Places for People Group Limited (202438823)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202438823

Places for People Group Limited

30 July 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:
   1. Repairs to the guttering, downpipe and roof.
   2. Damp and mould.
2. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The residents are the assured joint tenants of the property, which is a 3-bedroom house. They will be referred to as the resident for ease of reading. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
4. On 22 June 2024 the resident reported her guttering was blocked and needed repair, and the landlord raised a job. She complained on 25 July 2024 to it that she had not received an appointment. She also reported that she had damp and mould. She emailed it again on 30 September 2024 to make a second complaint as the repair had not been completed. She also sent it a letter of complaint, which it received on 4 October 2024. Her complaint was about:
   1. Having reported her guttering and downpipe repair, and having damp and mould, since 22 June 2024 but had not received a repairs appointment. It had not done anything to resolve the roof leak or mould.
   2. She had complained previously, but it had not responded.
   3. She wanted to proceed with a formal complaint.
5. Between 21 October 2024 and 6 November 2024 the landlord cleaned the guttering, discussed the complaint with the resident and raised a new repair to replace the guttering. She asked for a mould wash and raised concerns about the effects of mould on her health. She also said she had not been contacted by its contractor for an appointment, and it said no appointments were available.
6. On 15 November 2024 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said the appointment she had been given was on 7 February 2025. This did not resolve her complaint about its delays and lack of a damp and mould assessment. The landlord said it would escalate the complaint to stage 1 and acknowledged this on 18 November 2024. The landlord sent a holding response and a further acknowledgement on 24 January 2025. It discussed the complaint with her and provided its stage 1 response on 29 January 2025, in which it:
   1. Upheld the complaint and accepted it should have raised a damp and mould inspection when she reported it. It also said it had not completed repairs within timescales or to a satisfactory level.
   2. Explained its contractor had not reported back about the damage to her roof, but it would have seen this if it had surveyed.
   3. Apologised for its sub-standard service and offered £450 compensation for inconvenience, delays and failure to follow policy. It also confirmed appointments on 4 and 7 February 2025 for scaffolding, repairs and inspection.
7. The landlord replaced guttering, facia boards, and roofing felt on 7 February 2025. However, the resident asked to escalate her complaint on 13 February 2025. She said it had not completed any works to the roof at the back of the property, where she had mould, or a roof survey. She said she had not been able to contact it as she did not have a direct telephone number. The landlord acknowledged escalation on 25 February 2025. Between 4 March 2025 and 3 April 2025 it asked for a new appointment and chased the contractor. The resident said she had not been contacted to book one, but then the contractor attended without notice. It marked the repair as a no access, but the resident said it could not do the job as it had not put up scaffolding first. It provided its stage 2 response on 3 April 2025, in which it:
   1. Apologised for its delayed response, which it said was due to the “complexity of the complaint”.
   2. Upheld the complaint and accepted there had been service failures.
   3. Apologised for not completing a damp and mould inspection, which it said it should have raised “immediately”. It said it would contact her to arrange an inspection and mould wash.
   4. Said it had booked a roof inspection for that day.
   5. Explained it had learnt lessons and strengthened processes.
   6. Offered increased compensation of £850 for distress and inconvenience, delays, and lack of communication.
8. The landlord’s records say there was a no access for the roof inspection on 10 April 2025. The resident emailed it to say she had no notice of the inspection and had already told it she would be away on that date. She rejected its compensation offer on 17 April 2025 and said she would bring her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 23 May 2025 and said the landlord’s contractor had inspected her roof that day and would recommend a new roof. It inspected on 9 June 2025 and provided a schedule of works on 12 June 2025 to this Service. The works were to replace tiles and patches of roofing felt, but not the whole roof.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering, downpipe and roof

9. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, guttering and external pipes. This is in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Its repairs policy classed repairs as either emergency (attend within 24 hours), appointable (repair within 28 days) or planned (repair within 90 days). Under its policy it will cancel repairs following a no access but will leave a card asking the resident to re-raise the repair.
10. When the resident reported her guttering and down pipe on 22 June 2024 the landlord correctly raised a repair. This was in line with its repairing obligations. It is not clear which repair timeframe it classed the repair as, but appointable would have been the most appropriate under its policy. However, it failed to book an appointment. It passed the repair to its contractor but failed to monitor it. Following 3 complaints from the resident, it did not complete a gutter clean until 21 October 2024. This was nearly 4 months after she reported it and outside of any of the landlord’s repairs policy timeframes. The landlord also failed to repair the guttering during the appointment. This failure was made worse by the fact the resident had already reported that the guttering was causing a leak, damp, and mould.
11. Positively the landlord raised another repair for the guttering following feedback from the resident. However, it again delayed in booking an appointment and inappropriately told her it did not have any available. When it did book an appointment, this was for over 2 months after it had raised the repair. It was understandable that this did not resolve the resident’s complaint and concerning that the landlord thought it had.
12. It was also concerning that the landlord’s contractor had not reported back following the gutter clean in October 2024 about the condition of the roof. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff and contractors should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.
13. Positively, within it stage 1 response the landlord upheld the complaint and accepted its failings. It gave appointment dates and did attend on those dates to complete works. However, it failed to repair one side of the roof or complete an inspection which it said it would. The resident also noted difficulties in contacting it about the repairs due to a lack of a direct telephone number. It would have been helpful, especially considering the repairs were part of a complaint resolution, if it had provided her with contact details for a named member of its staff. It then failed to agree a new appointment but attended without notice and without the correct equipment in place to complete the repairs. It marked the repair as a no access, which was inappropriate.
14. From the evidence the repairs process appears to have involved multiple departments and members of staff within the landlord, as well as external contractors. Its processes for monitoring progress of a repair were poor or did not exist, and there was a lack of ownership or oversight of the contractors.
15. The landlord accepted its further failures within its stage 2 response which was positive. It said it had booked an inspection for that date, but there is no evidence that it told the resident beforehand or whether it attended. It offered combined compensation of £850 for its failings in handling the repairs and damp and mould. In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies.
16. Following the response, the landlord attended without notice, on a day the resident had told it she would be away, which was a further failing. There remains disagreement between the resident and the landlord over what repairs are still required.
17. While the landlord positively accepted its failings, apologised and offered compensation, it did not resolve the complaint. It delayed passed its repairs policy timeframes and its communication was poor. It failed to give notice of a repair appointment following its stage 2 response and has not demonstrated that it has suitably repaired the roof. There was maladministration. This caused distress and inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble for the resident. To reflect the impact an order has been made that the landlord pay £500 compensation, which is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

18. Under its damp and mould policy the landlord says it will “treat all reports of damp and mould seriously using a respectful and empathetic approach”. It also notes the potential health implications of having damp and mould. The policy sets out a 3-step process. When it receives a report, the landlord will attend to remove any immediate risks, investigate to determine causes and order any repairs needed. Following this, after 6 weeks, it will reinspect to see whether it has resolved the issue. The policy says it will complete repairs, within timeframes, following its repairs policy. It also says it will respond promptly to reports of damp and mould and will provide clear and accessible information to residents throughout the process.
19. The resident said that she reported damp and mould on 22 June 2024 when she reported her guttering repair. The evidence shows that the landlord had notice of damp and mould from 25 July 2024, but it failed to raise an inspection or any repairs. She reported it again in September, October and November 2024, and explained her concern about the negative effects mould has to health. She also asked for a mould wash, but the landlord took no action which was not in compliance with its policy. It correctly accepted its failings and apologised within its stage 1 response on 29 January 2025, but it still failed to raise an inspection or mould wash. By the date of its stage 2 response, there is no evidence it had inspected inside the property at all.
20. Within its stage 2 response the landlord correctly acknowledged and apologised for not having completed an inspection. It said it would contact her to arrange one. It did not explain why it had not already done so when it was aware it should have following its stage 1 response. This was a compounded failing to follow policy or to put things right. By this time over 10 months had passed since the resident said she first reported the issue. This was an unreasonable delay and not the prompt response called for under its policy. It could and should have arranged an appointment date as part of its stage 1 response and failing that as part of its stage 2 response. It should have also arranged an urgent mould wash as it had no idea the level of damp and mould inside the property.
21. The Housing Act 2004 introduced the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). One of the 29 identified hazards is damp and mould. Landlords have an obligation to minimise or remove the identified hazards. Landlords need to make sure their homes are safe and free from hazards. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should quickly inspect the property to check for hazards. It must determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to serious consequences for everyone involved.
22. The landlord has told the Ombudsman it completed a damp and mould inspection on 9 June 2025. It has not provided a surveyor’s report, or any type of report detailing causes or proposed remedies, aside from a short schedule of works. This was a failing and not a demonstration of providing clear and accessible information as per its policy.
23. There was severe maladministration. The landlord did not at any point follow its damp and mould policy. Despite the resident having reported damp and mould multiple times the landlord took no action. Even after it acknowledged its failure within its complaint responses it took no action and then was slow to act. To reflect the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £1,000 compensation to the resident. This amount is in line with our guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

24. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as per paragraph 1.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents.
25. The resident made a complaint on 25 July 2024. She made a clear expression of dissatisfaction with the landlord, or its contractor’s, lack of action. She made a second complaint on 30 September 2024. She stated she was raising “a second complaint”, even though a resident does not need to use the word complaint under its policy or paragraph 1.3 of the Code. Its policy also states “if the [resident] raised dissatisfaction with the response to their service request, this is a complaint.” The landlord failed to acknowledge or raise either complaint. It did not follow its policy or paragraph 6.2 of the Code.
26. When the resident wrote to it on 2 October 2024 to make a third complaint, the landlord failed to acknowledge a stage 1 complaint. It told the Ombudsman it had handled this as a service request, which was inappropriate and not in line with its policy. It “escalated” it to a stage 1 complaint on 18 November 2024. It then sent 2 holding responses, before providing a stage 1 response on 29 January 2025. This was 49 working days after it raised the complaint, and 131 working days after she made her first complaint. This was an unacceptable delay and was not in compliance with its 10-working day policy timeframe, or paragraph 6.3 of the Code. The landlord also failed to request an extension of time which was permitted under its policy and the Code. Additionally, the landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise or offer any remedy for its complaint handling failings.
27. The landlord took 8 working days to acknowledge escalation to stage 2 of its process. This was not in line with the 5 working days allowed under its policy and paragraph 6.11 of the Code. It provided its stage 2 response 27 working days after acknowledgement, against a policy timeframe of 20 working days. This was also not in compliance with paragraph 6.14 of the Code. Again, the landlord failed to request an extension of time which was permitted under its policy and the Code. Positively within its stage 2 response it acknowledged and apologised for the delay. It said this was due to the case being complex, but it is difficult to see why it considered the complaint to be complex. However, it failed to offer any remedy. While it said it had strengthened processes and learnt lessons, it was not clear on what it had learnt from outcomes.
28. Overall, there was severe maladministration. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint on 3 occasions and then tried to handle it outside of its complaints process. This was not in line with its policy or the Code. Its approach could be seen as gatekeeping and prevented the resident from escalating her complaint and bringing it to the Ombudsman more quickly. To reflect the additional inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused, an order has been made that the landlord pay £300 compensation to the resident.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of damp and mould.
    2. Complaint handling.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering, downpipe and roof.

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident, from the chief executive, for the failings detailed in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £1,800 compensation made up of:
       1. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling damp and mould.
       2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused by its failings in handling guttering and roof repairs.
       3. £300 for the additional inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Carry out an inspection, by either an internal surveyor or external expert surveyor, of the condition of the entire property and the roof. It is to provide a copy of the survey report to the resident and this Service. The inspection is to consider but not be limited to:
       1. The causes of damp and mould.
       2. Whether the remedial works already proposed or completed have or will be effective, and any further works required.
       3. What, if any, further repairs are required to the roof and guttering.
    4. Arrange dates for or provide additional training to its complaint handling staff. This training is to include recognising complaints and acknowledging them, responding within timeframes, and when appropriate to ask for an extension of time, following its complaints policy and the Code.
    5. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.