Places for People Group Limited (202404081)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404081

Places for People Group Limited

17 June 2025

Amended 5 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 handling of:
1. its investigation into a report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) involving the resident’s partner and her neighbour.
2. repairs relating to a leak from the roof.
3. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She has lived in the 3-bedroom house since 2019 with her 4 children, who are autistic. At the time of events complained of the resident’s partner was also living with her, but he was not named on the tenancy agreement.
In-mid July 2023 the police attended to a disturbance between the resident’s partner and her neighbour. Her partner was arrested for damaging the neighbour’s fence panels. He also damaged a wall within the resident’s garden which was on the boundary wall with the neighbour’s garden, who also had their own wall. The landlord contacted the resident to discuss the incident and advised it was investigating whether it should take legal action against her partner or her for ASB.
On 26 July 2023 the resident complained to the landlord, to which she later added. In summary, she said she was unhappy that, in her view, the landlord had:
1. not taken all the facts into consideration, including:
  1. her report that the neighbour threatened the family.
  2. that her partner had mental health problems.
  3. his actions did not result in a charge for ASB.
  4. that its failure to address a problem she reported in 2019 with the wall in her garden later caused the dispute between her and her neighbour over the boundary line.
2. not repaired a recurring leak she had been experiencing from her roof since 2019.

The resident said she wanted the landlord to retract the threat of legal action, replace the wall with a fence along the correct boundary line, and complete the repair to the roof.

In the landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 29 September 2023, it said:
1. it was satisfied it had followed its ASB policy in warning that it may take legal action, and that:
  1. it was unable to investigate reports of ASB against the neighbour because they were homeowners and that she should instead report it to the police and/or local authority.
  2. it had tried to arrange a meeting with the resident to discuss the situation but she had said she wanted to wait for the outcome of the complaint.
  3. her partner had by that time been convicted and the court issued a restraining order, which were grounds to seek possession of the property for breach of the tenancy agreement.
  4. it had though considered her partner’s circumstances and had decided not to take legal action at that time.
2. it acknowledged failings to complete repairs “over a prolonged period of time”.

The landlord apologised for its failing. To resolve the complaint, it agreed to meet with the resident and other relevant agencies, including her partner’s mental health worker, to discuss the situation. It also offered to arrange mediation between the resident and her neighbour. The landlord agreed to inspect the property for repairs and to consider the legal position on the boundary wall.

The resident said she disagreed with the landlord’s response on 10 October 2023. She said this was because the response was “a lie” because she had been willing to meet with it. She also said the landlord was evicting her without speaking to her.
On 22 November 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld its initial findings. However, it found failings had occurred since because:
1. there had been a delay in arranging the multi-agency meeting.
2. the repair to the roof remained outstanding.
3. it had not yet considered its position on the boundary wall.
4. its complaint response had been delayed.

The landlord agreed to ensure the 3 outstanding actions were completed. It confirmed mediation had been declined by both parties. The landlord also awarded compensation of £600 made up of, £250 for the distress and inconvenience arising from the delayed meeting, £250 for the delayed repairs, £50 for the delayed complaint, and £50 for lack of communication/understanding about the impact of the issues on the resident. It also agreed that an officer not previously involved would attend the meeting and it would then decide the next steps.

After the complaints process ended, the multi-agency meeting was held in March 2024, although it is not evidenced that the landlord updated the resident. The landlord also advised the resident that it was not taking action to dispute the boundary wall in person, but it offered to consider options to improve the situation with the wall. A roof repair was completed in mid-2024. However, the leak returned following which further work was identified. This further repair remains outstanding.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy with:
1. the landlord’s response to her complaint that her partner’s behaviour should not be considered ASB and that it did not investigate her report against her neighbour.
2. that the landlord had not, in her view, completed the actions it agreed in relation to:
  1. a different officer to attend the multi-agency meeting.
  2. completing a lasting repair to the roof.

She advised that the circumstances of her complaint have caused her family significant distress. She is seeking the landlord to acknowledge failings and the impact on her family and to repair the roof.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The repair logs show that the resident has been experiencing a reoccurring leak from the roof affecting her hallway from at least August 2020. They also show, and the resident confirmed, that the landlord completed some repairs on 22 February 2023. We have also seen evidence that she enquired in July 2021 about a repair relating to a potential safety issue because of a gap between a boundary wall and the neighbour’s separate wall. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord responded to this request or that the resident contacted it again about the issue until shortly before she complained.
We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner and, usually, within 12 months of the date of a problem occurring. This is because the quality and availability of any evidence that may have existed at the time may not be present now. This investigation will therefore focus on events from February 2023 until the landlord’s final response in November 2023. We will also consider if it completed actions it said it would take to put right the impact of its failings.
We have seen that the resident asked to make a new complaint in late 2024. Records indicate this was about the time the landlord was taking to put up fencing in the resident’s garden. She also wanted a change in her partner’s circumstances to be considered and asked for the situation to be reviewed by a different officer than previously involved. The resident also reported that she was unhappy with the landlord’s position on her request for a managed move.
The resident advised that the landlord would not respond to the issues she raised because they were a continuation of her original complaint. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord did formally respond to the new complaint. While the more recent events are linked, they were not part of the original complaint the resident referred to the Ombudsman. The resident’s concerns relate to a new set of circumstances that occurred after the complaints process ended. The landlord should reasonably have investigated this complaint separately. Therefore, it is asked to do so promptly following this investigation, unless it has already done so, in which case the resident may refer her concerns to this Service as a new complaint.

ASB

It is a condition of the resident’s tenancy and good behaviour agreements for occupants and any visitors to behave in a way that is not antisocial. Its definition of ASB, set out in the agreement, includes:
1. aggressive and threatening language and behaviour.
2. actual violence to people and property.
3. vandalising property.
In the circumstances, we find the landlord’s decision to characterise the resident’s partners behaviour as antisocial was reasonable. As a social housing provider, the landlord is also obligated under various legislation to investigate and manage reports of ASB from and about its tenants. Therefore, it was appropriate for it to investigate the incident under its ASB policy.
The policy sets out some of the actions it will take to record and investigate reports of ASB. This includes:
1. logging a report on its system.
2. completing a risk assessment matrix.
3. agreeing an action plan.
4. gathering evidence.
5. liaising with partner agencies.
The evidence shows the landlord undertook some of the actions set out above. It logged it, spoke to the resident, recorded her perception of the incident, and offered to meet with her to discuss it and the potential actions it may take. The landlord also liaised with relevant agencies, including the police. However, there is no evidence, that we have seen, that it completed a risk assessment matrix and/or action plan. While we have not seen evidence of a formal risk assessment being undertaken or action plan being created, we have seen some evidence that the landlord was taking action in relation to both, but informally. We have therefore found that there was a record-keeping failure as details relating to both the action plan and risk assessment should have been clearly and accurately documented.
On 26 July 2023, the resident reported that her neighbour had made a threat against her family. The landlord’s ASB policy states it applies to its “customers, other persons causing a nuisance in communities where we own properties and visitors to our communities”. It was a failing, therefore, that the landlord did not record and investigate the resident’s report of ASB from her neighbours in line with its policy. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was therefore inappropriate. It was also a further missed opportunity for it to log and investigate the resident’s report and to potentially provide support.
We should explain that any investigation into the resident’s report of ASB would have been separate to its investigation into her partner. It is also true that any actions the landlord could have taken would have been limited. One of the actions the ASB policy states it may agree as a plan is for a resident to report problems to one of its partner agencies, which we have seen that it did. Therefore, we have not seen its failure to follow its ASB policy had a significant impact.
According to the ASB policy, the landlord will take “reasonable” and “proportionate” action, based on the “frequency and severity” of the behaviour. It also said this could be non-legal or legal interventions. The resident’s partner was convicted of criminal damage in early August 2023. The court also granted a restraining order preventing them from interacting with the neighbour. Following this, the landlord wrote to the resident warning her that it was considering acting for breaching the ASB clause of her tenancy agreement. It said this was because of:
1. the conviction and restraining order.
2. criminal damage to the landlord’s property.
3. other historical matters involving the police.
4. a further, potential prosecution.

The landlord also explained that it could take legal action, an injunction preventing her partner from returning to the area, or against her as the tenancy holder.

We recognise the resident was caused distress by the landlord considering taking legal action. However, we find its decision to warn the resident was in line with its ASB policy involving serious and repeated incidents. Its complaints response, that it had followed its policy, was therefore appropriate.
The resident complained that the landlord did not consider that there were reasons her partner behaved the way he did, including his mental health. We have seen the officer investigating the issue advised the resident in emails, in late September 2023, that mental health may have been the reason for her partner’s behaviour. However, it said it was not an “excuse”. The landlord also said in the stage 1 response that the conviction was grounds for it to seek possession.
The landlord’s ASB policy also states that matters involving criminal damage are considered high-risk and typically trigger consideration for potential breach of tenancy. The policy also states it will consider a person’s vulnerabilities when deciding whether legal action is proportionate to take. However, a prosecution for criminal damage is a behaviour that is recognised as grounds for possession under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985 (the Act). In cases where a landlord has mandatory grounds for acting, it would not be unreasonable for it to do so without considering any possible reasons for the behaviour that led to it. We therefore find the landlord’s position on the resident’s complaint was factual and in line with the Act and its policy.
While it identified no failings in its handling of the ASB and warning about the potential to take legal action, the landlord did offer to take some actions relating to it. This included meeting with the resident and her partner’s mental health worker, as well as other agencies. It said this was to allow the resident to ask questions and to help her better understand the reason for its decision. It also offered to arrange professional mediation and agreed to consider the position on the boundary wall issue, which the resident said was the source of the tension between her and her neighbour. These actions were reasonable and may have helped improve the situation between all parties.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 October 2023 because she said the landlord had decided to evict her without meeting with her. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord issued a formal notice to seek possession. We have also seen that the landlord was attempting to arrange a meeting with the resident and other agencies she wanted to attend before the stage 1 response. We have had sight of evidence that the landlord made a further attempt in the period between the initial response and the resident escalating her complaint. However, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord had contacted the resident about its consideration of the boundary issue.
According to the landlord’s complaints policy, it would track outstanding actions and complete them “promptly”. It was also a requirement of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code). The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its November 2023 stage 2 response that it had failed to complete the actions it agreed. It also awarded compensation of £250 for the resulting distress from the resident feeling she was unable to present her concerns about the landlord’s tenancy warning. The amount it awarded was in line with the level (£100-£600) its compensation policy states it may pay for impacts of “medium duration”. It is above the amount the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends for cases where distress has been caused by a service failure over a short period.
Appropriately, the landlord agreed to follow the actions through to completion. It also agreed that a different officer would attend the multi-agency meeting, scheduled for December 2023. We have seen that the landlord did follow-up with the resident, who confirmed that a different meeting had been arranged by the Local Authority. It agreed to arrange the multi-agency meeting following this. This went ahead in March 2024.
Based on the evidence we have seen, the arrangements for this meeting were led by an organisation who was supporting the resident’s partner as one of their agreed actions.
The landlord referenced the above in an email it sent to the resident on 31 May 2024 what had been agreed at the meeting. This email also explained its current position was that it recommended that her partner did not attend the property unsupervised or stay over. It said this was because any further disturbances, of which it said there had been recent reports of, would lead to legal action against him or her. Therefore, it is our view this demonstrates the landlord was keeping the situation under review, continued to engage with other agencies, and did update the resident. The evidence shows it acted reasonably in the changing circumstances.
In an email on 26 January 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had considered the boundary wall dispute and had decided it would not be taking any further action. We recognise this would have been disappointing. It was though ultimately the landlord’s discretion because it owns the property. The landlord did though subsequently offer solutions to increase the privacy and safety of the wall in her garden. This was reasonable in the circumstances that the resident was originally concerned about the safety of the gap between the wall and the neighbour’s wall.
The resident believes that had the landlord considered the reasons for her partner’s behaviour or it had been reviewed by someone else, it would have changed its position on potentially taking legal action. While we understand her view, we have not been able to link this impact to our assessment. The landlord had mandatory grounds to take legal action and, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for it to consider doing so. It also continued to engage with other relevant agencies.
The landlord originally offered £250 compensation in respect of the remaining failures. It is our role to consider whether the landlord’s offer put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Our guidance on remedies states that where there has been failings, which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident, payments of between £50 and £100 are recommended. As the landlord’s offer was above this, it is considered reasonable in the circumstances.

Repairs

The landlord has a legal obligation to complete an effective and lasting repair within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. According to the repairs policy in place at the time, the landlord aimed to complete routine repairs, defined as work “that can prevent damage to the property”, within 28 days. It aimed to complete non-urgent repairs within 90 days. The policy states some repairs may require a pre-inspection and, in such cases, it would aim to complete works diagnosed within the appropriate timescales.
Our spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, highlighted the need for landlord’s to “keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.” This is so the landlord can demonstrate it has met its obligations for repairs.
The resident complained that the roof repair had been outstanding since 2019. The landlord did acknowledge in its complaint responses that repairs had been outstanding for a “prolonged period”. However, it did not explain how long this period was. We will address the standard of the complaint responses later in this report. As explained earlier, we have focused on events more recent to the resident’s complaint. Specifically, we have looked at what happened after the landlord completed a roof repair in February 2023.
The quality of the repair logs is largely poor and lacking in detail. They do not confirm when the resident reported the leak, what the landlord identified and diagnosed at appointments, and what repairs were undertaken. Because of this, it has not been possible for us to establish with certainty what happened. What we have seen is that the landlord:
1. logged a “repeat” roof repair on 5 July 2023 that required scaffolding.
2. appointed its roofing contractor, also on 5 July, who scheduled an appointment on 6 September 2023 and was confirmed with the resident.
3. instructed its asbestos team on 28 July 2023 to remove a landing ceiling that was damaged by the leak, but the resident asked for this to be done after the roof repair because she did not want to be left with open space.
When the landlord issued the stage 1 response, in late September 2023, the roof repair was clearly outstanding. It is apparent, from the available records, that the landlord had not met its repair obligations to complete a repair within a reasonable period up to that point. Its communication with the resident was also poor because she had been told the roof would be repaired.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge a failing in its handling of the repair and take steps to put this right. In its initial response, it advised a senior repair operative would inspect to identify all repairs and would follow-up with an action plan. There was no record, in those shared with us, showing when the inspection took place. However, we have seen the resident advised the stage 2 complaints officer that one had taken place and this is reflected in the final response. This also said it had agreed to complete a “temporary repair”, but why it was unable to provide a permanent solution was not explained in the response or the available evidence. We cannot therefore say this was reasonable, particularly given the landlord’s obligation to provide a lasting repair.
Although the records show a temporary repair was raised, we cannot see if and when this work was completed. We have though seen that the landlord raised an urgent roof repair to “overhaul” roof tiles and repoint hip and ridge tiles on 22 May 2024. This was closed on 4 June 2024. It is reasonable to conclude from the evidence that the landlord completed this work. The resident also advised us that the landlord carried out repairs in 2024. She also said the hallway ceiling was replaced but we are unable to say when this was from the evidence. However, the resident also said, and the evidence supports this, that the problem occurred again in October 2024. We are aware that the landlord has completed some further works on the roof. It has advised there is more work it needs to do. This is currently on hold because of difficulties in accessing the area in need of repair.
During the period we investigated, it took the landlord almost a year to complete repairs to the resident’s roof. This was a significant departure from its repair timescales and obligations. It also failed to demonstrate that it communicated effectively about the repairs.
There is evidence in the records that the resident told the landlord she was worried about the ceiling collapsing. She also advised us that managing the intermittent leak caused her inconvenience. In view of the further failings identified in this report, we do not find the landlord’s compensation award of £250 is proportionate for the impact and duration of the failings on the resident. We have therefore awarded compensation of £750, in place of the original award. This is in line with the level the landlord’s compensation policy, and our guidance, for cases where a resident has been impacted over a long period (£600-£1000). We have also ordered the landlord to show how it is considering ways to complete the outstanding repairs and how it considers the work it has completed is likely to be lasting and effective.
In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping which are like those identified in a previous case. In that case, the events concerned were around the same time as those investigated here. We made a wider order under 54.f. of the Scheme for the landlord to review its repairs and record-keeping practices. It complied with this order in late 2024. We have not then made any further orders for the landlord to improve in these areas. However, we expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this Service following the wider order. We will monitor the progress of this through any investigations into the landlord.

Associated complaint

The resident made a complaint on 26 July 2023. Both the landlord complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code), in place at the time of the complaint, required it to:
1. respond within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint at stage 1.
2. respond within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request at stage 2.
3. provide a written decision at both stages on the complaint and reasons for it.
4. offer a remedy that reflects the extent of any service failings and the impact of them on the resident.
According to the complaint file, the landlord logged the complaint on the same day it was received. It then closed the complaint on 31 July 2023. The records show that the resident told the landlord on 15 August 2023 that she was unhappy with the response she had received. It then reopened the complaint and sent a stage 1 decision on 29 September 2023.
We have seen no evidence of an investigation or that the resident was given a decision in writing when the landlord closed her complaint in late-July 2023. That the landlord cannot demonstrate it addressed the complaint is a failing. It was also a departure from the Code and the landlord’s complaints policy that it reopened the complaint at stage 1.
When the landlord reopened the case, the complaints officer spoke to the resident to clarify the issues and followed this up with an email defining the complaint. This was good practice and in line with the expectations of the Code. However, the landlord then exceeded the timeframe for the response. While it did advise the resident of this on 19 September 2023, it was already well over its 10-working day timescale. Overall, the landlord exceeded the timescale by 37-working days. This was clearly inappropriate. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for any failings in its handling of the stage 1 complaint. It has therefore not taken any steps to put right the impact of this.
The landlord did, however, acknowledge that its stage 2 response was delayed. This was appropriate because it took 31-working days from the resident’s request to escalate her complaint (on 10 October 2023) to issue its response (on 22 November 2023). Again, we have seen that the landlord spoke to the resident to clarify her concerns, which was positive. The complaints officer also contacted the resident on 13 November 2023 to agree a revised timescale. Agreeing an extension was allowed under the Code. While there were clearly failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 2, we find the landlord addressed this appropriately. It apologised and awarded compensation of £50, which was a proportionate remedy. It was both in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance for putting right low-level impacts.
As well as recognising its delay, the landlord acknowledged that it had not recognised the impact of the failings on her. We agree that the stage 1 response, having identified “prolonged” delays in the repairs should have considered the impact of these on the resident. It would have been reasonable to consider awarding compensation at that stage. While the landlord’s initial response was a missed opportunity to offer an appropriate remedy, the stage 2 reasonably acknowledged this. It awarded compensation for the original issues, and £50 to reflect that it had not previously done enough to understand how she had been affected. These were appropriate actions.
The landlord showed some good practice and took some accountability for its failings. However, it did not recognise the extent of these. Neither of the complaint’s responses provided clear reasons for the decision on the resident’s complaint about the repairs. Therefore, we have found that the compensation it awarded is not sufficient to put right the complaint handling failings. We have also ordered the landlord to ensure staff are given training in how to handle complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s investigation into a report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) involving the resident’s partner and her neighbour.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs relating to a leak from the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must show the Ombudsman evidence that it has completed the following actions:
1. Apologised to the resident in writing for:
  1. not following its ASB policy for her report and for the delay in updating her on its position after the multi-agency meeting.
  2. the overall delays in the repair to the roof.
  3. not recognising the delays in its stage 1 response.
2. Paid compensation of £950, made up of:
  1. £750 relating to the inconvenience caused by delays in completing the roof repair.
  2. £200 for the distress caused by the complaint handling failings.

If the landlord has already paid the original compensation of £600 it awarded, it should deduct this.

Considered how it will complete the outstanding roof repair and explain how it will likely be lasting and effective.
Provided training within the last 6 months to staff on:
1. the landlord’s ASB policy where reports involving people who are not tenants.
2. its complaints policy and requirements of the Code.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation it offered as part of its stage 2 complaint response. The finding of reasonable redress is dependant on this.