Places for People Group Limited (202429127)

Decision
Case ID	202429127
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her partner and young daughter. She complained that the landlord had delayed responding to her concerns about damp and mould and that the bathroom needed replacing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Request to replace the shower.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Requests for replace the shower.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We have found that:

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

7. Following the first recorded report of damp and mould from the resident it took the landlord around 8 months to arrange a damp and mould inspection. It did not raise the repairs for a further 2 months and delayed completing these. It took a total of around 15 months to complete the required repairs. It failed to keep the resident updated and did not take account of her concerns that the mould was affecting her daughter’s health.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the shower

8. The landlord did not replace the shower for around a year despite multiple inspections recommending this. It did not arrange repairs or take action to mitigate the leaks. This was despite being aware it was contributing to the damp and mould and was the only washing facility in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

9. The landlord significantly delayed acknowledging the resident’s initial complaint, taking 4 months to log this at stage 1 of its complaints process. It also did not address all of the resident’s points in its stage 2 response.

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 its executive 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 16 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,100 made up as follows: £975 offered in its complaints process. A further £1,025 for the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident from the delays in carrying out repairs to resolve the damp and mould and in replacing the shower. £100 in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 December 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange a post-works inspection for the repairs for the damp and mould. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed.  If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects whether the damp and mould has been resolved by the repairs and produces a written report with photographs. If there is evidence of continuing problems with damp and mould the survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the ongoing damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 16 December 2025

 

Recommendation

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

Our recommendation
We recommend, that within 3 months following the completion of the inspection order above, the landlord re-inspect the property to confirm whether the damp and mould has reoccurred. If so, it should raise further repairs as required and inform the resident of the likely timescales to commence and complete this work.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that: She had reported damp and mould in the property at the start of the year. She said its surveyor did not attend at the agreed time and it had not responded to her attempts to arrange another inspection or her further reports of damp and mould. The damp and mould was present in several rooms including the kitchen, bathroom and her daughter’s bedroom. She said the mould had damaged her personal belongings and was affecting her daughter’s health. In addition to the damp and mould there were leaks from the shower whenever it was used and she wanted it replaced.
6 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It accepted there had been a communication breakdown in it not completing a damp and mould inspection when the resident first reported the issue. It said due to an administrative error there had been a delay in raising repairs following the damp and mould inspection in November 2024. It said it had raised all the repairs and had completed some of these. It said that the resident’s request for a bathroom replacement would be included in its planned programme for “the coming years” but its focus would be on carrying out necessary repairs until then. It offered £775 compensation for the delays and the resident’s distress. It said its insurer was investigating the claimed damage to the resident’s personal belongings.
4 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She told the landlord: It had not contacted her to arrange repairs to the bathroom and the shower was continuing to flood the bathroom when used. She was unhappy with its communication about repairs for the damp and mould. She said she had waited in for an appointment the previous day but the contractor was not clear on what work was necessary and no repairs were completed. She acknowledged it had completed some repairs but damp and mould remained present and her daughter was still unwell from the condition of the property.
9 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged delays in raising repairs for the shower and said it had booked this to take place on 29 May 2025. It said with regard to the appointment on 3 April 2025 its operative had found it had already completed the repair they had been scheduled for. It apologised it had not informed the resident at the time. It offered a further £200 for its delays and lack of communication bringing its total compensation offer to £975.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate her complaint. She confirmed that the landlord had since completed repairs to address the damp and mould, and it had replaced the bathroom shortly prior to the date of this report. However, she wanted the landlord to provide additional compensation for the impact of its actions.

 

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	The landlord’s handling of damp and mould
Finding	Severe maladministration

What we have not investigated

10. The resident told us that her daughter’s health was affected by the damp and mould in the property and she required several admissions to hospital. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
11. The resident also told us that the mould damaged some of her personal belongings. She made a claim to the landlord’s insurer, which is ongoing. We cannot make a binding decision on whether the landlord is liable for the claimed damage and cannot investigate the actions of the insurance company. We have, therefore, not investigated this further.

What we have investigated

12. The resident told us that she first reported the damp and mould to the landlord on 14 July 2023. While we do not dispute her claim we have not seen evidence of this. However, when she said she next reported this, on 22 March 2024, it made a request on the same day for a damp and mould inspection to take place at the property.
13. The landlord recorded that it was not able to access the property when it attended. The resident told us it did not attend at the agreed appointment time and did not respond to her voicemails asking it to reschedule the inspection. She also said she reported the issue to the landlord again on 21 August 2024 and 3 September 2024. We have seen no evidence it contacted her following the missed appointment to rearrange this or that it took any action to follow-up the reported damp and mould up until her complaint.
14. Following the resident’s complaint of 10 October 2024 the landlord raised another request for a damp and mould inspection, which took place on 18 November 2024. Its damp and mould policy does not specify a timeframe, however, it says it will respond promptly. Its self-assessment against our spotlight report on damp and mould also says it has a target timescale of 15 calendar days to inspect following a report of damp and mould. As it took around 8 months to inspect following the resident’s report of damp and mould, and 39 calendar days after she reraised this, it failed to act in line with its policy.
15. The landlord’s inspection noted damp and mould was present in the kitchen, bathroom and second bedroom of the property. It recommended it add extractor fans to the kitchen and bathroom, renewing the sealant of the kitchen window and repointing and applying sealant to the external side of the second bedroom wall. It sent the resident a follow-up email on 25 November 2024 saying it would arrange for a mould wash of the affected areas as a priority.
16. The landlord did not raise work orders for the mould wash or any of the repairs identified in its inspection until 14 February 2025, around 2 months later. Though it said in its response this was due to an “administrative error” we have seen no evidence to explain this or to show it took action during this time to follow-up the findings of the inspection.
17. The landlord says it will complete repairs relating to damp and mould in line with its responsive repair policy based on a risk assessment of the severity and urgency. There is no evidence to show that it completed any risk assessment in this case, despite the resident telling it the damp and mould was affecting her young daughter’s health.
18. The landlord’s responsive repair policy says it will complete non-emergency “appointable” repairs within 60 calendar days. It completed some of the repairs such as the renewal of the kitchen window, repointing and installation of extractor fans within 60 days of the repairs being raised. However, there is no evidence it considered prioritising this work given the 2-month delay in it raising the repairs. Notably, despite telling the resident the mould washes would be arranged as a priority, it did not complete these until 28 April 2025 with exceeded the timescale of its policy. From the available records the landlord did not complete all the repairs in relation to the damp and mould until 1 July 2025, around 7 and a half months after its inspection and around 15 months after the resident’s first reported her concerns. This greatly exceeded its timescales and does not demonstrate it gave due regard to reported health concerns.
19. We also note that the landlord’s record keeping for the handling of these repairs was poor with several duplicate appointments covering the same work. For instance, though it completed the repairs to add extractor fans to the kitchen and bathroom on 2 April 2025 it arranged another attendance on 23 April 2025, only to record it had already completed the work. It raised an identical repair order on 15 August 2025 to install extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The resident told us these unnecessary appointments and the lack of communication from the landlord added to her frustration.
20. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it should complete a follow-up inspection 6 weeks after the completion of remedial works. We have seen no evidence that a follow-up inspection has taken place in line with its policy. Though the resident told us the damp and mould in the property appears to have resolved following the repairs we have ordered it to complete a follow-up inspection to confirm this.

Complaint	The handling of the shower replacement
Finding	Severe maladministration

21. The first record of the resident reporting leaks from the bathroom was as part of her complaint on 10 October 2024 when she asked for a replacement shower. She specified on 31 October 2024 that the shower flooded the bathroom floor every time it was used because of leaks and it was the only bathing facility in the property.
22. On 6 November 2024 the landlord told the resident it would treat the leak from the shower as an emergency repair and asked if she would be able to provide access in the next 24 hours for a temporary repair. This was in line with its repair policy timescale. The resident declined saying she did not want a “rushed job” and wanted the shower replaced, as a result it cancelled the emergency repair. Whilst the resident’s refusal was a mitigating factor there was a missed opportunity for the landlord to manage her expectations and explain the temporary emergency repair would be to make safe the leak until further repairs could resolve the issue.
23. As part of the damp and mould inspection on 18 November 2024 the landlord’s surveyor recorded that the shower was in poor condition and leaked when used. They recommended, as part of resolving the damp and mould in the property, that it should be stripped out and a new level access shower installed.
24. It is unclear what action the landlord took in relation to the recommendation. However in its internal emails of 6 March 2025 it said it discussed the bathroom replacement at its panel meeting. It said, though it would add the resident’s bathroom onto its planned programme, its focus would be to carry out necessary repairs to the shower rather than a full replacement. We have not seen any records of its panel’s discussion, and it is unclear why it did not agree to its surveyor’s recommendation to replace the shower. If it disagreed that a full replacement was necessary to resolve the leaks it should have clearly recorded the reason for this. We have also seen no explanation of why it took around 4 months for it to make this decision when it originally categorised it as an emergency repair.
25. The landlord informed the resident in its stage 1 response of 6 March 2025 about its panel’s decision and said it would contact her when repairs for the shower had been arranged. There is no evidence it took action to progress the repair until 8 May 2025 when it requested an inspection of the shower, 2 months later. Though it acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 response of 9 May 2025 it did not provide any explanation.
26. Though the landlord originally booked the inspection for 29 May 2025 it cancelled this and rebooked it for 30 June 2025. We have not seen that it provided a reason for this delay to the resident. Though there are no records from the inspection, it told us its operative recorded the likely cause of the leaks were from the historical removal of the original bath and modifications to the pipework. It recommended the shower should be stripped out, the pipework boxed in and a new shower tray installed.
27. There is no evidence the landlord ordered repairs to the bathroom following the inspection on 30 June 2025. It instead arranged for another inspection to take place on 22 September 2025. Given that both of its previous inspections made similar recommendations it is not clear why it requested a third inspection. We have seen no evidence of a reason for this in its records or that it gave any explanation to the resident which likely added to her frustration.
28. The inspection on 22 September 2025 recorded that the tiling around the shower was mismatched and wood behind these was rotten due to leaks. The landlord recommended the shower unit be ripped out and replaced. It raised an appointment for repairs for 5 November 2025 and the resident confirmed to us it fully replaced the bathroom around this time. As such it took around a year for the landlord to complete this repair after it was first recommended, greatly exceeding the 90-calendar day timescale for planned repairs.
29. Though we recognise a full bathroom replacement can take time we saw no evidence that it considered how it could mitigate the leaks or the impact of any delays on the resident. This was a significant failing given it was aware in November 2024 that it was the only washing facility in the property and the leaks were contributing to the issues with damp and mould.         

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

30. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. It acknowledges complaints within 5 working days. It responds to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. This is compliant with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
31. The resident first complained to the landlord on 10 October 2024. There was no evidence it responded to her at this time and she contacted it again on 21 October 2024 asking it for a response.
32. The landlord’s early resolution team responded to the resident on 30 October 2024 saying that it was experiencing a backlog of complaints but it was investigating. In its emails to her in early November 2024 it informed her it would escalate the complaint to stage 1 if it were not able to informally resolve the issue. Its complaint policy does not refer specifically to an early resolution process. Whilst the Code encourages the use of early resolution it specifies that a landlord should not add additional stages such as an ‘informal complaint’ to the 2-stage complaint process as this causes confusion. Therefore, this was not in line with the Code. 
33. Following the landlord’s early dispute team’s email of 12 November 2024 there is no evidence of its handling of the resident’s complaint until 10 February 2025 when it acknowledged and logged this at stage 1. This was 4 months after her original complaint which significantly exceeds the timescale of 5 working days set out in its policy.
34. The landlord defined the resident’s complaint with her on 11 February 2025 and issued its stage 1 response on 6 March 2025, 18 working days after its acknowledgement. Whilst this is outside of the 10 working day timescale of its policy it contacted her before this to explain it would need to extend its response to 6 March 2025 as it needed further information to investigate. Its response was, therefore, in line with the Code which allows for extensions of 10 working days when communicated to the resident.
35. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged her stage 2 complaint on 7 April 2025 within 5 working days. However, there is no evidence that it discussed or defined the complaint with her at this time as it should have in line with its policy.  
36. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 May 2025, 22 working days after its acknowledgement. While this was slightly outside the 20-working day timescale of its policy, we have seen no evidence that it advised the resident of any delay or extension.
37. The landlord’s responded to the resident’s complaint about the delays in arranging repairs to the bathroom and the specific issue about its attendance on 3 April 2025. However, it did not acknowledge that the damp and mould was still present in the property and the time taken to complete the repairs recommended from its inspection in November 2024. As such it did not address all the points raised in her escalation request as we would expect in line with the Code.  

Learning

38. In light of the introduction of Awaab’s Law the landlord should ensure its policy contains suitable guidance for its staff to meet the key requirements of this legislation, as highlighted in the Ombudsman’s recent ‘Learning from severe maladministration’ report. Its damp and mould policy should set out specific timescales for how quickly it will respond to reported damp and mould and how it will assess risk and resolve access issues.
39. The landlord’s complaint responses did not clearly specify how it calculated the compensation for the 2 main issues of the resident’s complaint.. It attributed the compensation reason to general impacts such as ‘stress’ and ‘delays’ without specifying if it intended to cover one or both of the complaint aspects. The landlord should ensure it clearly states which aspects of a complaint (if any) it is upholding and what compensation it is awarding for each element.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord did not keep clear records showing when it completed all of the repairs raised. This likely contributed to the issue of it creating unnecessary duplicate appointments for repairs that it had already completed. It is important it keeps a robust record of contact, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.

Communication

41. There were a number of delays in contacting the resident regarding her complaint. There was relatively little evidence to show it kept her updated about its planned repairs outside of its formal complaint responses or that it recognised the vulnerability she was reporting in relation to her daughter’s health. It is important that the landlord effectively manages residents’ expectations about how intended to respond to their concerns and that they are kept informed of any delays and how it intends to mitigate the impact of these.