Places for People Group Limited (202440830)

Decision
Case ID	202440830
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 December 2025

Background

1. Since September 2022, the resident has been reporting a recurring problem with water backing into his living room and shed from a paved area in the garden. In mid-2023, he reported an occurrence of the damp and the landlord completed works to address it. He later complained about the time it took the landlord to complete the works, that he had been living with damp and mould, and it had not found an effective solution.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould repairs.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord did not complete repairs within a reasonable time, some of the work was not done properly, and it did not always keep the resident updated. While the landlord acknowledged its failings in its complaint responses and took some appropriate actions, it has not shown it fully completed repairs it agreed to put things right and the resident advised the problem persists.

 

 

Complaint handling

6. Both of the landlord’s responses were delayed and it missed opportunities to acknowledge and apologise for this at the time. It did though keep the resident updated and engaged with him about repairs and ways it could put right his complaint during the stage 2 response which lessened the impact.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £350, made up as follows:  £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration of the repairs and communication about them after the complaints process ended. £50 for the time and trouble caused by delays in the complaints process.   The landlord must also evidence it has paid the compensation it awarded during the complaints process.	No later than 09 January 2026
2	Investigation order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date and by a suitably qualified person, such as a damp and mould specialist surveyor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect. The landlord must ensure that it assesses and produces a written survey report with photographs of, at the very least, the living room, shed, and garden. The survey report must set out: The most likely cause of any identified damp and mould. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible for work. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to any identified issues, including what action it intends to take to ensure repairs it is not responsible for are progressed (such as considering taking legal action). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether the living room is usable in its current state- if not, the landlord must consider reimbursing rent paid and explain what date it will do this from.	No later than 16 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 May 2024	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of his damp and mould reports. He said he was concerned for the health of his baby.
30 May 2024	In the stage 1 response, the landlord said: The resident had first reported the problem in August 2023 and it had inspected the problem and installed a drain in the garden, but this had not resolved the issue. An inspection in April 2024 found the cause was likely from the downpipe on the privately owned property next door and it had completed works itself to avoid a lengthy legal process. It recognised the resident had been caused distress and inconvenience by the delay in diagnosing the problem and to put this right it: Awarded £250 compensation. Agreed to fit new flooring in the living room as a gesture of goodwill. Relay the slabbed area in August 2024, even though it had not been found to be a health and safety concern. Confirmed it would replaster walls during which he would be rehoused temporarily.
27 September 2024	The resident asked to escalate his complaint because he was unhappy with the communication he had received about repairs. He wanted more compensation and to be reimbursed rent paid while he was in temporary accommodation.
29 November 2024	In the stage 2 response, the landlord found failings because a repair it had completed was not done correctly, it had laid new flooring on mould, and it had not kept the resident updated for 4 weeks. It also said that temporary accommodation the resident had been placed in had some repair issues and the resident decided to return home for the remainder of repairs. To put things right it said it would: Pay compensation of £1880.42 (£2130.42 total), made up of: £1220.42 (a 50% reimbursement of rent from September 2024 to February 2025). £300 to replace the flooring. £200 distress and inconvenience. £100 for time and trouble chasing updates. £60 for the cost of running a dehumidifier (which it would supply). Complete several repairs, including drainage to the neighbour’s property, the shed roof, replacing the back door, and mould treatments by February 2025.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because he was unhappy that repairs were outstanding and advised the underlying cause of the damp and mould has not been resolved. He said his family has been caused inconvenience because he has not been able to use the living room and in having to accommodate appointments. He said he is seeking the issue to be resolved, agreed repairs to be completed, and more compensation.

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	Damp and mould reports.
Finding	Maladministration

7. Where the causes of damp and mould are complex our 2021 spotlight report on the issue recognised it can take landlord multiple investigations and attempts to find a solution to identify and resolve. In such cases, landlords should act within a reasonable time at each stage, in line with its published repair timescales. At the time the landlord’s repairs policy stated it was operating above its usual routine repair timescale of 28 working days and aimed to complete these within 60 working days. It would also be appropriate to consider interim solutions to improve the situation for resident’s living with a damp and mould problem. And that they were kept updated with what was happening.
8. The standard of the repair records we received were inconsistent. Of those provided, the records from 2024 onwards were much better than earlier ones because they showed when a repair was raised and completed, and what the work entailed. The lack of detail means we were unable to always see what problems the resident reported prior to 2024 and how frequently. Or how and when the landlord responded to them. This is a failing because the landlord should keep a clear audit trail of repairs to show if it has met its obligations to complete them within a reasonable time. Or that there were good reasons for any delays.
9. While the standard of the repair records was sometimes poor, there was consistency in the accounts of the resident and landlord about the circumstances that led to the complaint. Both agree the resident reported an occurrence of the damp problem in mid-2023 and that the landlord inspected it several times. Repair logs also show the landlord completed a drainage survey and the installed a drain externally in early 2024, around 6 months after the resident’s report. As stated earlier, the lack of available evidence showing what inspections the landlord completed and when means it cannot show this was a reasonable time, which is a failing.
10. The resident then reported a recurrence on 16 April 2024 which led to further investigations. The landlord then diagnosed the cause as a defect with the privately owned neighbour’s rainwater pipe. We are unable to see when the repair to this was completed, but it is more likely than not, based on the available information, in May 2024. This was only temporarily effective as the resident reported the water had again entered his living room in September 2024, causing the ceiling to collapse. He also continued to report problems with water backing into his shed, which again the records show the landlord investigated for possible leaking pipes and a problem with the roof.
11. It is understandable the resident was frustrated that the problem was not resolved by the landlord’s actions. However, the cause was clearly complex and the fact no permanent solution had been found was not itself a failing. It was though apparent that the landlord mismanaged the repairs and that this adversely impacted the resident.
12. We find the landlord’s complaint response was reasonable because it recognised its mistakes and offered appropriate resolutions. This included:
    1. Apologising for its delays, poor communication, and taking accountability for the fact some repairs were not done properly.
    2. Agreeing to cover the cost of replacing the resident’s flooring without him having to make an insurance claim. This was particularly reasonable for the second occasion the flooring needed to be replaced because it had been laid over mould, which was inappropriate.
    3. Taking interim actions to help improve the resident’s living conditions, including using a dehumidifier.
    4. Awarding compensation in line with its compensation policy for the various impacts of its failings. Such as £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused, which was in keeping with the range its policy allocates to impacts experienced for a moderate time (£100-£600). It is also within the range our remedies guidance for maladministration that has had a negative effect but is not expected to be long lasting.
    5. Confirming a schedule of works it would undertake to attempt to resolve the problem and the resulting damage, including fitting a soakaway at the neighbour’s property, replacing the back door, repairing the shed roof, and completing mould treatments.
    6. Reimbursing a portion of the resident’s rent between September 2024 (when the problem worsened) and February 2025 (when it was due to complete mould washes after all other works had been completed). This was appropriate in view of the fact the resident could not use the living room and had not wanted to remain in temporary accommodation. It was above the amount the landlord’s compensation policy suggests is paid because it states it will usually reimburse between 50% and 100% of rent where all rooms are uninhabitable because of its failure to complete repairs.
13. Our Complaint Handling Code 2024 (the Code) states that the landlord should ensure any remedies proposed in complaint responses are followed through to completion. It would also be reasonable for a landlord to carry out repairs within a given timeframe, unless there were clear and good reasons not to. If it does not, we are unable to find a landlord has redressed a complaint.
14. Records show that by the time the resident submitted a disrepair pre-action notice in early February 2025 most of the repairs were outstanding. This includes replacing the soakaway at the neighbour’s property, which the landlord believed was causing the problem. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that this has been completed or that the landlord has given an explanation or update to the resident about this matter. We recognise this is a complex issue because it involves a private residence but it would be reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated. And explore different solutions to resolving the problem if appropriate. It is a failing that the landlord has not shown it has done any of these things.
15. The resident advised that the landlord has not replaced the back door or completed repairs to the shed. The back door was measured in February 2025 but there is nothing to show it was replaced or, if not, the reasons for this. According to the repair logs, the landlord did attend to the shed in July 2025 and found the roof to be watertight. As such, it does not appear to have completed repairs because of this but it is not evident if and how it communicated this to the resident. There were also delays in it attending to the shed roof that are unexplained by the available records. Simiarly, there was a delay in mould treatments being applied in the living room, which records show was completed in May 2025, around 3 months after the date confirmed in the stage 2 response. This means the resident’s family was living with mould longer than they should have been, which is a failing.
16. While the landlord took some appropriate actions in the complaints process, it has not evidenced that it completed the schedule of work it said was needed to put things right. Of those that were completed, there were delays that are not explained. There is also little in the way of communication with the resident in the records shared after the complaints process ended. As such, we have made a finding of maladministration and have ordered the landlord to take actions to put things right, including completing an inspection and paying compensation for the further distress and inconvenience caused. We have not ordered it to reimburse the resident’s rent for the 3-month delay in the repairs because it refunded more than its compensation policy indicated it would during the complaint.
17. The resident advised that water is still entering the living room and that the damp and mould has worsened. He told us that the landlord has recently inspected the property as part of the disrepair claim he is exploring with his legal representatives. This would be appropriate action in the circumstances. If the landlord can then show us that it has already inspected and decided on a plan of action to address the problem, we may accept this as evidence of compliance with our inspection order above. The landlord must also assess as part of this whether there is evidence to merit the resident being awarded additional compensation for the loss of use of his living room, if there is evidence of this.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

18. The landlord’s complaints policy mirrored the requirements of the Code. The landlord was required to acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receiving them. It then must respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. It could though extend these timescales if needed by up to 20 working days.
19. Records show the landlord did not follow its process at stage 1 because it did not acknowledge the complaint made on 1 May 2024. And it took 18 working days to respond (on 30 May 2024) without notifying the resident of an extension. This led to him chasing a response on 15 May 2024. Neither of the responses acknowledged this as a failing or sought to put right the impact, which although minor, would have at least warranted an apology.
20. At stage 2, the landlord acted in keeping with its process by acknowledging the escalation on the same date it was received, on 27 September 2024. While it did not then technically follow its process of advising the resident of the need to extend the timescale, it is apparent it kept him updated about what was happening (on 5, 18 and 22 November 2024). These actions would have mitigated the impact of its delay in issuing its response on 29 November 2024, which at 44 working days was just within the maximum timescale allowed. Again, the landlord missed an opportunity to recognise the response was delayed and to consider taking steps to put things right.
21. Considering above, we find service failure and have ordered the landlord to pay compensation in line with its policy, and our remedies guidance, for the impact of its failure to meet its service standards. In particular, for the time and trouble caused to the resident by its poor communication during the stage 1 process.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

22. Our 2025 spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. Have complete and clear records of the specifics of a repair and any supporting documents and reports.
    2. Let residents know what to expect from repairs and the timescale they will be completed within.
23. In this case, the records were not always complete and did not show the resident was regularly updated about the status of repairs. Through 2 previous investigations into the landlord where we identified similar failings, from events around the same time as those considered here, we made a wider order for it to improve its service in these areas. While it has complied with this, we still encourage the landlord to consider taking learning from its handling of the resident’s case.