Places for People Group Limited (202415511)

Decision
Case ID	202415511
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 October 2025

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. We have been told the resident has a lumbar disc prolapse, which causes them pain and difficulty moving, and prevents them from using the bath. The resident has said they use the sink to wash. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs to their bathroom, namely delays and works, first reported in April 2024, not being completed. The resident has also raised concerns the landlord has not met its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:
1. A pest infestation.
2. Repairs to the resident’s bathroom toilet and taps, including that the landlord did not consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found the resident’s complaint about a pest infestation was outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
We have found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the bathroom taps and toilet.
We have found there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its handling of the complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

We found:
1. The landlord’s initial handling of the repair until June 2024 was fair and reasonable.
2. After June 2024 there were significant delays in the landlord carrying out repairs and there was no evidence it completed all necessary repairs, and redecoration works.
3. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a member of the landlord’s senior management team. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 25 November 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 made up as follows: £500 for the delays to repairs. £50 for redecorating. £50 for poor communication following the stage 2 response.	No later than 25 November 2025
3	Work order The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works to replace the taps and restore the toilet flushing are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 09 December 2025

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
January 2024	We previously considered a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation, and about alleged disability discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. We note this for context only.
19 April 2024 to 12 June 2024	The resident reported a repair for leaking bathroom sink taps and air locked in the pipes, resulting in loud noises when flushing the toilet. The landlord attended on 9 May 2024 and noted the need for further works, namely replacing a ball valve and the bathroom sink taps. The repair was rescheduled for 13 June 2024.
14 June 2024	The resident complained that after rescheduling the landlord failed to attend on 13 June 2024. The resident said they had taken the day off work for the appointment and noted their dissatisfaction.
22 July 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It said that due to high levels of staff sickness the resident’s appointment had to be rescheduled. However, this was mistakenly cancelled. The landlord said it had rescheduled the appointment for 6 August 2024, and this could not be moved or rebooked unless requested by the resident. The landlord said an administrative error had delayed its complaint response. It apologised and offered the resident £375 compensation, broken down as: £100 for distress and inconvenience. £275 for time and trouble.
7 August 2024	The resident escalated their complaint to stage 2. They said a plumber had attended and resolved the issues with the toilet. However, they had left a hole in the boxing around the toilet. The resident also reported the taps had not been replaced.
11 September 2024	The landlord attended and replaced the boxing. However, this was not fitted correctly, causing the toilet handle to stick and not flush properly.
24 October 2024	The landlord attended to carry out repairs. It replaced the toilet handle. It did not replace the taps as it could not turn off the water. It did not repair the boxing as it said a joint site visit was needed with a joiner and plumber.
29 October 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint but stated it had not identified a service failure. It said works had not gone ahead due to a defective gate valve which had prevented the landlord from isolating the water supply to the resident’s flat. To resolve matters, the landlord confirmed its trade supervisor would contact the resident on 30 October 2024 to schedule an inspection of the work already completed and to replace the gate valve and taps.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred their complaint to this Service because they were unhappy with the landlord’s response. The resident said: The landlord had not contacted them on 30 October 2024 as agreed. They had reported the issue in March 2024, and the landlord had not sufficiently resolved it to date. Where the landlord had attempted repairs it had made the situation worse. The landlord had not recognised multiple service failures in its handling of the repairs. The landlord had delayed both complaint responses. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability and had not met its commitments under The Equality Act 2010.

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.

Complaint	A pest infestation
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

The resident has asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of their reports of a Silverfish infestation at the property. We may not investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
We have not seen evidence the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about its handling of the pest infestation, nor have we seen evidence of a complaint handling failure in relation to this. Therefore, this part of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is not something we can consider in this investigation.
We have been informed the pest infestation is ongoing. The resident is free to complain directly to the landlord about its handling of this, if necessary.

Complaint	Repairs to the resident’s bathroom toilet and taps.
Finding	Maladministration

To assess the landlord’s handling of the repairs, we must first establish what compensation was offered for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The landlord offered a total of £375 during the complaint process for failures in both its repair handling and complaint handling. These are distinct issues, but the landlord has not specified how the compensation was apportioned. This lack of clarity makes it difficult to determine how much was offered for each issue. In the interest of fairness and for the purpose of this report, we have split the total compensation equally:
1. £187.50 for the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
2. £187.50 for the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Prior to the stage 1 response

The landlord’s repair policy sets out its service standards and timescales for repairs. It says the landlord will start and complete ‘Appointable Repairs’ within 60 days and attend all non-emergency repairs appointments at a time agreed with the resident. This means the landlord should have completed the repair by 17 June 2024.
While the resident says they first reported the repair in March 2024, the evidence provided shows the repair was raised on 19 April 2024. The landlord attended on 9 May 2024, which was in line with its policy. A further appointment was booked for 13 June 2024 after the landlord identified that the taps needed replacing. It is often reasonable for landlords to schedule follow-up visits after an initial inspection, and we consider this fair and reasonable in this case.
However, the landlord did not attend the rescheduled appointment on 13 June 2024. This was because it was mistakenly cancelled following high levels of staff sickness. The landlord did not notify the resident of the failed appointment. This was not reasonable and was a failure by the landlord. The landlord has recognised this in its complaint responses and has paid compensation. We will consider its offer in light of its overall response to this complaint.

Between the stage 1 and 2 responses

The landlord attended on 6 August 2024 as agreed. It resolved the noise issue, but it left the boxing around the toilet in disrepair, reportedly noting that another operative would contact the resident separately to resolve this. The landlord did not replace the taps. The resident said the repair to the taps was not included on the landlord’s work order. However, the repair records we have seen includes an instruction to convert the taps to lever taps. So, it is unclear whether any attempt was made to complete the work. Regardless, it is clear the landlord did not complete the work on the taps. This indicates either a failure by the landlord to follow through on recorded instructions or a breakdown in communication between the landlord and its operatives.
We note that by 6 August 2024 it had been 110 days since the repair was reported. This means the landlord had not completed the repair in line with its policy. This was a failure by the landlord and was not fair and reasonable. It is clear from the resident’s email dated 7 August 2024 this delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble in pursuing the issue. This was in addition to the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, that the landlord had acknowledged in its stage 1 response.
On 9 September 2024 the landlord replaced the access panel around the bathroom toilet which had been damaged on 6 August 2024. However, following this, the resident reported problems with the toilet flushing. They also noted a plumber had not attended to fix the taps, and the new area of boxing had been left unpainted. The resident said they would have to redecorate at their own expense.
As the landlord was responsible for resolving the air locked pipes, it was also responsible for putting the area affected by this repair back into a reasonable state of redecoration. The landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate it has done this. Therefore, we cannot say the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably in relation to this.
On 24 October 2024 the landlord replastered the bathroom and appears to have replaced the toilet cistern lever handle. According to the landlord’s repair records, at this stage it identified that it needed to arrange a joint site visit from a plumber and a joiner to access and change the stopcock to isolate the water in the resident’s property.
We note that at this stage, it had been 189 days since the resident reported the repair. This continued delay evidently caused the resident further distress and inconvenience and they had to spend time and effort trying to progress matters. This is evidenced by the resident’s email on 24 October 2024 to the landlord, in which they expressed their frustration at the delays and the standard of the work completed.
In its stage 2 response dated 29 October 2024 the landlord noted that a joiner needed to attend to adjust the access panel in order to resolve issues with the cistern lever sticking, and that a plumber needed to attend to replace the gate valve to isolate the water in order to replace the taps. It said to resolve matters a supervisor would contact the resident on 30 October 2024 to arrange a time for this.
At the time of its stage 2 response, more than 6 months had passed since the resident reported the repair. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s repair timescales set out in its policy. It is concerning that the landlord did not recognise this failure in its stage 2 response. This indicates a failure to monitor timescales and to recognise when repairs do not align with policy standards. Additionally, as set out below the landlord has not demonstrated that it took meaningful action to resolve the issue for the resident after its stage 2 response.

Following the stage 2 response

The resident has informed us that the landlord did not contact them on 30 October 2024 as agreed in its complaint responses. We expect landlords to act on commitments made in their complaint responses. Based on the evidence provided, we are unable to see the landlord attempted to contact the resident. This was a failure by the landlord and indicates poor monitoring of agreed actions and follow-ups.
The evidence the landlord has provided indicates that at some point after the stage 2 response the repairs were rescheduled for 28 January 2025. It seems the repair was later cancelled. The landlord notes this was due to a lack of resources. The repair was then rescheduled for 2 September 2025. At the time of writing this report, we have not been provided evidence to show the repairs went ahead, and on 1 October 2025 the resident told us the landlord had not completed the repairs.
As of 1 October 2025, more than 530 days have passed since the resident reported the repair. This falls significantly outside of the timescales for repairs set out in the landlord’s policy. This is a significant failure by the landlord.
The resident has said the landlord has not considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 in its handling of the repairs because it failed to ensure they had access to adequate bathroom facilities, and the resident could not enjoy their home. We cannot decide if a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010. Only a court can do that. However, we can look at how the landlord handled the issue and whether it acted fairly, based on its duties and policies.
It is for the landlord to demonstrate that it has appropriately considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability when the repairs were initially raised. However, there was no mention of the resident’s circumstances in the landlord’s repair records. We also note internal documents provided by the landlord, which explicitly ask if it considered its duties under the Equality Act 2010, have been left blank. This indicates the landlord has not considered the resident’s disability or how the resident might be adversely impacted by its handling of the repairs. While we cannot say the landlord breached the Equality Act 2010, we are satisfied it has failed to demonstrate it considered its obligations.
While the above is a failure by the landlord, in the Ombudsman’s view, it was the landlord’s delays and overall poor handling of the repair itself which has had the most impact on the resident.
The resident has said that due to their disability they use the sink to wash, and the leaking taps had a major impact on their enjoyment of their home and personal hygiene. While we have not been provided evidence to demonstrate the resident’s ability to wash has been affected, we are satisfied the resident has been caused considerable distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlords handling of the repairs, particularly the significant delays.
In its responses to the complaint the landlord has recognised some failures in its handling of the repairs. It has paid £187.5 compensation for this. This would have been fair and reasonable if there had not been further failures by the landlord in its handling of the repairs after its stage 1 complaint response. However, as mentioned above, there have been significant failures by the landlord following its complaint responses which have caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience.
To resolve this complaint, in recognition of the failures identified in this report and the impact on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation, broken down as:
1. £500 for the delays.
2. £50 for redecorating.
3. £50 for poor communication following the stage 2 response.
This is inclusive of the £187.5 it has already paid for this part of the resident’s complaint.
This award is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced and the time and trouble they spent pursuing the repair. We have also ordered the landlord to apologise and start the outstanding works.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

Landlords must acknowledge, define and log complaints at stage 1 within 5 working days of receiving them, and stage 1 responses must be sent within 10 working days of the acknowledgment.
The resident complained on 14 June 2024. The landlord should have acknowledged this by 20 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 28 June 2024, which was 11 working days after receiving it. The landlord should have sent its stage 1 response by 3 July 2024. The landlord responded on 22 July 2024, which was 23 working days after its deadline to acknowledge the complaint. There was a delay in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at stage 1. This was a failure by the landlord.
At stage 2 landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and responses must be sent within 20 working days. The resident escalated their complaint on 7 August 2024. The landlord responded on the day to confirm receipt of the complaint and to notify the resident that it was experiencing delays in assigning stage 2 responses. The landlord did not provide further information or a reason for the delays.
When agreeing an extension to the stage 2 deadline, landlords must inform residents of the expected timescale for a response. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and this must be clearly explained to residents. Additionally, landlords must provide residents the contact details of this Service. The landlord did none of the above in this case. This was a complaint handling failure by the landlord.
The landlord should have acknowledged the stage 2 complaint by 13 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 2 October 2024, which was 41 working days after receiving it. The landlord should have sent its stage 2 response by 9 September 2024. It sent this on 29 October 2024, which was 56 working days after its deadline to acknowledge the complaint. This was a considerable delay. This was not reasonable and was a failure by the landlord.
Looking at the above, while the landlord acknowledged delays in its stage 1 response, it is concerning that it has not recognised further delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 2. Failing to answer the stage 2 complaint within the required timescales clearly caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing a response to their complaint. Additionally, a lack of information and poor expectation management from the landlord in relation to timescales contributed to the resident feeling unsupported.
That said, the landlord has already offered £187.5 compensation for the failures it identified in its complaint handling and for the impact on the resident. This is a significant amount for the complaint handling failures identified by the landlord in its stage 1 response. While further complaint handling failures have occurred, we are satisfied the overall compensation already offered for this part of the resident’s complaint is appropriate and proportionate for all the complaint handling failures identified in this report. So, we have made a finding of reasonable redress and not asked the landlord to increase this compensation further.

Learning

This case highlights a need for the landlord to improve its record keeping and communication

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Repairs must be completed within appropriate timescales, and delays should be identified and addressed. Failing to do this indicates a lack of effective repair monitoring from the landlord.

Communication

Residents should be notified of missed appointments. Where delays are unavoidable, the landlord should provide clear communication and manage expectations. Failing to do this undermines trust and may damage the relationship between the resident and the landlord.