Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Places for People Group Limited (202319514)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319514

Places for People Group Limited

13 February 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat across 2 floors. The resident has disabilities which affect her mobility. The landlord had recorded these vulnerabilities.
  2. From 2018 to 2022 the landlord raised work orders for a range of works in the resident’s bathroom due to repeated floods from the property above, occupational health referrals and repair requests.
  3. On 18 October 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about outstanding repairs and the poor communication associated with the work. The resident said the condition of the property was a health and safety risk and it had caused her injuries. She said she was constantly let down, promised calls back and works to be booked in but never heard anything back. The resident said the landlord did not communicate and she always had to call the landlord for updates. The resident felt she was being ignored and “pushed to the back of the queue” as if she did not matter.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 November 2022. It partially upheld the complaint. It acknowledged the repairs had been “outstanding for some time” and its lack of communication to keep the resident informed on the progress of the works. The outstanding repairs included panelling the bathroom walls, work to the shower, replacing the damaged flooring and works to the cistern and toilet bowl. It also said there were works to the kitchen which included a replacement extractor fan and repairs to a wall. It said it had tried to arrange appointments, but the resident had not been available. It had visited the resident twice to discuss how best to proceed with the works, including that she needed to be decanted. It would arrange a convenient appointment date for the resident and complete the works as soon as possible. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £200 compensation for missed timescales and lack of communication.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 November 2022 as she remained dissatisfied. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 3 January 2023. The landlord listed the appointments it had attended or tried to attend since 2018. It concluded that it had made attempts to complete the works and it experienced difficulty in finding times to carry out the work around the resident’s health concerns and hospital appointments. It acknowledged the resident’s hospital appointments needed to be a priority but did not uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that had it better communicated with the resident to find mutually convenient times to carry out the work then the repairs may have been completed earlier. The landlord upheld this aspect of the complaint and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it would contact the resident to find 2 days that were convenient to decant her and carry out the work. It agreed with the £200 compensation offered in its stage 1 response.
  6. Throughout 2023 the resident’s MP chased the landlord to carry out the outstanding repairs. In December 2023 the resident contacted the Service because the repair work was outstanding. She said she had injured herself as a result of the outstanding repairs. The resident stated when her property was flooded in 2018 all the tiles were removed to dry out the walls and temporary sheeting was put up which was still in place, so she was unable to use some of the grab rails in the bathroom. She disagreed with some of the dates the landlord stated about no access in its stage 2 response. The resident said she was housebound. She needed to be informed of appointments prior to workers attending her property and said there should be a system in place to do this. She also did not think the compensation was sufficient for the length of time the repairs had been outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident initially reported damage to her bathroom due to a flood from the property above in 2018. However, she did not raise a complaint about the handling of the matter until October 2022. In accordance with paragraph 42c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This investigation will therefore consider the landlord’s handling of the matter from October 2021 onwards. However, the Ombudsman will not completely discount the date that the repair was initially reported to the landlord. Although we will not comment on how this was managed, the length of time the repairs were outstanding may feature in our overall conclusion.
  2. The resident has raised several additional repair issues since the completion of the complaints process including loss of use of her oven since April 2023, damp and mould, and a further leak from the flat above. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. This is in line with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
  3. The resident told the Ombudsman that the condition of her property had affected her health and caused injuries. While the Ombudsman is sorry to hear of these health problems and injuries, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether there is a direct link between the actions or inaction of the landlord and any deterioration in the resident’s health. Such matters are better suited to a court or liability insurer to determine. This investigation will only consider whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policy and legal obligations, and fairly in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states it is responsible for keeping the internal walls, floors and ceilings in good repair. The tenancy agreement also states the landlord shall keep in good repair and proper working order baths, toilet and flushing systems. The landlord also has repair obligations under section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  2. The repair logs showed that the resident contacted the landlord in January 2018 about a leak from the property above which had caused damage to her bathroom and kitchen. The landlord also acknowledged this date in its stage 2 response on 3 January 2023. At the time of writing this report, the resident advised that to date some of these repairs still remain outstanding.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours, appointable repairs should be completed within 28 days, and planned repairs should be completed within 90 days. It defines appointable repairs as “a repair that can prevent damage to the property” and planned repairs as a repair that is non-urgent and can consist of a replacement rather than a repair of a component”. As some repairs to the resident’s property that were identified in 2018 remain outstanding in 2025, it is clear the landlord has not operated in line with its repair timeframes.
  4. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response dated 7 November 2022 that the outstanding repairs were panelling the bathroom walls, work to the shower, replacing the damaged flooring and works to the cistern and toilet bowl. It also said there were works to be carried out in the kitchen which included a replacement extractor fan and repairs to a wall. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that the repairs had “been outstanding for some time”. In its stage 2 response dated 3 January 2023 the landlord also stated that a grab rail installation by the toilet as requested by an occupational therapist referral on 13 November 2018 remained outstanding.
  5. While the landlord acknowledged the outstanding repairs in its complaint responses, it said that it had made several attempts to carry out the work. It said it experienced difficulties arranging appointments due to the resident’s hospital appointments, which was outside of its control. It noted it attended on 15 November 2021, 1 December 2021, and in January 2022 but was unable to gain access. There is no evidence to confirm such appointments or that it notified the resident prior to attending. The resident disputed the landlord’s claims about access and stated she had not been informed of many appointments. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to confirm the landlord’s account of the events. Therefore, it appears that the landlord placed undue responsibility for the delays in completing the repairs on the resident.
  6. Following the completion of the complaints process, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord numerous times between 14 August 2023 and 23 November 2023 regarding the outstanding repairs and offered to act as a liaison between the parties to arrange the appointments. This was an unreasonable level of involvement to ensure that the repairs progressed and demonstrated that the landlord had not learned from the outcome of the complaint to improve its communication.
  7. The landlord told the MP on 24 November 2023 that as agreed in the stage 2 response, it sent a letter to the resident asking her to contact it to arrange a convenient appointment. It also noted it needed to decant the resident. The Service has not seen evidence of such letter, or that the landlord made reasonable attempts to arrange the necessary appointments following the stage 2 response. The MP also said that the resident had not received any letters or calls. The landlord should be able to provide such records to confirm it fulfilled the promised actions set out in its final response. Furthermore, the landlord’s approach somewhat placed excessive responsibility on the resident, rather than it taking accountability for ensuring it arranged a suitable appointment
  8. The MP told the landlord on 21 December 2023 that the resident said that any date in the new year would be convenient for her. However, she did not want to be decanted as she was not comfortable with contractors being in the property if she was not there. The landlord explained the decant was required as the resident would not have use of the toilet or washing facilities while it completed the works. The landlord initially attempted to find a solution as it agreed to install a lock on the resident’s bedroom door, at her request, but she later said she was still not satisfied with the resolution. It also assured her that its contractors were professional, DBS checked and adhered to a strict code of conduct. These were reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns in attempt to progress the works. On 23 February 2024 the landlord told the resident’s MP “that it referred the matter to its Tenancy Enforcement Team to try and arrange access. However, the landlord has not demonstrated it has made any attempts to progress the repairs since then.
  9. The resident’s MP further chased the works numerous times between April 2024 and July 2024. The resident also rang the landlord on 22 August 2024, but it is unclear whether it provided an update. As such, the landlord failed to demonstrate reasonable attempts to reach a suitable solution to ensure the resident could accommodate the works.
  10. The resident told the Service that she did not want to be decanted to a hotel due to her health and mobility issues as it would not be adapted to her requirements, including a rail on her bed. She also said she would need help leaving the hotel room to access meals. She wanted to stay in her property and said she could use her commode for 2 days and use the kitchen sink as washing facilities. There is no evidence that the resident told the landlord she had alternative facilities in the property that she could use. Therefore, although the resident may have been able to stay in the property, the landlord could only act on the information available to it, so was unlikely aware an alternative to the decant was available.
  11. The landlord told the Service on 28 January 2025 that it was visiting the resident so the resident could sign a document to confirm she understood she would be without facilities during the works and was required to make alternative arrangements. It would then proceed with the works. The works have therefore been outstanding for an additional 2 years following the completion of the complaints process. However, it is recognised that some of the reasons for the delays were outside of the landlord’s control.
  12. To resolve the complaint, an order has been made for the landlord to have a meeting with the resident, if it has not done so already, to reach an agreed appropriate solution to allow the works to be completed. The landlord may wish to consider whether it would be beneficial to accept the MP’s previous offer to act as a liaison between the parties or whether the situation would benefit from an independent support agency to ensure it is meeting the resident’s specific needs.
  13. Overall, it is not in dispute that the bathroom repairs have been outstanding between January 2018 and February 2025. This is a wholly unreasonable delay. While it is understood that some of the delays were not necessarily under the landlord’s control, it failed to take reasonable steps to ensure it arranged the necessary appointments. As a result, the resident has experienced an ongoing impact due to the poor condition of the bathroom and incurred unreasonable time and effort in continually pursuing the repairs. The repairs had a particular detriment to the resident due to her vulnerabilities. Notably, she was unable to use the shower rail, which may have posed a safety issue and likely impacted her day to day living, and her MP told the landlord that she had been hospitalised due to an injury caused by the radiator.
  14. In its complaint response, the landlord offered £100 for the missed timescales and £100 for its poor communication. This is not proportionate to the length of the delays or reflect the impact to the resident. In accordance with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £600-£1000 are appropriate in cases where the circumstances for maladministration apply, and the redress needed to put things right is substantial. Considering the repairs have remained outstanding for a significant period of time £1000 compensation is warranted.
  15. The resident also raised concerns regarding ongoing leaks from the property above due to her neighbour’s behaviour and asked what steps the landlord would take to prevent a recurrence of the issue. There is no evidence that the landlord has addressed her concerns, so an order has been made for it to do so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s bathroom.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In addition to the £200 compensation offered in the complaints process, the landlord must pay the resident £1000. It must provide the Service with evidence of the total payment of £1200 within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should have a meeting with the resident to discuss a suitable solution to complete the bathroom repairs. It should confirm the outcome of the meeting to the resident and the Service in writing.
  3. Within 8 weeks the landlord must complete the outstanding repairs to the bathroom. It should provide the Service with the corresponding repair records to confirm that it has completed the works.
  4. Within 4 weeks the landlord should write to the resident to address her concerns about any actions it will take to prevent further leaks from the flat above. It should provide the Service with a copy of the correspondence.
  5. The landlord must provide evidence to the Service to confirm that it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should address the resident’s reports of the oven not working and damp and mould.
  2. The landlord should consider whether it can make any changes to its repairs policy to better manage repairs with vulnerable residents.