Places for People Group Limited (202219590)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219590

Places for People Group Limited

8 March 2024

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the kitchen.
2. The resident’s decant from the property.
3. The resident’s concerns about officer conduct.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat. The resident has medical conditions which he informed the landlord of prior to and during his complaint.
In the resident’s formal complaint on 28 September 2022, he said the whole building vibrated when he used his washing machine and he had reported the issue since 2015. He said the vibration projected spores from “dry rot” which had contributed to his breathing problems and indicated high levels of damp in the property. The resident also referred to excessive dust in the property and that he was having to vacuum daily. He also believed that there was coal ash and asbestos under the floorboards and was concerned about the impact on his health. He said the landlord had no care or compassion despite its legal responsibilities. He said that he has had to reside elsewhere for extended periods of time as the property was unfit for him to live in without affecting his health. The resident said he would like to recover rent for the period in which he had been ignored.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 October 2022. It referred to the resident’s health and said it was unable to deal with that aspect of the complaint in the complaints process. It provided details of its customer focus team who could process any health claims through its insurer. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in relation to the kitchen floor due to the delays in resolving the issue and apologised. It said it would like to discuss compensation once the works were completed. It said the resident had since been decanted to a hotel and it would keep the resident updated with the progress of the works. It provided the following timeline of events:
1. The resident first reported the floor in September and October 2015. It said the floor was assessed at that time. It said further contact was made on 1 October 2021 and an inspection was booked for 22 October 2022 (the Ombudsman assumes this was meant to state 22 October 2021). It said a joiner attended and requested a repair to renew a joist on the landing but it failed to action the request.
2. On 16 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and a new job was raised due to the time which had lapsed. It said it attended the same day and levelled the washing machine, but further works were required to remove the kitchen units and assess the floor. It said that was scheduled for 1 June 2022 and the resident was not happy with the timeframe. It said a request was made to bring the work forward but was not picked up.
3. A joiner attended on 1 June 2022 and inspected the flooring after removing the kitchen unit. They stated that the plasterboard made it difficult to investigate whether the joists were bouncing. They recommended that a structural surveyor look at it.
4. The landlord held a meeting on 11 June 2022 to discuss options for the flooring. It said a visit was made to inspect the flooring on 29 June 2022 in which the resident raised concerns regarding dust in the property and whether it was asbestos related. It said that from the photographs it did not believe asbestos was present and it could be a residual issue from the resident spending long periods away from the property.
5. An appointment was made on 8 July 2022 at the property below the resident’s to inspect the joists, however, due to there being an original ceiling, it could not determine the issue. It said both the resident and the resident below would need to be decanted while investigation works commenced. It said the resident said he would prefer to go to a hotel and that was where he currently was residing.
The resident escalated the complaint on 23 November 2022. He said very little had happened since his formal complaint. He said there had been an inspection which found that the supporting wall in the flat below was removed and the current joists were unstable, which was not in line with building regulations. He said he asked for a copy of the structural engineer’s report but had not been provided with it. He said the person who handled his complaint was rude and called him numerous times despite being told not to, as he was suffering a severe mental breakdown. He said he was told he could stay in the hotel until the work was completed, but felt the landlord was seeking to go back on this. He referred to a meeting in which 2 landlord staff members insisted on meeting in his room which made him extremely uncomfortable. He said that was further compounded by them saying that he had to move to different accommodation away from everything and everyone he knows. He said he refused to move to another place as it was detrimental to his mental health.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 31 January 2023. It said:
1. The stage 1 letter was appropriate to the issues raised by the resident. It recognised how it had failed the resident. It said the inspections at the property were likely to have caused more medical issues for the resident, therefore it arranged the decant to keep him safe. It said the complaint handler contacted him once between him requesting no contact and them receiving the message. They said it was not intentionally done to cause distress.
2. It had spoken to 1 of the staff members who met him at the hotel. They stated that they met the resident outside the hotel and offered to go for a hot drink somewhere, but the resident declined the offer and asked them to go to his room. The staff member confirmed that issues with the timescales of completing the works were discussed and a decant to another property was suggested, to make the resident more comfortable. The landlord said it was not mandatory and the resident was a high priority to be moved to a ground floor property in the area if one becomes available. It said it did not have a recording of the conversation and as such it was hearsay, therefore it was unable to comment further.
3. It outlined the works in the property and gave a completion date of May 2023. It said it was longer than originally anticipated and it would look into alternative temporary accommodation if the resident chose to accept it. It said it intended to get the resident back into his property as soon as it was safe and appropriate to do so.
4. It confirmed it had not seen evidence of bullying, harassment, and intimidation and if the resident had evidence, to let it know.
5. It acknowledged that it had missed the timescale for responding to the resident’s complaint and attributed this to the offices being closed over the christmas period. It apologised and said that it would offer compensation for its failure to respond within the timescales set.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response, he remained concerned about the time taken to complete the repairs and referred the case to the Ombudsman. He disputed the accounts of the staff members he had complained about. He said the landlord was disregarding his medical professional’s advice and wanted them to stop looking to move him.

Post internal complaints procedure.

The landlord was granted planning permission on 29 March 2023 and construction was consequently appointed to undertake the installation of the steel beam in the property. Following this a survey was carried out, it was agreed that a new kitchen would be installed and additional flooring laid in the kitchen and in the living room. The kitchen would also be decorated, along with the coving in the living room. The landlord estimated that additional works would be completed by the end of July 2023. The landlord also offered to carry out an air quality test as a goodwill gesture in August 2023.
Following this, the resident disputed that the repairs had been carried out to a satisfactory standard. In a telephone call to the Ombudsman in February 2024, the resident confirmed that he returned to the property in November 2023. He said he could still feel the vibrations but they were not as bad. He said the outcome he would like was an apology, compensation, and for the landlord to be thoroughly investigated.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to his health and that the landlord’s handling of the repairs could have had an impact on this. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to determine whether there would have been a direct link between the actions or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent impact on the resident’s health. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on making a personal injury claim if he wishes to pursue this. Although we cannot assess the impact of the landlord’s actions on the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the situation.
The resident made further formal complaints in relation to asbestos and the landlord’s handling of his data which have received stage 1 and 2 responses from the landlord. As the complaints were made following the exhaustion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and were part of a separate investigation by the landlord, they have not been considered in this report. If the resident is dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaints made, he may wish to refer the matters to the Ombudsman. While the Ombudsman has not considered these complaints beyond the exhaustion of the complaint’s procedure, consideration has been given to the issues at the time.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs to the kitchen.

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines the following timescales for commencement and completion of repairs: 24 hours for emergency repairs, 28 days for appointable repairs, and 90 days for planned repairs.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System, (HHSRS) assesses 29 different types of housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of occupants. Asbestos is one of the 29 hazards set out in the HHSRS. Under the HHSRS, the landlord needs to identify the location of any asbestos in the property, assess how vulnerable it is to damage, and identify any current damage or potential fibre release.
The Ombudsman has not had sight of the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord stated that it does not have a copy on file and cannot provide an explanation for why it was not stored on its system. While the landlord apologised to the resident and said that it would be reviewing its internal processes, it was not appropriate that the landlord did not know what happened to the original tenancy agreement. While it is not in the remit of the Ombudsman to investigate the information technology arrangements of the landlord, the absence of the tenancy agreement is concerning. An order has been made in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
It is not disputed that the resident first reported the issue with the floor in 2015 and that prior to the resident’s complaint, there were significant delays by the landlord in resolving the issue. Following the residents first report in 2015, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have outlined the outcome of the assessment which was taken at the time. However, as the resident does not appear to report the issue again until 2021, the Ombudsman will only consider the landlords actions from that date due to the time lapsed in between reports.
While complex repairs can take longer than the timescales outlined in the repairs policy, there were avoidable delays in assessing the floor following the resident’s numerous reports. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 response and stated that it would offer compensation on completion of the works. While it is positive the landlord recognised its failings and sought to remedy them, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to outline what action it would take to ensure it did not happen again.
In his formal complaint the resident raised concerns about the dust in his property and that he believed it to be coal ash and asbestos under the flooring. The resident felt it had contributed to his breathing difficulties when in the home. The landlord stated that it had reviewed photographs and it did not believe asbestos was present. It then suggested that as the resident had spent long periods away from the property, the dust could be a residual issue. The landlord’s actions and response were inappropriate. It demonstrated a lack of empathy towards the resident and no consideration towards the impact that the concerns were having on him.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have undertaken further tests to satisfy itself that the dust was not excessive nor presenting a risk to the resident’s health. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reviewed any previous asbestos surveys in the property to determine next steps and/or arranged for an asbestos survey if a previous one was not available. It may also have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted an air test and damp survey to reassure itself that the dust in the property was not a risk to the resident. It could have explained what actions it would take during the repair to address the issues, which would have helped manage the resident’s expectations.
While the landlord stated that the resident would need to make a claim in relation to the impact on his health, it still had a responsibility as per its repairs policy and the HHSRS to ensure that the property was free from hazards. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord sufficiently assessed the risk to the resident prior to his formal complaint. Following the formal complaint, letters were provided to the landlord from the resident’s healthcare providers expressing their concerns regarding the delays in progressing the repairs. While the Ombudsman has not received any copies of a risk assessment taken at the time, a decant was arranged until the repairs were completed. Therefore, the landlord sufficiently managed the risk from that point onwards.
Following the complaint, despite the time taken to resolve the issue, there is no evidence of avoidable delay from the landlord. The landlord ensured there was a point of contact for the resident who would keep him updated throughout the repair. Following the substantive repair, further work was required to install a new kitchen, living room flooring, decoration, and further tests in the property. A delay in repairs is not always classed as a failing if the landlord was acting proactively to resolve a problem. From the evidence provided and following the formal complaint, the landlord did act proactively to resolve the repair.
Overall, following the formal complaint the landlord accommodated the resident and his requests throughout the duration of the repair. While the works were not straightforward, the landlord sought to resolve issues as they arose. The delays prior to the formal complaint were not acceptable and it is disappointing that the landlord did not follow through with its offer of compensation. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding dust in the property was not appropriate and further tests should have been undertaken at the time. For those reasons, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen.
The landlord will be ordered to compensate the resident based on the loss of use and enjoyment of the property due to the landlord’s delay in resolving the repair. The compensation will be based on the failure to raise the repair in Oct 2021 until the resident’s formal complaint on 28 September 2022. An order will also be made to compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant from the property.

The landlord’s decant policy states that where it is identified that repair works are require to a property which is deemed uninhabitable for a longer period, then a planned move to alternative accommodation may be required. It states that when considering where to decant a customer, the most relevant options are:
1. Local Authority Homelessness and Housing Advice Team
2. Hotel / B&B Accommodation
3. Ready to Let Void property from within own stock.
It states that in all cases consideration is to be given to the customers individual needs and solutions adopted accordingly for example, requirement of adaptations of their health, mobility, culture, or support needs.
Following the resident’s complaint, the option for a decant was discussed and the landlord said it was agreed to decant the resident with immediate effect. It said this was as a protective factor due to the impact of the situation on the resident’s mental and physical health. At the time and in absence of any further inspections of the property, it estimated the work would take up to 12 weeks. The resident was shown a potential property for a temporary decant which had a kitchen space, however, the resident declined it. It was agreed he would be decanted to a hotel as of 3 October 2022. A parking space, breakfast, and an additional daily allowance of food of £26 per day was included for the duration of the decant.
The resident complained that the landlord said he could stay in the hotel until the work was completed and felt the landlord was seeking to go back on this. The landlord responded and said that due to the timescales involved in completing the works, a decant to another property was suggested. It said it was suggested to make him more comfortable and was not mandatory. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the property in question and said the resident was a high priority to move to a ground floor property in the area should one become available. It said given the length of time it would take for the works to be completed; alternative accommodation would give the resident more space than he currently had. It is recognised that at the time the resident was decanted, the landlord did not have all the information required to provide an accurate timescale for the repairs at the property. Once the landlord had a more accurate timescale, it was reasonable for the landlord to update the resident and discuss whether the current decant remained a suitable option.
When the resident informed the landlord that his health was affected by living in a hotel room, the landlord offered an aparthotel with bigger floor space and a separate living space. The resident had also previously been offered 3 of the landlord’s properties which had accessible parking and a kitchen, bathroom, living space, and private or communal space. The landlord said that the resident declined all the options offered. The resident decided he would prefer to stay at the hotel for the duration of the repairs and was able to do so. While the Ombudsman can empathise with the resident and the extended living situation, the landlord has satisfactorily shown that it considered the resident’s health and offered alternative properties in line with this.
The landlord’s records show that the resident received support from the enhanced housing management service throughout the decant. The resident always had a named contact who could assist with communication with the landlord in relation to the decant and works required. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord acted in line with its policy and its actions were fair to the resident. The Ombudsman has found no maladministration in relation to the resident’s decant from the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about officer conduct.

The landlord’s safeguarding policy states that safeguarding is a responsibility of all employees of the landlord. It states that it should discuss safeguarding concerns with the individual to get their view of what they would like to happen and keep them involved in the safeguarding process, seeking their consent to share information outside of the organisation where safe to do so.
The resident expressed a dissatisfaction in relation to staff members conduct. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the members of staff did or did not conduct themselves in the manner the resident reported. Instead, it is the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it.
The accounts provided from both the resident and the staff members involved do differ and it would be difficult to determine which account was correct. It was reasonable for the landlord to speak with the staff members in question to determine their version of events. Other than their accounts, no further information could be provided to substantiate one version of events over the other. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord would not have sufficient evidence to take any further action.
While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s experience, the landlord took the concerns raised by the resident seriously and sought to respond to the issues he brought to it. Its complaint responses addressed the issues he raised, and records show how it reached its conclusion. Based on the evidence available, the actions taken by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct were proportionate and no failings were identified.
The resident informed the landlord that he was suffering from a mental breakdown at the time of the visit from the 2 staff members and referred to the impact the situation was having on his mental wellbeing. The resident said he was a “vulnerable disabled adult” and there was no offer for him to have a friend, mediator, or representative present. It is not clear from the records whether the staff members were aware of the breakdown at the time, however, the landlord should reflect on whether it sufficiently followed its safeguarding policy and assessed the risk. It is important that the landlord can satisfy itself that where there is a safeguarding concern, its staff are confident in their decisions, and have the right training to respond to it.
The landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns. The resident was provided with a new support staff member which was appropriate in the circumstances and would help to rebuild the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord should reflect on whether more could have been done to assist with safeguarding at the time. However, the Ombudsman has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2-stage complaint procedure, where it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider compensation or reimbursement in the following circumstances:
1. “We have failed to provide a service covered by a tenancy/lease agreement or service charge to the agreed specification (or standard) and this has previously been highlighted by the customer to a colleague/team and not resolved.
2. Where there is an unreasonable delay in the landlord resolving a query or issue and the customer has not been kept informed.
3. We are responsible for a loss of facilities and have failed to put it right within target timescale.
4. Other methods to resolve a complaint (such as an apology and/or resolution or explanation) are considered insufficient by the person investigating the complaint, or our previous responses have been inadequate.
5. The overall experience of the customer requires some recognition to acknowledge that we have fallen short of our expected standards.”
The resident made his formal complaint on 28 September 2022 and the landlord responded on 14 October 2022, 12 working days after. The resident then escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 23 November 2022 and the landlord responded on 31 January 2023, 46 working days after. While the responses from the landlord were not in line with its policy, the landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 response and said it would be reflected in its compensation offer. The landlord’s response was reasonable; however, it is yet to offer any compensation to the resident. There is also no evidence to suggest that the resident was offered any compensation following the completion of the repairs, which is not appropriate.
Overall, the complaint responses to the resident were thorough and addressed each element of the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged when it had failed in its responsibilities and stated that compensation would be offered as a result. The landlord did appear dismissive when responding to the resident’s concerns regarding dust in the property. It is also disappointing that the landlord did not follow through with its offer of compensation following the repair and for the delays in handling. For that reason, the Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the kitchen.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant from the property.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about officer conduct.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord staff is to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in the case.
The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £1,823 compensation comprising of:
1. £1,123 for the loss of use and enjoyment of the property based on 25% of the weekly rent of £91.71, for 49 weeks.
2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
3. £100 for the landlord’s failures in its complaints handling.
The landlord is to outline how it reviewed its internal processes in relation to the lack of tenancy agreement and what actions it has taken to ensure it does not happen again.
The landlord is to provide compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should reflect on its safeguarding responsibilities throughout this case and whether more could have been done to support the resident, in line with its policies.
It is understood that the landlord previously offered the resident an air quality test within the property. If it has not already carried out the test, the landlord should re-offer it to the resident and outline an action plan for doing so.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should provide the resident with its position on asbestos within the property.