From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Places for People Group Limited (202435397)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435397

Places for People Group Limited

1 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Management transfer.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2016. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident’s 8 children live with her.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould in the property from November 2022, before making a formal complaint on 14 November 2024. She said the landlord did several damp and mould washes and painted walls and ceilings. However, she said, the damp and mould continued to be an issue and was affecting her family’s health. She did not want any more treatments but for a surveyor to visit again. In later emails, she complained about the landlord’s handling of her management transfer. She said she did not feel it was supporting her sufficiently or doing enough to facilitate a move.
  3. In its stage 1 response of 7 February 2025 the landlord partially upheld the complaint, identifying service failures, and sincerely apologised. It said:
    1. The resident’s community housing manager (CHM) had given her advice and support and completed an application for a managed move to a larger property. This was approved on 16 February 2024, and the resident was on the waiting list.
    2. It had a limited number of 5/6 bedroom properties with a high demand for them. It would offer her 4-bedroom properties (even though she would still be overcrowded) as this would be an improvement on her current conditions.
    3. The waiting list was managed in date order and others had been on the list longer. It understood waiting would cause additional distress, but it would help as soon as possible.
    4. She had applied to the council for a larger property and was on their highest priority. She should contact other local registered social housing providers to discuss if they could assist. She might be able to make a direct application for a suitable property with them.
    5. It was aware environmental health (EH) had visited and issued a category 1 hazard. Consequently, it had taken the decision to serve her a notice of intent to seek possession (NISP). It would not enforce this. It was a tool to support her and give weight to her application with the council.
    6. It had conducted multiple damp and mould surveys and found no structural issues. The underlying cause was moisture from day-to-day living in an overcrowded property.
    7. It had previously upgraded the bathroom ventilation fan and overhauled the kitchen fan. It had now ordered the kitchen fan to be replaced with the newest model.
    8. It had sought and received advice to install a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit in the loft space. It would arrange this.
    9. It had offered to keep doing the damp and mould washes, but she had refused. If she changed her mind, it would book this urgently. She should continue to wash the affected areas with mould wash to reduce the impact on her family.
    10. She should consult her GP about her health concerns.
    11. She should document the damage to personal belongings and submit an insurance claim (providing details of where to submit this).
    12. It had installed a new window ledge but failed to decorate the wood. It apologised that she had needed to raise this again. It had arranged an appointment to do the work.
    13. It offered £100 for the delay in repairs and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It would escalate her complaint to stage 2 as requested.
  4. In its stage 2 response of 14 March 2025, the landlord reiterated its explanations of stage 1 and added:
    1. It empathised with the resident’s frustration but there were no structural defects it could address. It urged her to allow it to carry out recommended work to help mitigate the issue while she waited for a bigger property.
    2. It had issued the NISP on 7 February 2025, but as she was already in the highest priority, this did not expedite matters.
    3. It sincerely apologised for the delay in installing the PIV unit.
    4. It offered an additional £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for repair delays.
  5. The resident referred her complaint to us in March 2025 saying she was told the PIV unit would not get rid of the damp and mould; it would only improve it slightly. She said the surveyor had told her that, due to the overcrowding, mould would always be an issue. She said her living situation was impacting her family’s mental and physical health. The PIV unit was installed on 31 March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. While the resident’s desired outcome is to move to a larger property, this is not something we can order. We do not know the availability of appropriate properties or the circumstances of others on the transfer list, and we would not make an order which might have an adverse effect on a third party. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s handling of the management transfer was in line with its policies and procedures and our own expectations.
  2. The resident has said the matters complained of have negatively affected her family’s health. It is beyond our remit to decide whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and any ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her family’s health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the family experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  3. We do not ordinarily order the landlord to reimburse residents for damage to belongings. It is not within our remit to establish when or how the belongings were damaged. The cost of damaged belongings arising from the landlord’s actions are more appropriately claimed via its insurance. Therefore, this is not addressed further in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s reports. She may wish to consider seeking advice on making an insurance claim via the landlord’s insurer.

Damp and mould

  1. It is not our role to establish the underlying cause of damp and mould. Our investigation considers only if the landlord responded appropriately and proportionately to reports, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable. The landlord has accepted its service failures in its complaint responses, apologised, and paid compensation. Therefore, the question before us is whether those failures amount to maladministration and, if so, whether proper redress was offered to put things right.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy sets out how it should respond to reports. This includes offering advice and guidance to residents, surveyor visits (to assess and make recommendations), mould washes, and necessary repairs. We are satisfied that the landlord carried out surveys and mould washes as expected. It has also installed ventilation, which was appropriate.
  3. The landlord has taken positive action to address the damp and mould. It has already acknowledged in its complaint responses the delays we have identified, so there is little more we can usefully add. It has sincerely apologised and paid £650 for its failures. This shows it took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify its failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair and put things right.
  4. While the landlord’s overall response was fair and reasonable, there were some issues which amount to service failure. The landlord is limited in what it can do, as the underlying cause cannot yet be rectified, but there are additional steps it should explore.
  5. The landlord did a survey in January 2023 which made recommendations for initial work (bathroom and kitchen extractor). It recommended monitoring ‘betterment’ before carrying out additional work. It is possible that an assessment was carried out after the first set of recommended works and further work was ruled out. However, we have not seen evidence of such an assessment or if the landlord followed up on this.
  6. The report also recommended installing a spring-loaded door closer to the bathroom to zone off this moisture producing area. The landlord is ultimately entitled to decide which recommendations it accepts, but it should properly assess and reason that decision. We have not seen evidence that the door was installed, or the reason why it was not. This is not in line with our expectations.
  7. The installation of a PIV is usually seen in extreme cases of damp and mould. However, given the recurring nature of the issue and the constraints around addressing the root cause of it, the landlord accepted the surveyor’s recommendation. This reflects its willingness to engage with the issue and to rectify it in so far as possible.
  8. However, a report of 28 February 2025 noted there was a water tank in the loft which did not have a lid. This could lead to excess evaporation of water within the loft space, generating moisture within it. It was recommended the tank be sealed prior to PIV installation. It was noted the installation would go ahead regardless, but the system could not be guaranteed to eliminate the issues as it would draw moist air from the unsealed tank. We have not seen evidence of whether the tank was sealed.
  9. The landlord is ordered to revisit the existing surveys and establish which recommendations were not accepted and why. It should then instruct another survey to understand the present condition of the property. It should explore if, as previously recommended, the property would benefit from the installation of a spring-loaded door, the conversion of the bathroom into a wet room, and if the water tank in the loft has been sealed. It should share a copy of the survey report with the resident. If there are recommendations within the survey that it then decides not to follow, it should explain this to her in writing.
  10. This is a very difficult situation. We understand the resident’s frustration with the repeated need for mould washes. However, the landlord has explained it is not possible to eliminate the damp and mould while the property is overcrowded. Therefore, it is only able to address the issue on an ongoing basis. While the resident might find the visits inconvenient, we strongly recommend that she allows the landlord to do the work it identifies and proposes.
  11. We encourage landlords to self-assess against our Spotlight reports following publication. In October 2021, we published our Spotlight on damp and mould, and a follow-up report was published in February 2023. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not always in line with the recommendations made in these reports. We therefore encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.

Management transfer

  1. The landlord’s management transfer policy sets out overcrowding as one of the reasons why it might consider a managed move. It says a management transfer is offered as a last resort after it has explored other options. The application must be approved by a senior manager and the resident can only be made one offer. The landlord is responsible for ensuring the resident is aware of this.
  2. The evidence shows that the landlord followed its policy and procedures to obtain approval of the management transfer for the resident. She told us she had not received sufficient information from the landlord but the evidence shows the landlord has discussed the transfer with her and explained the restrictions it has around available properties. While she feels it is not doing enough, we have not identified additional action it could reasonably be expected to take to facilitate a quicker move.
  3. The landlord would not ordinarily offer the resident a 4-bedroom property as it would not resolve the overcrowding. However, it took a pragmatic approach by making 4-bedroom properties available to her as it has a bigger stock of these than 5/6-bedroom properties. This means she has a better chance of obtaining a 4-bedroom house and, while she would still be overcrowded, there would be at least one more room than currently. This was a sensible and solution-focused approach to take.
  4. EH have issued a hazard notice, and we have seen evidence the landlord has liaised with them. The resident said she had to repeatedly chase the landlord to confirm it had heard from EH. However, the evidence shows it received a letter on 4 December 2024, and she also shared a copy in the following days. The landlord emailed her on 19 December 2024 and confirmed it had received the letter and added it to the system.
  5. The landlord was limited in what it could do about this notice other than to issue the NISP. The resident said she thinks it should liaise with the council to re-house her or consider a direct let. However, the landlord has no influence over the council’s decision, especially where she is already on their highest priority banding. The landlord is further accountable for its public expenditure and has limited resources. Given this, we do not expect it to chase the council in the way the resident would like as it is unlikely to achieve a meaningful outcome.
  6. Overall, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer. We have found evidence of discussions between the landlord and the resident about the transfer. However, given what she has said, we recommend that the landlord writes to her with a clear explanation of how the management transfer is expected to work, what she needs to do herself, and how often she should expect to hear from it while she waits. If it has already issued this, it should re-send a copy to her now.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’.
  2. The policy set out timeframes; 5 working days to acknowledge the complaint at both stages, 10 working days for a full response at stage 1 (with an extension of an extra 10 working days if needed), and 20 working days at stage 2 (with an extension of an extra 20 working days if needed). Where an extension is needed, the policy says the resident would be told why and updates would be agreed.
  3. The resident made her complaint on 14 November 2024 and had to chase before the complaint was logged on 13 December 2024. The landlord apologised for the delay due to high volumes of complaints and provided a response date. This was then extended twice. While the extensions were handled in line with the policy, the revised timeframe was not met due to sickness absence. The reason for the added delay was not communicated to the resident until the complaint handler returned to work. The stage 1 response was issued on 7 February 2025, 58 working days after the complaint was made. This was outside the policy timeframe and procedure.
  4. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 7 February 2025 and was acknowledged within the landlord’s stage 1 response. It then discussed the complaint with the resident on 20 February 2025, before issuing its stage 2 response on 14 March 2025, 24 working days later. This was broadly in line with its policy.
  5. We have identified a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It is ordered to write to the resident with an apology and to pay £100 compensation for the upset, inconvenience, and confusion caused by its complaint handling failures, in line with our remedies guidance.
  6. On 8 February 2024 we issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in policy and practice. The Code applied from 1 April 2024 and we have a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
  7. However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
      1. Reports of damp and mould.
      2. Associated formal complaint.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Reviewed the existing surveys and established which recommendations were not accepted and why.
    2. Instructed a new survey to understand the up-to-date condition of the property. The survey should consider if:
      1. The property would benefit from the installation of a spring-loaded door and the conversion of the bathroom into a wet room.
      2. If the water tank in the loft has been sealed (unless the landlord can provide evidence this was already done).
    3. Shared a copy of the survey report with the resident.
    4. Explained in writing to the resident the survey recommendations it has accepted, with a clear timeline of proposed action.
    5. If there are recommendations within the survey it has decided not to follow, it has explained this, in writing, to the resident along with its reasons.
    6. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £100 compensation for its failures in the handling of the associated formal complaint.
    7. Reviewed the complaint handling failures highlighted in this investigation alongside the provisions of the Code.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to write to the resident with a clear explanation of how the management transfer is expected to work. This explanation should include information about what she needs to do herself, what the landlord will do, and how often she should expect to hear from it while she waits. If it has already issued this, it should re-send a copy to the resident now.