Places for People Group Limited (202305317)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305317

Places for People Group Limited

27 March 2025

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 the resident’s concerns about:
1. A parking ticket issued to her mother.
2. The provision of parking permits.
3. The length of time scaffolding was in place.
4. The main electric gates to the building.
5. Flooding in the car park.
6. The standard of cleaning in communal areas.
7. The temperature of the building during the summer.
8. A request for a spare key fob for the building.
9. The provision of heating and hot water in the resident’s flat.
10. Leaks in the building and the impact on the resident’s home.
The Ombudsman has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaint handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. She lives in a first floor flat. There are a total of 28 flats in the block. The resident reports having learning difficulties, ADHD, and suffering from endometriosis. The resident works from home. All flats in the building are heated by a communal heating system.
In August 2022 the resident reported a leak in the building affecting her flat and some communal areas. Both parties agree that the leak caused damage to the resident’s flat and resulted in a collapsed ceiling in a communal area. Both parties agree that the leak was repaired in January 2023.
On 27 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the leak and the damage it caused, which had not yet been fixed.
2. The car park flooding every time it rained.
3. Delays in receiving spare key fobs to access the building.
4. The main electric gates to the car park not locking.
5. High temperatures in the building during the summer months, which could rise as high as 32 degrees Celsius.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 April 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 May 2023 and added to her complaint. She was concerned about scaffolding which had been in place near the building for a long time. She also raised concerns about issues with her heating and hot water supply, and the standard of cleaning in communal areas by the landlord.
The resident contacted us the same day for help progressing her complaint. We contacted the landlord on 27 September 2023 to progress the resident’s complaint.
On 4 October 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint again. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 November 2023. She asked for it to pay compensation (by clearing her rent arrears) and complete outstanding repairs to resolve her complaint. On 11 November 2023 she reported that her mother had received a parking ticket for parking in the building’s car park.
On 27 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It stated that:
1. It had erected a shoring scaffold against the wall in question because it was unstable. It was engaged in legal proceedings against the responsible party.
2. The scaffold had compromised the function of the gate, which was outside of its control until the situation with the scaffolding had been resolved.
3. The car park was flooding due to rubbish blocking the drains. This was exacerbated by fly tipping resulting from the issue with the gates. It said it was looking at steps to resolve the problem.
4. It had responded appropriately to reports of loss of heating and hot water. It said upon closer inspection of the repair logs, it would flush the radiators.
5. It had installed insulation to communal heating pipes to keep the building temperature down. It acknowledged poor ventilation in communal areas.
6. It had performed a spot check of the cleaning services and found the standard to be acceptable.
7. There had been a leak which had taken 3 months to resolve. It apologised and outlined planned work to inspect the damage reported.
8. It apologised for the delay in providing a spare key fob. It promised to deliver one to the resident in person on 30 November 2023.
9. All residents had been made aware of the parking arrangements at the building in a letter on 10 August 2023. It added that any issues should be discussed with the named parking operator.
10. It was sorry for the delays experienced in complaint handling.
11. It offered the resident £250 compensation for “complaint handling, distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, and prolonged delays.”
On 30 November 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She was unhappy with the offer of compensation, stating that it did not reflect the “undue stress these issues have caused”. She said that the repairs to her heating and hot water system were not lasting. She outlined the adverse effect she had experienced and noted some costs that she had incurred, such as running temporary oil heaters provided by the landlord’s contractors.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 February 2024. The response was consistent with that issued at stage 1, however it added that:
1. The wall and associated property were due to be sold by its owners. The landlord was in contact with the prospective buyer to resolve the issue with the scaffold.
2. It would look into a “communal washdown” of the areas effected by repeated urination.
3. It had arranged for the drains in the carpark to be cleared.
4. It had flushed the radiators and would look to overhaul the heating system in the entire building within 3 months. This would include removing 28 hot water cylinders which it expected to lower ambient temperatures.
5. It had completed a survey of the resident’s flat and it had revealed some issues which were attended to on 17 January 2024.
6. In recognition of the resident’s inconvenience, “loss of enjoyment”, and “time factors”, it would offer a total of £1,500 compensation.
On 12 May 2024 the resident informed us that she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme explains what we can and cannot investigate, which is called our jurisdiction. Paragraph 41b of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. The parking ticket was issued by a third party (the parking operator), and not the landlord (the member). Therefore, the resident’s complaint about a parking ticket issued to her mother is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

The resident’s concerns about the provision of parking permits

The resident complained that she had been told parking permits would be issued to residents, but this did not happen. However, there is no evidence that this conversation with the landlord about parking permits took place or that any promises were made. The evidence shows that the landlord sent a letter to all residents on 10 August 2023, explaining that due to limited parking capacity, only residents of the building could use the car park.
The occupancy agreement does not state that the landlord must provide parking as a condition of the tenancy. The landlord therefore is not obliged to provide parking permits to the resident or her visitors. The occupancy agreement states that no party must park on its property without “the express permission of the landlord”. There is no evidence that the resident requested permission for third parties to park on the site prior to her complaint. The landlord’s Estate Management Policy states that it cannot guarantee residents a parking space.
As a result, the landlord fulfilled its obligations to the resident by communicating clearly about the arrangements. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about parking arrangements.

The resident’s concerns about the length of time scaffolding was in place

The wall where the scaffolding was erected bordered the car park. The scaffold protruded into the communal area. Both parties agree that the scaffold was in place for over a year before the resident’s initial complaint. The landlord acknowledged that this was causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. The resident wanted an explanation as to why the scaffolding had remained in place.
The landlord explained that the wall where the scaffolding was erected was the responsibility of the owner of a neighbouring building. It explained that it had erected a shoring scaffold because the wall was structurally compromised, posing a potential risk to residents. The landlord explained that it could not remove the scaffold until the responsible party had completed repairs and the responsible party was refusing to take action. The landlord said that it was taking legal action to resolve the issue. The evidence supports the landlord’s account.
The landlord later said that the building was being sold and that it was in contact with the prospective regarding its responsibilities in respect of the wall. The evidence shows that the landlord did this proactively. The landlord’s actions therefore were reasonable in response to a situation that was outside of its control. The landlord followed the general principle set out in its Estate Management Policy to “ensure the safety of residents” by erecting the shoring scaffold. As a result, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the scaffolding.

Handling of concerns about the main electric gates to the building

The resident complained that the gates at the front of the building were not working. Both parties agree that this resulted in antisocial behaviour such as fly tipping, unknown individuals coming onto the premises, and frequent instances of public urination occurring in the car park. The landlord explained that the gate function was unavoidably compromised by the shoring scaffold.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s contractors attended on a number of occasions between December 2022 and January 2024. All attendances were marked as “cancelled” and little further information is available. The reasons for this are unclear, except on one occasion where the wrong contractor appears to have been called out.
It appears likely from the evidence available, that these repairs were cancelled on-site because repairs were not possible without the removal of the shoring scaffold. The photographs seen during this investigation support this and therefore support the landlord’s assessment. It is reasonable therefore that the landlord was unable to repair the gates and there was no maladministration.
It is likely that the landlord could have avoided unnecessary attendances with improved record keeping. There is no evidence that this caused any adverse effect to the resident, therefore these repeat attendances do not reflect a failing.

Concerns about flooding in the car park

There was adverse effect however caused by the gate being out of use. This included a build-up of rubbish which had blocked the drains and led the car park to flood “whenever it rains”. The resident described the distress and inconvenience caused by getting out of her car into “ankle deep water”.
The landlord’s Estate Management Policy states that it is responsible for the maintenance of communal parking areas. The policy explains that its responsibilities in this regard are to “maintain the (relevant) areas to an agreed standard” and to “ensure these standards are maintained by inspecting all (relevant) areas on a regular basis”.
It does not appear that there are any “agreed standards” in relation to the car park. However, the occupancy agreement clearly attributes responsibility to the landlord for keeping external drains in good repair. It is reasonable to conclude that this should include the drains of any communal areas for which the landlord is responsible.
The resident first reported a recurrence of flooding in the car park (as this had also been an issue historically) in April 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted any enquiries until November 2023. The enquiries consisted of internal emails to various departments, which appeared to acknowledge an issue with flooding and referenced previously planned work to install a soakaway. It said that there had been “no issues” for over 2 years with regard to the flooding car park. It said that it would monitor the situation but would not take any further actions at that time.
This assessment however appeared to rely on the landlord’s record of reports made by its residents. There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the car park on a regular basis as set out in its Estate Management Policy. The evidence also shows that the resident had reported flooding to the landlord during the time in which it claimed to have received no such reports. The landlord failed to ensure that reports were appropriately handled and recorded.
The evidence also shows that the landlord had established on 15 November 2023 that that “bins were overflowing and blocking the drains”. It arranged for the rubbish to be removed, which was reasonable. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it told the resident that it had “arranged for the drains in the car park to be examined and cleared”. It removed the rubbish on 15 April 2024. This was an appropriate step to take, but the delay in reaching this outcome was unreasonable and represented a failing. The evidence shows that the landlord has since taken steps to clear the drains as promised and that further works remain ongoing.
In conclusion, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of reports of flooding in the car park. This increased the time and trouble for the resident to encourage action from the landlord and it was appropriate to reflect this by offering compensation. The landlord offered £1,500 total compensation at stage 2 of the complaints process for “distress, inconvenience, and delays” but it is unclear exactly which issues this offer related to.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there have been failings that have caused time, trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved, compensation of up to £100 should be considered. The landlord therefore made an offer which provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of concerns of flooding in the car park.

The standard of cleaning in communal areas

The resident complained about the standard of cleaning provided in communal areas. It is understood from the evidence that some communal cleaning is provided as part of the resident’s service charges. This investigation was not provided with any evidence of a schedule of services or a breakdown of the services provided. It is inferred from the evidence provided that the landlord provides general cleaning of the interior of the building and outdoor litter picking.
It was appropriate that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns about the service being provided. It attended on 16 November 2023 to perform a “spot check” of the cleaning. It found that the cleaner was attending as expected and that the standard of cleaning performed was acceptable.
It noted the build-up of rubbish outside the building and appropriately investigated whether a lack of litter picking by its cleaners may have contributed to this. It found that the issues of the gates and separate issues with bin collections were the cause of the rubbish build up. It confirmed to the resident that general litter picking activities were otherwise proceeding as expected.
The landlord therefore handled the resident’s concerns appropriately. Its inspection did not indicate that it needed to take any further action and there was no maladministration.

Concerns about the temperature of the building during the summer

There appeared to be a miscommunication between the resident and landlord around this issue. The complaint dealt with issues of excessive temperatures in communal areas inside the building. The resident later explained to us that she had intended to make clear that the issue was the same inside her flat.
Having reviewed the correspondence, it was reasonable for the landlord to believe the issue was confined to the communal areas of the building. This may have impacted its ability to respond appropriately, because the landlord viewed the adverse effect as being limited only to when the resident was passing through communal areas of the building.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) lists high indoor temperatures as a potential hazard. It notes that temperatures of over 25 degrees Celsius can pose a risk and are linked to increased mortality rates. The resident reported that temperatures in the building varied but could reach as high as 32 degrees Celsius on hot days.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that a communal heating system, which had been installed in 2020, contributed to high building temperatures. It explained that insulation had been fitted to piping running through communal areas, and that the communal areas lacked ventilation.
At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord explained that it planned to remove 28 hot water cylinders in the building as part of major works. It explained that this would likely reduce ambient temperatures. It committed to monitoring the issue after the work was done and engaging a specialist survey if needed. It was important that the landlord took action to address the high temperatures and to monitor the effectiveness of that action because of the risk set out in the HHSRS. This was therefore an appropriate approach to take.
The resident reported however that these works were not completed until December 2024. The reason for this delay is unclear. It was important that if the landlord was unable to complete the necessary actions prior to the summer, that it explored what interim measures it could take. It was important that it monitored the situation.
There is no evidence that the landlord investigated if there were any actions it could take in the meantime to ease internal temperatures on hot days. There is no evidence that the landlord monitored the internal temperatures. Given the potential risk described in the HHSRS, this was a failing.
It is unclear when the landlord became aware that the works would not be completed in time for the summer. The resident had originally complained in April 2023 and described the 2 summers which followed her complaint as “horrific”, because no action had been taken.
As an outcome to this element of the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to take action to resolve the issue. Although there were delays, this work has now been completed. It is appropriate that the landlord has committed to monitoring the problem.
The landlord’s overall compensation offer has been considered, in line with our remedies guidance. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s concerns about the temperature of the building.

The resident’s request for a spare key fob for the building

The resident first requested a spare key fob to access the building on 27 April 2023. Despite chasing in May of 2023, no fob was provided. We contacted the landlord again about the request on 27 September 2023 and it provided a new fob on 30 November 2023. It is unclear what timescale the landlord should have provided a spare key fob within. However, this delay was unreasonable. The landlord described this delay as unacceptable.
The landlord later explained that this delay was due to human error. It is likely from the evidence provided that the landlord’s record keeping played a part in the delay. The landlord was right to recognise and apologise for the inconvenience, time, and trouble this delay caused to the resident during its complaint responses.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there have been failings that have adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact, compensation of over £100 should be considered.
The landlord appropriately identified its failings in this regard and was clear that the £1,500 compensation offered at stage 2 of the complaints process included an amount to reflect this failing. The landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a spare key fob.

Issues with the provision of heating and hot water in the resident’s flat

There are a number of records which do not appear to have been made available to this investigation. For example, the resident explained that the landlord’s heating contractor had supplied her with temporary heaters on a number of occasions and for extended periods of time. It is unclear when these were first provided, however it is understood that the resident had access to portable heaters throughout the period assessed.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. It defines emergency repairs as a repair which puts resident’s health and safety at risk. The landlord appeared to treat reports of no heating or hot water as emergency repairs.
The resident made reports that her heating, hot water, or both, were not working on 4 occasions between 5 January 2023 and 10 November 2023. The landlord attended within 24 hours on each occasion and restored the service. The resident later complained that these faults would often recur within a day of being attended. There is no evidence that the resident reported this to the landlord at the time.
The resident reported at the time having no heating from 15 November 2023 to at least 1 December 2023, which was a failing. The adverse effect was mostly mitigated because the resident had access to portable heaters during this time. There is also no evidence that she followed up on the repair again, though it is unclear how far the absence of further reports can be relied upon, due to a pattern of record keeping issues which has been identified. The landlord later explained that it attended again on 11 December 2023 and carried out works to the resident’s radiators. The heating appears to have been restored during that appointment, however there are no repair logs available for it.
The causes of the outages are largely unclear, though the evidence shows that the issues were seen at multiple flats within the block throughout 2023 and 2024. Internal emails and repair logs note that leaks to the communal heating system were not uncommon and may have played a role in the problems.
The landlord made the decision to overhaul the entire heating system. From the evidence available, it is likely that this decision was reasonable. Internal emails state that this was “listed for around 18 months” but not approved until June 2024. The works did not begin until October 2024.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy advises that it aims to complete planned repairs within 90 days. The reasons for this delay are unclear. It is understood that the works involved works across all 28 flats in the building, the removal of 28 hot water cylinders, and further works elsewhere in the building such as in the ‘plant room’. In view of what is fair and reasonable in all circumstances of the case, it is not reasonable to have expected the landlord to complete such works within that timescale.
However, delays of over 18 months from the initial decision being made, to the works beginning, were excessive. This delay was exacerbated because the landlord later said it would complete the repairs within 3 months of its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord therefore failed to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations.
On 28 November 2023 the resident sent an email to the landlord in which she referenced a telephone call which appears to have taken place on 15 November 2023. In it she said that she had reported having no heating, but no action had been taken. It is unclear if or when this was resolved, as there was no more evidence available until the resident made a new report on 6 January 2024, which was attended within 24 hours.
During the period assessed the resident reported experiencing varying levels of adverse effect due to having a temperamental heating and hot water system. For example, the resident explained experiencing periods where the system would only provide either heating or hot water at any one time, and rarely both. The evidence also shows the extent of the inconvenience, time, and trouble the resident had to go to due to this issue. For example, on at least 9 occasions prior to the stage 2 complaint response, the resident had to report and accommodate emergency repairs.
The landlord was right therefore in its stage 2 complaint response to explain that part of the £1,500 compensation was paid in respect of a “loss of enjoyment”. Although the nature of “loss of enjoyment” was unclear, it is likely that interrupted services of heating and hot water contributed to this. Our remedies guidance states that where there have been failings of this nature which have adversely affected the resident, compensation of between £100 and £600 should be considered. Given the adverse effect described an offer of at least £250 would have reasonably resolved this element of the complaint. The landlord therefore provided reasonable redress in regard to its handling of heating and hot water issues.
The resident also raised concerns about costs she may have incurred running temporary heaters at the property. We have considered these concerns in the complaint handling section of this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the building and the resulting damage to the resident’s flat

The landlord’s complaint responses explain that a leak was reported in September 2021 and resolved in January 2022. It is understood that these dates were incorrect, likely due to a typographic error. The dates the landlord intended to refer to were September 2022 and January 2023 respectively.
In conversation with this Service, the resident said that she had been reporting the leak from July 2022 onwards. There is no evidence of a report made in July 2022, however the landlord’s records do reflect that the resident had reported the leak at least as early as 5 August 2022.
The records are unclear, however it is understood that during this time the leak affected multiple parts of the building and likely came from the plant room (but possibly elsewhere). The resident’s flat was damaged, as was the entrance to the building, which suffered significant water ingress which worsened over time (eventually described by the resident as “pouring” through, until the ceiling collapsed).
The resident described this as “extremely dangerous”, as well as resulting in ice forming inside the building during especially cold periods. There are no records available which provide any further insight into how the leak affected the communal area. The landlord did not appear to dispute the resident’s account.
With the extent of the leak being unclear, it would have reasonable for the landlord to attend the leak within 24 hours. Depending on the extent of the leak, this inspection would have informed a reasonable timescale. It would have been reasonable to expect the leak to be resolved within no longer than 28 days, as set out in the responsive repairs policy. It was right therefore to apologise in its stage 2 response for the distress and inconvenience caused by the “extended duration” for which the leak had been ongoing.
The damage caused to the resident’s flat was outstanding for a significant period of time. This included rotten floorboards in the bathroom, causing the toilet to come away from the floor. This needed to be fixed down again on multiple occasions. The resident reported that her concerns about the cost of redecorating were resolved during the landlord’s complaint responses, as it provided the resident with the materials needed.
Although the resident reported outstanding remedial works in August 2022, there is no evidence that the landlord attended until 8 September 2023 to replace the skirting boards. It attended again on 14 September 2023 to replace the floorboards, but could not gain access. The resident reported on 14 May 2024 that the floorboards had not been inspected or replaced.
The resident reported frequently chasing these works until the time of her complaint in April 2023, however there is no record of this in the repair logs provided. The evidence suggests that the landlord did not record a number of pieces of correspondence from the resident during this time period. It is likely therefore that the resident’s account is accurate.
The evidence also shows that the landlord attended repeatedly to fix the toilet back down. It is unclear why it did not raise the need for replacement floorboards at the time, despite noting the high volume of repeated call outs for the same issue. The landlord missed earlier opportunities to repair the damage.
On 18 November 2023 the landlord surveyed the damage to the resident’s flat, including an area of damp. The resident and landlord agree that some resulting works were completed on 17 January 2024, but there is no evidence of this in the repair logs seen. It is unclear therefore how much work remained outstanding at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
The time, trouble, distress and inconvenience described by the resident due to the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated repairs, reflects that the adverse effect suffered was significant. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance explains that where there were failings which had a significant impact on the resident, compensation of at least £600 should be considered.
The landlord therefore did enough to put right the adverse effect caused up until the time of its stage 2 complaint response. However, a number of actions remained outstanding at that time, and it was unreasonable that these works had not been completed. There was therefore a service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the building and the impact on the resident’s flat.
Due to the nature of the record keeping issues described, it has not been possible to establish when the works were completed. The resident confirmed that they had been completed when we spoke to her on 7 January 2025.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the standard of complaint handling expected of the landlord. The Code states that stage 1 complaint responses should be issued within 10 working days of being logged. It should issue stage 2 complaint responses within 20 working days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 28 April 2023. There is no evidence that it provided a complaint response, despite chasers being sent by the resident. The reasons for this are unclear. This was a significant failing.
On 27 September 2023 the Ombudsman issued the landlord a formal request for action, to respond to the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged this on 4 October 2023 but failed to provide a response within 10 working days. The complaint was raised on 27 April 2023 and responded to 7 months later, on 27 November 2023.
In such instances the Code expects landlords to write to the resident, requesting an extension. Although some interim contact with the resident took place, it did not appropriately manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 30 November 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord issued an acknowledgement of this, which the Code requires it to do within 5 working days of being received. The landlord responded on 20 February 2024. It significantly exceeded the 20 day timescale required of it to provide a response. This again was unexplained, unreasonable, and constituted a failing.
Aside from the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by these delays, it also resulted in long delays in the landlord beginning appropriate investigations into the resident’s concerns. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to respond to the resident’s concerns sooner, and to mitigate or prevent extended periods of adverse effect.
The Code also sets out that the landlord should respond to all elements of a complaint. The resident raised concerns in her escalation request that the landlord’s contractors had provided portable heaters, incurring additional costs. The resident later told us that the contractor had paid a contribution to the running costs, but that the resident had been dissatisfied with the amount.
It was not possible to investigate this element of the resident’s complaint because the landlord did not provide any records relating to the heaters or their running costs. From the evidence provided, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident was provided with temporary heaters (which she may have had reason to use) on or around 5 January 2023. The resident reports running the heaters intermittently at least up until the time of the stage 2 complaint response on 20 February 2024.
The landlord’s Homes Plus Compensation Procedure states that it will pay £5 per day to reflect increased utility costs, after 7 days since the provision of the heaters, while ever the repair is outstanding. The landlord did not respond, or provide evidence in relation to, this element of the complaint. It has not been possible to determine the exact amount the resident used the heaters.
We have concluded therefore that it is reasonable that it pay a notional amount of 20% of the £5 per day set out in its policies for the period 5 January 2023 to 20 February 2024 (minus 7 days). This includes consideration of the distress and inconvenience caused by the resident’s concerns about increased heating bills, to which the landlord did not respond, from November 2023 onward.
The period between 5 January 2023 to 20 February 2024 is 404 days. The landlord is ordered to pay £404 compensation. Any amount already paid to the resident in respect of the temporary heaters may be deducted from this amount, upon provision of evidence to the Ombudsman of the amount paid.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration which adversely impacted the resident, a minimum of £100 compensation should be considered. Given the extent of the delays seen in this case, and in recognition of the time and trouble the resident had to go to in obtaining a complaint response, a minimum of £250 of the landlord’s £1,500 should be attributed to the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord therefore provided an appropriate amount of compensation in respect of its complaint handling failings. However, it did not recognise that it had failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about heating costs. It therefore did not do enough to put things right, as actions remained outstanding. There was a maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
There is also no evidence that the landlord learned from its complaint handling failures in this case. An order is made below for the landlord to conduct a senior management review of its complaint handling in this case. It should set out what went wrong and why, and detail the actions it will take to improve its complaint handling in future cases.

Compensation

There was a shortcoming by the landlord in its breakdown of the compensation provided. It is unclear therefore what amount has been paid in respect of which elements of the resident’s complaint and associated adverse effect.
This investigation has considered the adverse effect experienced by the resident in respect of the landlord’s handling of each issue. It has then cross referenced this with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and concluded that a minimum compensation offer of approximately £1,250 should have been considered. As a result, the Ombudsman has made no further orders relating to compensation and has found reasonable redress where appropriate in this report.

Record keeping

This investigation also revealed concerning elements of the landlord’s record keeping. It is understood that the landlord uses dedicated contractors for many of the services it provides, for example heating and hot water. However, the repair records provided to this service were often vague.
The landlord itself highlighted multiple areas of ambiguity, such as where repairs were “cancelled with no further information”. This may have impacted delays, for example in investigating the underlying cause of heating issues at the building, though this remains unclear. There also appear to be gaps in records of correspondence with the resident, which has impacted this Service’s ability to thoroughly investigate the landlord’s handling of various elements of this complaint.
Throughout the period of assessment, the resident reported making a number of reports about various issues, such as the leak in the building. Although we have been unable to verify many of these reports, because they do not appear in the logs provided by the landlord, this is a concern. The landlord has a duty to keep and maintain accurate records. It should ensure it centrally retains all important information necessary regarding repairs, as well as correspondence between contractors and residents. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
On 19 February 2024, we determined case 202201987. The investigation report concluded that the landlord’s record keeping had “contributed to its poor management of repairs”. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to review its approach to its repairs record keeping. As such, no further learning orders are made in this case, as the failings highlighted precede the date of the aforementioned determination.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 41.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint that her mother had been issued with a parking ticket falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider (OSJ).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the provision of parking permits.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the length of time scaffolding was in place.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the main electric gates to the building.
4. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning in communal areas.
5. A service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the building and the impact on the resident’s home.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
7. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of concerns about:
1. Flooding in the car park.
2. The temperature of the building during the summer.
3. The resident’s request for a spare key fob for the building.
4. The provision of heating and hot water in the resident’s flat.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £404 for her use of temporary heaters. Any amount that it has already paid in this regard, for which it can provide evidence, may be deducted from this amount.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must complete a senior management review of the complaint handling failures highlighted in this report. It should set out what went wrong and why, and detail the actions it will take to improve its complaint handling in future cases.

Recommendations

Pay the resident the £1,500 it has already offered, if it has not done so already.
The finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of flooding in the car park, temperature of the building during the summer, request for a spare key fob for the building, and the provision of heating and hot water is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.