Places for People Group Limited (202431114)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431114

Places for People Group Limited

15 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, damp and mould.
    2. Response to the resident’s requests for a kitchen replacement.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 2-bedroom flat. She has COPD, other physical health conditions and mental health issues. The landlord is aware of her health conditions.
  2. In March and October 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in her home. The landlord inspected the property on 23 November 2023 and recommended a number of repairs. It also carried out a mould wash on 21 December 2023. In January 2024 the resident reported damp and mould again. On 21 February 2024 she complained about multiple repair appointments being changed. She found this upsetting, especially due to her health conditions.
  3. In September 2024 the resident reported damp and mould again and explained that it was affecting her health. The landlord subsequently escalated her February 2024 concerns into a formal complaint. On 4 November 2024 the landlord inspected the property again and recommended more repairs. On 28 November 2024 the resident cancelled the works.
  4. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 2 December 2024. In summary, it said:
    1. It apologised for delays and explained that attempts to carry out repairs failed due to a lack of access.
    2. It apologised that it did not consider her vulnerabilities during some repairs.
    3. It acknowledged it should have escalated the complaint sooner and apologised.
    4. The kitchen was assessed as part of a stock condition survey carried out in Spring 2023. The report showed that the earliest date for any upgrade was 2028.
    5. It would offer £1,075 compensation, made up of £450 for stress, inconvenience, and poor customer service, £100 for complaint handling, £150 for delay to remedial works, £350 to replace the resident’s bedroom carpet and £25 as an apology.
  5. The next day, the resident said she was unhappy with the way her complaint had been handled and said she had instructed a solicitor. On 16 January 2025 the landlord and a surveyor (instructed by the resident’s solicitor) carried out a joint inspection of the property. They did not find any ‘actionable defects’ concerning damp and mould but suggested replacing the kitchen taps, removing mould in the storage cupboards, and installing a downpipe.
  6. On 27 March 2025 the landlord issued its stage 2 final response. It summarised what had happened up to November 2024, and said:
    1. It was satisfied with its stage 1 response to her request for a kitchen replacement.
    2. Since the resident cancelled the works, it had rescheduled the repairs and provided some new timescales.
    3. It acknowledged that the repair timescales were not ideal and would try to bring them forward.
    4. Some repairs were still unscheduled, but it would update the resident once it confirmed dates.
    5. In December 2022 the resident began a disrepair case. An inspection was carried out on 16 January 2025. The only work still outstanding from this inspection was the replacement of the kitchen sink taps, which it had scheduled for 17 April 2025.
    6. It would inform the resident about any changes to the repair works.
  7. In her referral to us, the resident said the landlord kept cancelling appointments. She said the repairs were still outstanding. The bedroom remained damp and mouldy, which made it unusable and affected her health. She wanted the landlord to resolve the damp and mould and complete all outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of these matters affected her health. In this case, we are unable to consider causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and well-being as this would be better suited via an insurance claim or a court to decide. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience this situation may have caused.

Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, damp and mould.

  1. The landlord accepts that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, we consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. In this case, there were unreasonable delays in completing some of the remedial works after the landlord inspected the property in November 2023. The delays were caused by the landlord changing appointment dates without telling the resident. This caused her distress. The landlord also failed to consider her circumstances. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that it should have treated 2 repairs as emergencies.
  3. We have seen that there were access issues; however, the evidence showed the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates. She reported that damp and mould continued throughout 2024, which was particularly distressing given her health conditions.
  4. On 4 November 2024 the landlord carried out another damp and mould inspection. It recommended several internal and external repairs, including ventilation works. It is unclear why these works were not identified at earlier inspections. On 28 November 2024 the resident cancelled all works. The landlord initially acted fairly by trying to encourage her to allow access to complete the works.
  5. However, after the joint inspection on 16 January 2025 the landlord failed to carry out some recommended work in a reasonable time. In February 2025 the resident reported that repairs, damp and mould had still not been resolved. For example, the landlord did not replace the kitchen taps until 17 April 2025, more than 3 months later. This was despite knowing that the resident had arthritis and struggled to use the taps.
  6. The landlord also delayed re-opening repairs it had previously agreed to do after its November 2024 inspection. It did not reopen these until March 2025 and works to plasterboard and brickwork were not carried out until May and July 2025. Its own records acknowledge there were delays in completing works.
  7. In its stage 1 response in December 2024, the landlord accepted that it had failed in its handling of this matter up to that point. It offered £600 compensation for the delays, distress, and inconvenience caused. This offer was fair, particularly given the resident’s health conditions. This was also in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards from £600 where failures have had a significant adverse effect on a resident.
  8. The landlord’s final response said that some delays were due to access issues and cancelled appointments. However, it still failed to act quickly after its stage 1 response to reopen and complete the remedial works. This showed a lack of learning and poor consideration of the urgency, given the resident’s circumstances and previous delays. These ongoing delays caused further distress and frustration to the resident, who became increasingly upset by the lack of progress.
  9. We therefore find maladministration and have ordered the landlord to pay a further £300 compensation for the adverse effect caused to the resident. In her referral to us, the resident also said the damp and mould problems persisted and that repairs were outstanding. We have made another order below for the landlord to inspect the property and provide an action plan with timescales.

Response to the resident’s requests for a kitchen replacement

  1. While it is unclear when the resident asked for the kitchen to be replaced, the landlord’s response to this was reasonable. Its stage 1 response explained that a stock survey in spring 2023 showed the earliest possible date for any upgrades would be 2028. The landlord provided a clear explanation of how it would plan and coordinate the works, and it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations about timescales.
  2. The landlord also acted fairly by assuring the resident that it would carry out any necessary kitchen repairs before the upgrade date if needed. Even though this issue did not appear to be part of the resident’s escalation request, the landlord clarified its position in its final response. This demonstrated a customer-focused approach and a willingness to address all of the resident’s concerns.
  3. In light of the above, the landlord responded reasonably, and it set out its position clearly. We therefore find no maladministration in its response to the resident’s request for kitchen replacement.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It treated the resident’s first complaint in February 2024 as a service request. However, when the landlord escalated this to a formal complaint in September 2024, it took over 2 months to respond. This was contrary to its 10-working-day stage 1 response timescales. The landlord acknowledged it should have escalated the complaint to stage 1 sooner.
  2. The day after this response, the resident said she was unhappy with how the complaint was handled, but the landlord failed to escalate it to stage 2. She repeated her dissatisfaction on 3 February 2025. Only then did the landlord escalate the complaint. However, it did not issue its stage 2 final response until 27 March 2025, almost 2 months later. This was far beyond its 20-working day response timescale.
  3. The landlord fairly acknowledged its stage 1 delay and offered £100 compensation in recognition. However, it did not acknowledge or apologise for the stage 2 delay. This showed a failure to learn from mistakes, causing time and trouble for the resident.
  4. The stage 2 delay was a service failure. We have ordered a further £50 compensation, in line with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards of up to £100 for a failure that caused time and trouble.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports of repairs, damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a kitchen replacement.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,425 comprised of:
      1. £1,075 as offered in the landlord’s stage 1 response if it has not done so already.
      2. A further £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs, damp and mould.
      3. A further £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Inspect the property to identify if there are any outstanding remedial works. If works are needed, it must create an action plan with proposed timescales, taking into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. It must also consider whether it would be appropriate to have a single point of contact for the resident. The landlord must provide a copy of the inspection report and action plan to the resident and this Service.