Places for People Group Limited (202341268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202341268

Places for People Group Limited

9 May 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:
1. The resident’s reports of concerns regarding the energy efficiency of the property.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a ground floor flat within a Grade II listed building. He resides with his partner and the landlord is aware that both residents have health issues.
Since moving to the property in 2020, the resident had made numerous reports to the landlord over concerns regarding its energy efficiency. He said the property was difficult to heat, his energy costs were extremely high and there was damp and mould present.
The resident complained to the landlord in February 2024. He was unhappy that the landlord had not addressed his concerns regarding the energy efficiency of his home. He said the property was cold and damp and he was not able to afford the energy bills at their current level.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 12 April 2024. It recognised that there had been service failures in its response to the resident’s reports and in its complaint handling, it apologised for these. It offered the resident a total of £450 in compensation, which it broke down as:
1. £100 for delays in resolving damp and mould.
2. £300 towards distress and inconvenience caused by delays in arranging for secondary glazing to be fitted and resolving damp and mould.
3. £50 for delays in responding to the complaint.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 12 April 2024. He was unhappy with the level of redress it offered and said it had not done enough to improve the energy efficiency of the property.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaint process on 15 May 2024. It said that it agreed with the findings made at stage 1 of its investigation and repeated the action it was taking to address the issues. It revised its compensation offer to a total of £650. It said this was in recognition of the upset and distress caused by the delays previously identified.
The resident brought his complaint to us as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. He was dissatisfied with its compensation offer and wanted a permanent resolution to the damp and mould and poor energy efficiency of the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident said his health conditions were affected by the landlord’s handling of the issues in the property. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element of the complaint is better dealt with via the court.
The Housing Ombudsman assesses landlords’ handling of residents’ complaints to ascertain whether they took reasonable steps to resolve these within their internal process. This investigation has, therefore, focused on the events and evidence from February 2023 leading up to its final response on 15 May 2024. Any events prior to February 2023 and following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Reports of poor energy efficiency

Landlords must ensure that properties they rent out are fit for human habitation. The main source of this duty is section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which was inserted by the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. A property might be unfit because of:
1. Disrepair.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Water or sanitation problems.
4. Health and safety hazards which can include excess cold.
The Government’s ‘rent a safe home’ guide says living in cold conditions can cause serious health problems, a cold home is one that cannot be maintained at a temperature between 18°C to 21°C at a reasonable cost to the occupier.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy gives the following timescale for the completion of works:
1. Emergency repairs – within 24 hours.
2. Appointable repairs – within 28 days.
3. Planned repairs – within 90 days.
A property must have an energy performance certificate (EPC) if it is being rented out, sold, or built. It contains information about the property’s energy use and typical energy costs. It provides steps to improve the property’s rating. The ratings are from A (best) to G (worst) and are valid for 10 years. Properties must meet an EPC rating of E or above to be legally rented. The government intends to raise this further to a minimum C by 2030.
The EPC for the property, issued to the resident upon signing his tenancy agreement, gives the property a rating of ‘D’. One of the recommendations to improve the energy efficiency is to insulate the walls and floors due to them being rated as ‘poor’.
Shortly after moving into the property in July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord as he was struggling to keep the property warm. He had received energy bills he considered to be significantly higher than expected and believed that several factors including, draughty windows and doors and a lack of insulation, were contributing to a substantial loss of heat from the property. He asked the landlord to intervene to remedy the issues. The landlord took a number of steps in response prior to the resident’s complaint, including fitting secondary glazing in the living room, discussing the possibility of alternative accommodation and referring the resident to its money advice team. The resident continued to receive energy bills which he said were unaffordable and was in regular contact with the landlord due to this.
The resident’s support worker contacted the landlord on 15 May 2023 to ask it to inspect the living room window as it was draughty. It attended on 31 May 2023, inspected the secondary glazing throughout the property and found it to be ‘outdated’ but functioning. The contractor noted that the resident was struggling to keep the property warm and requested further investigation from the landlord. The timely response and request for further investigation into the issue at this point was appropriate and showed that the resident’s concerns had been listened to.
The landlord inspected the heating system in the property on 23 June 2023 and found that it was adequate for the property size and in good working order. It noted that heat loss was occurring through the windows and the walls, due to a lack of insulation. Although this response was timely and appropriate for the circumstances there is no evidence to show that it took any further action. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact him after the inspection and explain what action it would be taking to address the heat loss and the timescales involved.
The landlord attended the property to inspect the heating system again on 10 April 2024. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) sets out that landlords should ensure that properties are free from category one hazards, including excessive cold. Given its awareness that the resident’s health needs would have placed him in the ‘vulnerable group’ it would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow HHSRS guidance and assess any risk adequately.
The landlord’s internal communications show there was some confusion over the possible improvement measures that it could consider for the property due to its listed status. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to seek guidance from the conservation team at the local council to provide clarity on the range of improvements that may be possible.
Before issuing its stage 1 response, the landlord discussed conducting a survey to identify energy efficiency improvements for the property. Any recommendations would then be put forward to the conservation team at the local council for approval. It agreed an extension to its complaint response deadline, with the resident to allow for this to take place. The evidence shows that this survey did not take place, this was a failing by the landlord. A survey of this type would have been appropriate to identify the options available to the landlord to relieve the detriment the resident was facing. As such we have made an order relating to this below.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would replace the secondary glazing and external porch doors to try and increase the property’s energy efficiency. This was appropriate and a positive step to seek a resolution. It said it would monitor the effects of these improvements before it considered internal wall insulation due to the costs involved. While the landlord is not obligated to provide internal wall insulation, the government’s Decent Homes Standard states that a property should provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort. It adds that the criterion requires properties to have both effective insulation and efficient heating.
When requesting escalation of his complaint on 12 April 2024, the resident told the landlord that he was unhappy that it was not conducting the works it had agreed in its complaint response along with insulation works. Whilst this Service understands that the resident was unhappy with this decision, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to order how landlords should prioritise financial resources. Its response appropriately managed the resident’s expectations by explaining that it would revisit the possibility of insulating the property in the future. It was reasonable to state it would monitor the effects of replacing the glazing and doors before considering further action.
In its stage 2 response the landlord summarised actions it would be taking and said it upheld the decisions from its previous complaint response. It was positive that the landlord took steps such as referring the resident to its money advice team and increasing its offer of redress in recognition of the detriment he faced due to delays. It did not however set out timescales for the agreed work to take place, which would have been appropriate in managing the resident’s expectations.
Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by it (including an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord made a revised total offer of compensation in its stage 2 response of £650. It did not specify the proportion of this allocated for its handling of the energy efficiency issues. Due to it highlighting failures in 2 areas within the response, we have considered it reasonable to proportion £325 of this towards this issue. At the point of the final complaint response, it had been over 11 months since the landlord’s inspection of the windows and no work had commenced to replace the secondary glazing.
It is good practice for landlords to be explicit in their compensation awards, in terms of highlighting the specific amount of compensation it has awarded to each element of the complaint. The landlord should consider this learning in its future complaint responses.
We welcome the fact the landlord offered the resident compensation in order to try and put right its failings. However, at the time of its offer of compensation the matter was outstanding, and we are aware that the works agreed to the glazing and doors have not been completed to date. As such, we have determined its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the detriment caused to the resident and did not fully put things right for them.
In summary the landlord did not do enough to establish if the conditions in the property constituted a hazard. It did not arrange a survey to establish improvement measures, nor did it consult the local conservation team for guidance on the types of improvements that could be considered. It did not schedule or carry out the work it had agreed to, and it did not assist the resident enough with his concerns. The resident’s vulnerability due to his compromised health, compounded the detriment caused by the service failures he experienced, and the landlord did not go far enough to address this. As such we have made a finding of maladministration and appropriate orders are set out below.

Reports of damp and mould

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that all calls relating to damp and mould will be triaged through a dedicated process. It will then send an operative or trade supervisor to assess the issue within 7 days.
The landlord’s records show that on 24 April 2023 it raised a damp and mould survey request. The records do not clarify the events leading to this request nor if it took place. The landlord has not provided us with a damp and mould survey, so we are unable to assess if any action taken was in line with its policy.
The landlord arranged to attend on 19 May 2023 to conduct a mould treatment in the living room which was affected by a leak in January 2023. It cancelled its original appointment, scheduled for 17 June 2023 and rearranged the work for 17 July 2023. The resident contacted the landlord to request it attended sooner due to his health concerns. It agreed to this and completed the mould treatment on 24 June 2023.
Whilst we recognise that situations arise resulting in landlords needing to reschedule works, where possible it should strive to ensure that it offers a reasonable alternative appointment. As the landlord was aware of the health vulnerabilities the resident was facing it would have been appropriate for it to rebook the work at the earliest available time slot. This would have avoided contact from the resident and enabled it to respond within the timescales set out in its policy. Considering his health condition, the landlord should have completed an assessment of the risk to the resident which could have ensured expedited action in dealing with the issue.
On 24 October 2023 the resident told the landlord there were damp patches on walls in the bathroom and bedroom and that the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom were faulty. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord triaged the request and acted in line with its policy. The records show that numerous appointments in relation to this repair were cancelled, with work to the extractor fans completed on 16 January 2024. It is unclear if the resident was kept updated throughout this time. The landlord acted unreasonably in not keeping accurate records concerning this repair and in the time it took to complete them.
It was appropriate that in its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for and offered redress to the resident for its delays in handling his reports of damp and mould. It stated that it had closed the case in error, to investigate the issue and conduct a damp and mould survey and apologised for this. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it would arrange a survey to assess the issue.
The evidence shows that as part of the stage 2 complaint investigation the complaint team chased up the damp and mould survey. The landlord requested the survey on 8 May 2024, 27 days after it had issued its stage 1 response. This is significantly longer than the timescales set out in its policy and was inappropriate, given the delays already experienced by the resident.
In its stage 2 response on 15 May 2024 the landlord did not explain the further delay in arranging the damp and mould survey. It did not confirm a date for the survey to take place, which would have managed the resident’s expectations and demonstrated it was taking a robust approach to dealing with the issue.
The landlord has a damp and mould information leaflet for residents on its website. It says that people living in mouldy and damp homes are more likely to have breathing difficulties and infections, with those with existing health conditions classed as ‘high risk’. It was unreasonable for the landlord to delay and not take more swift and robust action knowing that the resident had weakened immunity, and his partner had respiratory conditions. The leaflet further states the landlord will support the resident and carry out repairs within a reasonable time. It did not complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe nor support the resident through this, which was inappropriate.
The resident has advised us that damp and mould is currently present in the bathroom and bedroom and works to resolve this have not taken place. We have made an order to address this.
The missing records in this case have presented challenges for the Ombudsman in investigating this complaint as we have been unable to assess whether some of the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable. As highlighted in our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, it is vitally important that landlord’s keep detailed records of all actions taken in respect of repairs, including inspections and works completed. This allows the landlord to account for its actions and decisions to residents and this Service, where required.
When considering all the circumstances of the case, we have considered if the landlord’s compensation offer is fair and proportionate given the failings identified. As set out earlier, we have considered it reasonable to proportion £325 of the compensation offer to the damp and mould issue.
The landlord acted fairly by apologising for delays in dealing with the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It did not however, ensure that it took sufficient action in line with its policy to put things right. Its offer of compensation failed to recognise the level of distress caused by its failings. The effects of which were compounded by the resident’s vulnerabilities. Due to this we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould reports. This Service has made orders for it to pay increased compensation and complete specific actions to resolve the issues. This is in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns regarding the energy efficiency of the property.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £1000 broken down as follows:
1. £500 (this includes the £325 previously offered if not already paid) for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of concerns regarding the energy efficiency of the property.
2. £500 (this includes the £325 previously offered if not already paid) for its failures in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. These payments must be paid directly to the resident and not to his rent account.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange an appointment with the resident for the replacement of the secondary glazing and porch doors.
2. Conduct a survey which identifies possible energy efficiency improvements at the property and provide a written report to the resident and the Ombudsman. The report should state which improvements it wishes to undertake, if any, along with timescales.
3. Arrange for a damp and mould survey of the property. It should provide the resident and this Service with the survey report and a schedule of required repairs with a timeline for the completion of these works.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord reviews its record keeping arrangements to ensure that these are robust. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and collated, both of works raised and completed and of resident contact. It may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
We recommend that the landlord clarifies with the resident if he is included on its internal transfer list for alternative accommodation. If this is not the case it should give clear advice to the resident on how he can seek alternative accommodation should he wish to consider this.