Places for People Group Limited (202427254)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy about delays to the landlord re-hanging 2 internal doors and outstanding issues with these since it rehung them.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of re-hanging internal doors.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of re-hanging internal doors
   2. service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Internal doors

5. The landlord made reasonable attempts to arrange a suitable appointment with the resident to re-hang the doors. It provided appropriate redress to recognise delays in its stage 1 response.

Complaint handling

6. There were delays at both stages of the landlord’s internal complaints process and it did not recognise this or 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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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 landlord was unable to re-hang the doors until a significant time after it concluded its internal complaints process. When it did do this, the resident raised further concerns about the work. We have already addressed these further concerns under our reference 202507065 and so we have not considered these further. This investigation has considered events up to the landlord’s stage 2 response of 23 September 2024.

Internal doors

8. The landlord has told us the resident told it that contractors removed 2 internal doors. However, it has told us it did not instruct the removal of these doors and does not have a record of them being removed. So, it is not clear from the evidence available when or why the doors were initially removed.
9. We have seen no evidence that the landlord was aware of the missing doors before the resident raised his complaint on 2 July 2024. On 30 July 2024 the landlord called the resident to advise its contractor was on its way to hang the doors. This was in line with its 28-day timescale for appointable repairs. However, it would have been appropriate for it to treat the lack of doors as an emergency repair, as it was a potential fire hazard, so it should have attended within 24 hours.
10. The resident told the landlord he was not well enough for its contractors to visit. It emailed him on 31 July 2024 to say it would attend on 5 August 2024, but he declined the appointment. In its stage 1 response of 31 July 2024, it told him he needed to allow it access to do the work. It offered him £150 compensation, which was reasonable and proportionate to recognise the delay in it initially booking an appointment.
11. On 30 August 2024 the landlord spoke to the resident and followed up with an email asking him to provide dates he would be available for its contractor to re-hang the doors. It sent a further email on 20 September 2024 chasing him for dates. In its stage 2 response of 23 September 2024, it said its contractor was keen to get the work done, but it had not had a response to its emails asking him for his availability.
12. The landlord emailed him again on 2 October 2024 asking him for his availability but did not receive a response. The landlord made reasonable attempts to arrange an appointment with the resident. The doors were subsequently re-hung in June 2025, following a period where the resident was moved to temporary accommodation for repairs unrelated to this complaint.

13. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s complaint after 10 working days (2 July to 16 July 2024) – outside its complaints policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. it sent its stage 1 response 11 working days after acknowledging the complaint (16 July to 31 July 2024) – slightly outside its policy timescale of 10 working days
    3. it acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same day, with its policy timescale of 5 working days
    4. it sent its stage 2 response 37 working days after acknowledging the escalation (1 August to 23 September 2024) – outside its policy timescale of 20 working days
14. The landlord acknowledged there had been a delay in it raising a complaint for the resident but still failed to log the complaint at that time. Its policy said that when it was unable to send its stage 2 response on time, it could extend the deadline if it wrote to the resident to agree this. We have seen no evidence it did this, which was not reasonable.
15. 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)

16. While there is no clear failing in the landlord’s record keeping, there does appear to have been a failure by its contractor. The contractor told the landlord it had been unable to gain access to re-hang the doors on several occasions but could not provide evidence to support this. The landlord should work with its contractors to ensure it notifies it when there has been a no access appointment and this information should be recorded by the landlord.

Communication

17. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident in this case was reasonable. It made regular attempts while the complaint was ongoing to try to arrange the required works. However, it did fail to keep him updated with complaint delays. It should be more proactive in keeping residents update with complaint delays, in line with its complaints policy.