Places for People Group Limited (202328891)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328891

Places for People Group Limited

11 September 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy started on 25 August 2022. The property is a 4 bedroom house.
On 27 November 2022 the resident submitted an online repair request because there was damp in the property. A survey carried out on 22 January 2023 recommended follow on works.
On 1 May 2023 the resident submitted an online complaint because he’d not received an update from the landlord despite chasing. He:
1. Was concerned about the impact of damp and mould on his household.
2. Reported that high moisture levels were affecting his furniture and flooring.
3. Was experiencing an increase in energy bills trying to heat the property and running a dehumidifier.
4. He asked the landlord to address the cause of the issue.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2024. It upheld the complaint because its service had “fallen short” and acknowledged the resident’s frustration and disappointment. Following its recent inspection it would carry out works beginning 5 February. It offered £600 compensation comprised of:
1. £200 for failure of service (delays).
2. £50 for poor communication.
3. £100 for distress and inconvenience
4. £250 for the costs of running a dehumidifier.
On 5 February 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said information contained in the stage 1 response was inaccurate. He was also disappointed that it was proposing to carry out internal remedial works rather than addressing the root cause of the problem.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 29 February 2024. It:
1. Upheld the resident’s complaint. It said it was unable to identify failure of service but it had not offered the standard of service the resident would have expected.
2. Acknowledged and apologised for errors in its stage 1 response.
3. Apologised that it had not communicated with the resident regarding external works.
4. Offered additional compensation of £150 comprised of £100 for “poor” communication and £50 for distress and inconvenience.
5. Would only carry out repair works to the existing plaster.
6. Signposted the resident to make a claim on its insurance for damage to his personal possessions.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 4 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord setting out his ongoing dissatisfaction with its response. He was unhappy with the amount of compensation offered and the landlord’s decision not to replaster the walls.
On 6 March 2024 the resident emailed us to set out why he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 March 2024 to agree to replaster the walls. It also increased its offer of compensation. It agreed to pay £1,380 in addition to the £600 offered at stage 1, comprised of:
1. £50 for poor communication.
2. £1,000 for distress and inconvenience.
3. £150 towards the cost of running the dehumidifier.
4. £180 for materials purchased to treat damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s Damp, Mould and Condensation Policy (damp policy) says that when it receives a report it will attend site to remove any immediate risk of damp and mould. It will then investigate the root cause and create works orders for any remedial works.
On 27 November 2022 the resident reported that there was damp in the “whole of the property.” An appointment for an inspection was booked for 14 December but he could not wait that long because it was in almost every room. He was particularly concerned about the impact it was having on the health of his household. The landlord replied on 30 November to say it has asked if the appointment could be brought forward. The repairs logs note it was brought forward to 13 December and a voicemail left for the resident accordingly.
The repair logs show that the operative attended on 13 December and raised a request for a full damp survey to be carried out. There are no details setting out the operatives observations which is a record keeping failure. Furthermore there is no evidence that the landlord attended to remove the immediate risk in line with its damp policy.
The landlord’s inaction caused time and trouble to the resident who emailed on 19 December 2022 to seek an update. He said that when it attended it suggested there was an internal water leak.
On 21 December 2022 the landlord raised a works order to carry out a damp inspection. While this was positive there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to provide an update which was inappropriate.
An independent damp survey was carried out on 9 January 2023. It recommended that the landlord remove the bath panel to locate the source of a leak and carry out necessary repairs. It also recommended follow on works to the plaster and installation of humidistat controlled extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The repair logs show that when the landlord attended on 16 January there was no evidence of a leak in the bathroom or kitchen.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered next steps to remove the immediate risk and investigate the root cause of the problem. Therefore it failed to adhere to its damp policy. Furthermore there is no evidence that it provided an update to the resident causing uncertainty and distress.
The lack of communication caused time and trouble to the resident who contacted the landlord on 19 February and 8 March 2023 to seek an update. Its ongoing inaction caused inconvenience when he made a formal complaint to try to resolve the issue.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord raised a works order to inspect the plaster. It also raised further works for repairs in line with the damp survey. The order was later updated to say the works were passed on as part of a “bundle” to the contractor. While this was positive it was 5 months after the survey had taken place. The reason for the delay is unclear therefore it was unreasonable. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord arranged interior remedial works without first having established and resolved the root cause of the issue in line with its damp policy.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord raised an order to inspect under the bath to locate an ongoing leak. This was marked as complete on 11 May. It’s unclear why this was carried out for a second time having been carried out 5 months earlier. The repair logs show a third inspection was carried out on 18 July and again there were no leaks. The notes show the resident did not know why they had attended on that occasion. This is further evidence of ineffective communication and a lack of oversight of the repair.
On 11 May 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended to inspect the plaster. However, they advised they were unable to take on the work due to the scale of the repair.
The repair logs show that on 5 June 2023 the landlord raised a works order to rake out and repoint the brick work which was completed on 6 July. It’s positive that the landlord carried out works to address the potential cause of the leak. However the circumstances around the repair are unclear which is a record keeping failure.
On 17 September 2023 the resident chased the landlord for an update following its visit on 18 July. The landlord said it would respond within 2 working days however, it failed to do so. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who emailed to chase again on 24 September. The landlord replied on 26 September to apologise and said it had forwarded his enquiry on. No one contacted the resident causing him to chase again on 14 January 2024.
On 7 October 2023 the landlord’s contractor provided a quote for works including repairing cracks in the plaster, carrying out a mould wash and internal redecoration. An internal email dated 19 October 2023 requested authorisation to proceed with works. The quote was sent to the landlord again on 19 January 2024. By this time 3 months had passed since the quote was originally provided. It was inappropriate that no progress was made during that time.
An internal email dated 21 January 2024 noted that the “quote was missed” and asked for works to be completed as soon as possible. It noted the landlord “was at risk with system notes as its never clear where anything is up to.” This is further evidence of a record keeping failure.
On 26 January 2024 the contractor emailed the landlord to confirm it had spoken to the resident to talk him through works which it hoped to start by 5 February.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 31 January 2024 upheld the complaint. It was honest about its failures and said it took responsibility for its “shortcomings.” While this was positive it failed to set out what it would do differently to prevent issues being repeated in future.
The resident’s frustration with the landlord’s focus on internal remedial works was evident in his email of 5 February 2024. On 7 February the contractor emailed the landlord to advise that external works needed to be carried out before it could carry out other remedial works. This included works to the chimney, brickwork, roof and gutters. It provided a quote accordingly.
By now 15 months had passed since the resident first reported damp and mould. The landlord failed to respond in line with its damp policy.
Our spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021) highlighted the detrimental impact damp and mould can have on health. This should be considered by the landlord as part of its response. In this case it did not act to remove the immediate risk. It also failed to demonstrate empathy by recognising the resident’s individual circumstances.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. 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.
The landlord offered £350 compensation at stage 1 and a further £1,200 at stage 2, a total of £1,550. In addition it offered a total of £400 towards the cost of running dehumidifiers and £180 towards the cost of purchasing materials to clean the mould.
The compensation offered is in line with our Remedies Guidance where there was severe long term impact on the resident following serious failings by the landlord. However, this does not prevent an adverse finding because the landlord has failed to demonstrate learning from the complaint. Identifying what went wrong and what it will do differently is a key part of the complaint handling process.
Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s response.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy in place at the time said it aimed to try to resolve complaints at the earliest opportunity. It would try to resolve service requests quickly. It would log these issues and try to resolve it as a “put it right.” Residents could make a complaint if they remained dissatisfied.
It said it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of receipt.
The landlord’s Compensation Procedure says it will consider distress caused by poor complaint handling.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time said that a complaint should be raised when a resident raised dissatisfaction with the response to their service request. Furthermore, it recommended that landlords have a 2 stage complaint process to ensure that they were not unduly long.
As set out above, during February and March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to request an update on the survey carried out in January. The landlord failed to respond so the resident submitted a formal online complaint on 1 May 2023. The landlord’s decision to resolve it under “put it right” was inappropriate because it was not in line with the Code. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it explained it approach to the resident.
On 24 September 2023 the resident sent a further email to chase an update on the substantive issue. An internal email was sent on 26 September 2023 requesting that he be updated to “prevent” the issue escalating to stage 1. The landlord’s response delayed the resident’s ability to complete its complaints process to try to resolve the substantive issue. Its response was therefore inappropriate.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 14 January 2024 to try to progress his complaint. On this occasion it raised a stage 1 complaint and issued an acknowledgement on the same day.
It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2024 which was 12 working days later and 2 working days out of time. The response failed to address its delay in raising the complaint when it was first made in May 2023. It therefore missed an opportunity to say what had gone wrong and put things right. In his email to the landlord on 5 February 2024 the resident raised this as part of his reason for escalating his complaint.
This was put right to some extent by the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 29 February 2024. It acknowledged and apologised for not addressing the delay it in its stage 1 response. However it failed to explain why the complaint was not raised as a stage 1 complaint. Therefore it missed an opportunity to set out what had gone wrong, what it would do differently and how it could put it right.
It was the landlord’s response to us dated 9 July 2024 that confirmed the complaint raised in May 2023 was dealt with under its “put it right” approach.
The Code says landlord’s must respond to all the points raised in the complaint. The stage 1 appropriately considered the increased energy bills following use of a dehumidifier. However, it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about damage to his belongings and flooring. It’s acknowledged this was put right to some extent by the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response when it appropriately signposted the resident to make an insurance claim.
The resident waited 9 months for his stage 1 complaint response. This delayed the resident’s ability to exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure and ultimately request us to investigate his complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord considered offering compensation in line with its Compensation Procedure.
The Code requires landlords to set out the decision on the complaint in clear, plain language. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 29 February 2024 upheld the complaint. It said it had not identified a failure of service but had not offered the standard of service the resident would’ve expected. Its statement was confusing and contradictory.
In his email to the landlord of 4 March 2024 the resident set out his dissatisfaction with its response. In its reply to the resident of 8 March 2024 the landlord changed its position regarding failure of service, plastering works and compensation. We welcome its decision to revisit its response to try and put right its evident failings. However, the resident provided no meaningful new information in his email and the landlord’s quick response regarding its change of position suggested it had not carried out a thorough investigation at the outset.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with our Remedies Guidance.
The landlord’s current Complaints Policy on its website sets out its 2 stage complaints process in line with the current Code. Therefore it has not been necessary to make an order on this point.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
3. Re offer the £2,130 it offered if this has not already been paid.
4. Contact the resident to confirm there are no outstanding works. If there are it should arrange to inspect the property and develop a time based action plan. The outcome should be confirmed to the resident in writing .
Evidence of compliance with the orders above must be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord must carry out a review of the case to determine what went wrong and what it will do differently. The outcome of the review should be confirmed in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.