Places for People Group Limited (202345606)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with repairs the landlord carried out to his kitchen and bathroom. He said these were not carried out to a reasonable standard and issues remain outstanding. He has both physical and mental health issues, which he feels have been made worse by the landlord’s actions.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs
   2. service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Repairs

5. The landlord has failed to provide evidence it completed repairs to a reasonable standard. It failed follow the commitments set out in its repairs policy.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord failed to acknowledge its complaint handling failures at stage 2. It did not take appropriate steps to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we have not considered

7. The resident raised an earlier complaint about a leak in his kitchen and the landlord sent a stage 2 response on 22 August 2023. The resident did not ask us to look into that complaint at that time. He referred his complaint from 2024 to us more than 12 months after the stage 2 response of August 2023, so we have not investigated the earlier complaint, due to the amount of time that has passed since the earlier stage 2 response.
8. We have addressed the resident’s more recent concerns about repairs under our reference 202507065, determined on 12 February 2026. This investigation has considered events from November 2023 up to the landlord’s stage 2 response of 17 May 2024. However, some we have mentioned some later events context. We have not made inspection or repair orders on this case that would duplicate those already made on 202507065.

Repairs

9. The resident reported a leak in his bathroom on 23 November 2023. He told the landlord that every time he had a shower water was leaking into the flat below his. He also told it there were issues with some units and the floor in his kitchen. It raised a work order on 27 November 2023 but its records do not make it clear whether it took any action to stop the leak. It is not clear how the landlord categorised the repair. However, there is no evidence it took any action within its emergency repair timescale of 24 hours, or its appointable repair timescale of 28 days. Therefore, its actions were not appropriate.
10. The resident reported the leak again on 30 December 2023 and the landlord tried to attend the same day. It was unable to gain access, and attended again on 1 January 2024, when it installed a new waste pipe for the bath. Its records state that the ceiling in the flat below had collapsed.
11. The resident raised a complaint on 1 January 2024. He said the neighbour below was threatening him with violence. He told the landlord the situation was seriously impacting his mental health.
12. The landlord moved the resident into a hotel on 12 January 2024, to allow it to be able to carry out the required repairs, which was reasonable. He emailed it on 17 January 2024 to say that he wanted the landlord to also consider its handling of previous repairs to his kitchen, as he had spent £1,500 on the kitchen, which was then damaged by a leak.
13. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 31 January 2024, in which it acknowledged that it took too long to identify the cause of the leak in the bathroom and resolve this. It confirmed repairs were underway and it made a reasonable offer of compensation, in line with its compensation policy for where that had been a significant effect on the resident. It acknowledged that its failures had caused the resident distress and inconvenience, especially as it had led to his neighbour below to confront him on several occasions. It also made a reasonable offer of reimbursement for the resident’s losses and clearly explained how it had calculated this and why it had excluded some items.
14. The landlord completed repairs to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom on 16 February 2024. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 11 March 2024. He did not feel it had completed the work to a reasonable standard. In its stage 2 response of 17 May 2024, the landlord said it had inspected the property on 20 February 2024 and was satisfied with the quality of the work. Its internal communications stated it had also checked under the kitchen floor laminate and found the floor underneath was ‘fine’.
15. The landlord has not been able to provide a copy of an inspection report to show when it inspected the kitchen floor and what it found. It has also not been able to provide a report from the post-work inspection of 20 February 2024. So, it has failed to show that it completed the work to a reasonable standard. This demonstrates failures in its record keeping. It has failed to act in line with its repairs policy which says it places emphasis on the quality of repair works and has a right first-time ethos.
16. The landlord has provided copies of inspections carried out in January and February 2026 following an order made on our previous determination (202507065). It found bowing to the kitchen floor, suggesting there is water damage to the floorboards and possibly the floor joists. It also found issues with the quality of work carried out in the bathroom. Due to the amount of time that has passed, we cannot say for certain that these issues have been present since the landlord conducted work in January and February 2024. However, when considered alongside the lack of evidence the landlord has provided from that time, it seems likely it did not do enough to ensure it completed repairs to a reasonable standard at that time.
17. We have made our compensation award with the landlord’s compensation policy in mind where there has been an impact on the resident due to its mishandling of repairs. We have taken into consideration the compensation awarded during its internal complaints process. Our award recognises the ongoing distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, considering his vulnerabilities.

18. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord acknowledged the complaint the following working day after the resident raised it (1 January to 3 January 2024) – in line with its complaints policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 19 working days after acknowledging the complaint (3 January to 30 January 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it acknowledged his escalation request after 11 working days (11 March to 26 March 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 5 working days
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 36 working days after its acknowledgement (26 March to 17 May 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 20 working days
19. The landlord did acknowledge its delay in responding in its stage 1 response. However, it then failed to acknowledge or respond to the complaint at stage 2 within its policy timescales. It did not acknowledge these delays in its stage 2 response.
20. We have made our compensation award in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for where it has failed to meet service standard for responses.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it kept good records of inspections and work carried out. It is likely that this contributed to its failure to complete all repairs in line with its policy. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlord may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.

 Communication

22. The landlord’s records show that its overall communication with the resident was fair. It responded to his communication, kept him reasonably updated, and spoke to him during the repair work and complaints process. However, it was dismissive of his concerns with the quality of repairs. It may want to reflect on its handling of the resident’s post-repair communication to improve its services going forward.