Places for People Group Limited (202441700)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202441700

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Subject access request (SAR).
2. Reports of damp and mould.
3. Reports of mice in her property.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy for a ground floor maisonette.
The landlord is aware of the vulnerabilities in the resident’s household.
It is unclear when the resident first reported damp and mould to the landlord. We have evidence from February 2023.
In December 2023 the resident told the landlord she had a mice infestation.
On 1 January 2024, the resident contacted the landlord’s chief executive officer (CEO). She said she had been reporting damp and mould for years. A mould wash had been done in August 2023, but it came back in December. She reported it, but the landlord did not respond.
On 12 February 2024 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said the landlord had done several mould washes instead of finding the cause of the damp.
In March 2024 the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey which identified extensive works.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 April 2024. It upheld the complaint and said:
1. It apologised for its poor communication and its failure to complete the repairs.
2. It would start works on 22 April 2024, which would take 2 weeks.
3. The works would not affect the resident’s insurance claim.
4. It would pay her £750 compensation. This was for the distress and inconvenience caused, its poor communication and the delay in it responding to her complaint.
In September 2024 the landlord’s insurance paid the resident £2000 for damage to her belongings from the damp and mould.
On 19 November 2024 the resident escalated her complaint, reporting the damp and mould had returned and that she had a mice infestation. She also requested a SAR.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 December 2024. It partially upheld the complaint and said:
1. Its contractor would return after Christmas.
2. Weekly inspections would be carried out.
3. It inspected the communal areas in December 2024 to find the cause of the mice problem and would update her. It provided contact details for the person overseeing this.
4. The SAR was sent on 9 December 2024 in line with its agreed timescales.
5. It would pay an additional £800 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, repair delays, and poor communication.

Events after the landlord’s complaints procedure ended

On 24 January 2025, the landlord increased its stage 2 compensation offer to £1000. Following a request from the resident to do so.
In March 2025 the resident contacted her MP and said her property was unsafe to live in.
In March 2025, the landlord offered to move the resident through its transfer policy, and she moved in June 2025.
In May 2025, the landlord offered the resident £6000 to replace personal belongings damaged by damp and mould, aiming to prevent mould spreading to the new property and avoid negative media attention. This was part of a negotiation about the resident’s damaged belongings.
The resident has asked us to investigate her complaint to prevent other residents experiencing similar issues.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman we must consider all the circumstances of the case. Sometimes we cannot investigate a complaint. After looking at the evidence, I have determined that some of the complaint issues are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident had concerns about the information within their SAR and the data on their record. Paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we cannot investigate complaints that fall under the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. Complaints related to data protection and freedom of information fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk). This element of the complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction.
The remaining complaints will be investigated below.

Damp and mould

We find service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The reasons for my findings are below.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will respond to appointable repairs within 60 days.
According to its damp, mould and condensation policy, the landlord must visit the property once it receives a report. It should remove any immediate risk, investigate the cause and carry out necessary works. An inspection should be done 6 weeks after the repairs to confirm the issue has been resolved.
The resident said the damp and mould impacted her and her family’s health. While we can look at the distress and inconvenience caused, we cannot confirm if their health was harmed. This would be down to a court to decide.
It is unclear when the resident first reported damp and mould. We expect landlords to keep full and clear records of all contacts and repairs. Good records help landlords fix problems quickly. In this case, the landlord’s records did not clearly show what work it carried out and when. This contributed to the delays and made it harder for the landlord to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In February 2023, the landlord booked a damp and mould survey for June 2023. The resident raised health concerns. The landlord acted appropriately by moving the inspection forward to 28 April 2023. The survey found black mould caused by condensation. It recommended a mould wash, a new bathroom fan, new radiators, and an advice leaflet for the resident on managing condensation.
The landlord tried to carry out a mould wash on 28 August 2023. However, the worker said the mould damage was severe and could not be repaired. It had damaged the walls, carpets, furniture and clothing. He said the landlord should consider compensation. It is unclear when the landlord provided the resident with its insurance details. However, in the stage 1 response it said the resident had made a claim. In September 2024, the resident received £2000 for her damaged belongings.
The landlord carried out more surveys in September and December 2023. We did not receive the September report. The December report again said condensation caused the damp and mould. It recommended the same works raised in the April 2023 survey, which the landlord had not completed. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the surveyor’s advice, but the landlord should have questioned whether another mould wash would be enough. A previous attempt had failed due to the extent of the damage caused by the damp and mould.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged it had not followed the surveyors advice and completed the recommended works. In March 2024, it ordered another survey and mould wash. The surveyor said the property was in a very poor condition. They said the main bedroom wall was soaking wet and covered in black mould, and the cause was not clear but could be due to a hidden fault. They said the mould wash being done at the time would not fix the issue.
The landlord acted reasonably by offered temporary accommodation in March 2024. The resident said she could not move due to her son’s vulnerabilities. He needed support, transport to school and could not cope with the change. The landlord offered help with travel costs, which was reasonable. However, there was no evidence it considered other options to provide support while they remained in the property. Such as dehumidifiers or referring the resident to support services.
The landlord completed the works recommended by the surveyor on 28 May 2024. This was outside the timescale promised in its stage 1 response. There is no evidence it investigated the cause of the damp and mould before carrying out the repairs. It also did not do a follow up inspection as its damp and mould policy requires. The resident reported the mould had returned in August 2024. A follow up inspection may have found the issues had not been resolved, without the resident having to complain again.
In November 2024,the resident contacted the landlord’s CEO to escalate her complaint. She said the landlord had stopped responding to her. The evidence showed there was poor communication throughout this investigation. The landlord was responsible for updating the resident, giving dates for visits and explaining delays. Instead, it relied on contractors to speak to the resident, which resulted in her chasing updates. The landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations. This left her unsure about what was being done to resolve the issue.
In December 2024, the landlord said its contractors would return in January 2025. They did attend. They found wet carpets, water damage to the skirting boards and windows, and the bathroom ceiling was peeling off. They suspected a leak and said this would need to be resolved before any more work could be done.
The evidence provided shows the landlord repeatedly ignored warnings from its staff and surveyors to find the root cause of the damp and mould. It was not pro-active and did not meet its repairing obligations. The resident complained that the landlord never found the cause of the damp. The landlord failed to answer this in its complaint responses. Instead, it continued to book in default works that it had carried out before and did not fix the problem. This left a vulnerable family living with back mould for more than 2 years, causing significant distress and inconvenience.
A housing officer visited the resident on 31 January 2025. They found the property smelt bad, the mould in both bedrooms was unacceptable and the family needed to be moved immediately. The resident again refused offers of temporary accommodation because she said the offers were unsuitable for her son. There was no evidence the landlord asked the resident what would be suitable. It failed to show it considered all options available to it to move them quickly.
In March 2025 the landlord offered to permanently move the resident. She moved in June 2025. There was no evidence the landlord considered any support or interim measures while the resident waited for the new property to become available. This left her and her family living with black mould for 6 more months after the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
In separate negotiations the landlord offered £6000 to replace the resident’s damaged belongings. Although this was outside the landlord’s complaints procedure, it was clear that this dealt with the damaged belongings aspect of the damp and mould issues. It was fair that the landlord offered this instead of making the resident go through the insurance process. Which would have taken longer and prolonged the resolution to her complaint.
In summary, the landlord failed to find the cause of the damp and mould. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. It offered temporary accommodation, but did not consider other options to support the resident. It admitted failings in its complaint responses and offered in total £1325 compensation for delays, poor support and communication, and the distress and inconvenience caused. The resident also received £2000 through the landlord’s insurance. Although the landlord tried to put things right and offered redress for its failings, there was a lack of learning from the landlord.
At the date of this investigation the landlord has not provided evidence that it fully investigated or found the cause of the damp and mould. Its communication remained poor, and the resident and her family lived with black mould for 6 months after the complaints process ended. We recognise that the landlord sought to revisit the issue, tried to put things right and offered sufficient redress soon after its complaint procedure ended. However, it is concerning that it was only after the resident complained to her MP, this service, and threatened media action, that it increased its offer of compensation, paid her £6000 in a separate negotiation, and moved her.
The resident’s main focus in contacting us was to ensure the landlord learnt from this complaint. Due to the landlord’s lack of learning during the complaints process, a finding of service failure is appropriate. We have ordered the landlord to carry out a review of this case to prevent similar failings from happening again.

Mice

We find reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice in her property. The reasons for my findings are below.
According to the landlord’s pest and vermin policy, it will investigate all reports of mice and instruct pest control as necessary. It will respond promptly to ensure the safety of residents.
On 13 December 2023 the resident told the landlord she had mice in her property. It is unclear when the landlord inspected her property. It instructed pest control in line with its policy. They visited the resident on 22 January 2024. The landlord has not provided us with this report.
On 1 March 2024 and 16 June 2024 pest control carried out further visits. They found the landlord had not completed the works it had recommended in January. This was to remove the foam behind the kitchen cupboard and replace it with cement. The work was completed on 4 September 2024, 6 months later. This was an unreasonable delay.
On 20 September 2024 pest control visited and found the works carried out were poor and needed to be redone urgently. The landlord instructed its workers to complete these works in October 2024. However, its records show its worker was unsure what works were needed. When they rang the landlord to confirm it said there were no recommended works and closed the case.
In September 2024 workers raised concerns that mice could be gaining access through the electrical cupboard in the communal entrance. The landlord did not inspect the communal areas until December 2024. It is unclear what works, if any, were completed.
The resident continued to raise concerns about mice in her property. Pest control visited the resident on 7 January 2025. It found the works had not been redone as requested in September. The works were completed on 12 February 2025. This was a significant delay. The landlord’s poor record keeping and communication with its contractor contributed to this. The resident was left to deal with mice entering her property for over a year, which caused her significant distress.
In its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident it would update her about the communal areas. The landlord provided the resident with contact details for her housing officer. This showed the landlord wanted to improve its communication and put things right. However, there is no evidence it updated her or carried out a follow up inspection to see if the issue had been resolved.
We understand at this time the landlord had decided to move the resident due to the damp and mould. However, the resident remained in the property for another 6 months. The landlord should have continued its investigations and kept the resident updated on how it would prevent mice from entering the building and her property.
In summary the landlord acted appropriately by instructing pest control. However, there was a significant delay in it inspecting the communal areas and completing repairs. It failed to respond quickly, and did not ensure the safety of the resident and her family in line with its policy. The landlord accepted its failures in its stage 2 response. The landlord did not provide a breakdown for the compensation offered for distress and inconvenience. We have assumed that the compensation offered for this was split between the above complaint and this one. The £200 compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. We have found this was reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

We find reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint. The reasons for my findings are below.
The landlord’s complaint policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
On 1 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord’s CEO. She raised concerns about the condition of her property and the landlord’s failure to take action. She said the landlord was not responding to her communication. This was a clear expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to see this as a complaint.
On 12 February 2024 the resident raised another complaint. The landlord formally acknowledged the complaint on 29 February 2024, this was outside its target timescale of 5 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 April 2024. The landlord told the resident it needed to delay its response by a further 10 days. However, it failed to issue its response within it’s agreed timescale. The landlord recognised this delay in its stage 1 response and awarded the resident £25 compensation.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged this within its 5 working day timescale.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 December 2024. This was within its target timescale.
The landlord’s complaint responses investigated all the resident’s complaint issues. It was clear what action it was taking to resolve these issues. It was empathetic to the resident’s situation and took steps to put things right.
In summary there was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the complaint and issuing its stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged the delay and offered redress in line with its compensation policy. We are satisfied this is reasonable redress for the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mice in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review of the failings identified in this investigation. This is to identify how it can prevent similar issues from happening again. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. Its handling of the damp and mould issues and recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future. It should ensure any remedial action is carried out to the property.
2. Review its damp and mould policy to whether it should include timescales for investigations and remedial works.
3. Consider if the damp and mould is impacting other residents within the building. The evidence provided showed concerns had been raised by its staff that this was the case.
4. The landlord’s staff training needs. This is to ensure its staff:
  1. Respond to requests for repairs and progress works orders in accordance with its policies and procedures. Making sure residents are updated and informed about appointments and delays.
  2. Are completing post inspections after repairs are completed. This should prevent residents from reporting the same issues.
  3. Are keeping its records up to date. Making sure information is accessible to all relevant parties, including contractors and surveyors.
5. A copy of the landlord’s review should be provided to us within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

Following its inspection in December 2024, the landlord should review whether any works were identified and completed in the communal areas to prevent mice entering the building.