handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

  1. The resident applied for alternative accommodation in 2017. The resident informed this service the application was made due to experiencing antisocial behaviour in the block.
  2. The landlord offered the resident alternative accommodation. The resident did not accept the offer of accommodation but remained on the landlord’s internal transfer list.
  3. The documents provided indicate the resident informed the landlord that he believed he should be awarded a band A priority, (the resident was in band B). As part of its stage 2 response the landlord visited the resident at home to discuss the issues. This was a sensible approach to take so that it could understand the resident’s needs.
  4. At the home visit, the landlord became aware that the resident had not been informed of the change in the way it managed applications for rehousing, in that since February 2022, applicants now had to apply to the local authority unless the application was for a management transfer.
  5. The landlord gave advice about what evidence the resident should provide to be considered for a management transfer and suggested the resident ask his doctor to provide specific evidence of the residents need to move urgently.
  6. The landlord empathised with the resident about the length of time taken to move and his past experiences living in the property. The landlord referred the resident to another internal service for additional support with finding accommodation. The Ombudsman finds the breath of advice and support given at this stage was appropriate.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord accepted it had not updated him about the changes on the new process for managing applications. This meant it failed to manage his expectations and meant that between February and May 2022 the resident was not aware of the full range of housing options and advice available to him.
  8.  The landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation for failing to inform him of the change at an earlier stage which was appropriate in the circumstances.
  9. Accordingly, the Ombudsman finds the landlord offered reasonable redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. It is clear from the documents provided that the landlord, tenant relationship became strained. In the months prior to the resident’s complaint and during the time of the landlord’s complaint investigation, there were several occasions where the landlord documented on its customer relationship management system that communication with the resident had broken down due to the resident’s challenging behaviour during telephone calls.
  2. In this case, the landlord decided to raise the residents historic and current conduct in its stage 1 complaint response and informed the resident that it could apply its unacceptable behaviour policy.
  3. Point 4.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that complaints should be dealt with on their merits. This means the landlords complaint response should have been based solely on the issues complained about by the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman’s view is that raising the residents conduct issue in its stage 1 complaint response was inappropriate. The landlord’s frequent mentions of the resident’s conduct deflected and confused the issues. This was not fair or reasonable approach to take. The landlord has an unacceptable behaviour policy and should have applied it at the time the conduct issues occurred.
  5. The two processes of managing service complaints and managing resident behaviour are separate and are the responsibility of separate parts of the landlord’s housing function. If the resident’s behaviour had been unreasonable, it should have been addressed in a separate letter sent in accordance with the landlord’s unacceptable behaviour policy.
  6. The Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Order

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must apologise to the resident for the delays in handling the damp and mould in the property.
  2.  Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should pay the resident £600 in compensation for its delays in handling the damp and mould in the property. This amount is in addition to the compensation paid at Stage 2 of the complaints process.
  3. Within 12 weeks the landlord should carry out staff training on responding to complaints when resident conduct is an issue.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the complaints process should not be used to raise matters of resident conduct or issue warnings to residents about conduct.
  2. In respect of the losses the resident stated were incurred, the landlord should provide details of its insurance company to the resident