Places for People Group Limited (202448602)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448602

Places for People Group Limited

12 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 handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. She has lived at the property since November 2020 with her partner and 2 children. She has reported that she has depression, anxiety, and asthma. She has also informed us that her daughter has asthma.
  2. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 2 December 2024. She explained that she felt “harassed” by the management area team. She said she had reported issues relating to ASB over the last 4 years. Her reports of ASB related to cannabis smells, dog faeces in the neighbour’s garden and an overgrown hedge in her neighbour’s garden. She said:
    1. she had to seal the skirting boards with sealant to stop the cannabis smell entering her daughter’s bedroom.
    2. she could not use her own garden anymore because of the cannabis smell.
    3. the situation was affecting her depression and anxiety and her and her daughter’s asthma.
    4. she wanted the landlord to “sort it out”. She liked her home but was considering whether she should move.
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 16 December 2024. It said:
    1. the initial report of ASB relating to cannabis odour was made in April 2023. The community housing manager made multiple attempts to contact the resident including a call in May 2023 and December 2024.
    2. it had not received verifiable evidence of cannabis use from independent authorities. It had also not been able to corroborate the reports of cannabis odour during its visits. As a result, it did not uphold this part of the complaint.
    3. the resident should report drug use to the police.
    4. the initial reports of ASB relating to the dog faeces, barking dogs and overgrown hedge was made in April 2023. It accepted these issues were unacceptable and upheld this complaint. It would:
      1. inspect the overgrown hedge.
      2. work with the local authority and the police to address the issue of the dog faeces.
      3. explore solutions to reduce the impact of the barking dogs.
    5. it had experienced challenges in establishing contact with the resident, but it would follow up her reports and provide support. As such it did not uphold the complaint about lack of communication.
    6. it offered £300 compensation comprising of:
      1. £200 for its failure to carry out a risk assessment or action plan.
      2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    7. it would continue to monitor the ASB situation closely and would remain in regular contact with the resident. It would also conduct a risk assessment and complete an action plan.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 10 February 2025. She was unhappy as she felt as though the community housing manager had forgotten about her even though she had provided multiple diary sheets. She stated she could still smell the cannabis. She had recently undergone surgery and the situation was affecting her sleep and recovery.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 13 February 2025. It said:
    1. it would reassign the case to a new community housing manager who would open an ASB application.
    2. it would complete a risk assessment and action plan by 20 February 2025.
    3. it would send letters to neighbouring homes to ask them to report any cannabis smoking to the police.
    4. it would install cameras and notices in the car park to help deter ASB activity there.
    5. the neighbour had agreed to install bamboo screening at the railing by 28 February 2025 to reduce visual stimulation for the dogs, to resolve the dog barking issue.
    6. it made an assurance to monitor and maintain regular contact with the resident and, apologised for the lack of communication.
    7. it would implement its identified learnings from the complaint for:
      1. a more structured, proactive and accountable approach where it would ensure it handled concerns with urgency and transparency.
      2. the importance of early risk assessments and action particularly where health concerns were linked to the ASB.
      3. stronger collaboration with external agencies.
    8. it offered further compensation of £600 comprising of:
      1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
      2. £350 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident.
  6. The resident referred the complaint to us on 1 March 2025. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She felt the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously and it was ignoring her. She stated the neighbour had not installed the bamboo screen nor had they tended to the hedge. The landlord had not yet installed the cameras and the ASB was still ongoing.  
  7. The landlord visited the resident on 24 July 2025 and completed a risk assessment. The resident said that at this meeting, her request to be moved was discussed and she confirmed that she is working with the landlord with regards to this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has explained that the ASB is affecting the health of her and her family. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance. We will, however, consider whether the landlord acted appropriately and whether this caused any distress or inconvenience.
  2. It is noted that there is a long history of reported ASB by the resident. However, residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from April 2023. This period was investigated by the landlord when responding to the resident’s complaint.
  3. After the complaints process ended, the resident continued to experience concerns with ASB and the landlord’s response to her reports. This included reports of another neighbour’s child entering her front garden and that her neighbour had yet to install the bamboo screening. In the interest of fairness, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. The resident can address any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint directly with the landlord and progress this as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the reported ASB

  1. When considering complaints about ASB, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to reach a determination on whether the incidents have taken place as reported. Rather our role is to determine whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps, in line with its policies and procedures, to investigate the reports and take proportionate action, where necessary.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy and procedure outlines the steps it will take following a report of ASB. This includes carrying out a risk assessment, creating an action plan, interviewing the victim and keeping them updated, investigating the reports using a range of methods and attempting to resolve the dispute early using non-legal intervention.
  3. In accordance with their obligations under their respective tenancy agreements, residents are expected to ensure that their actions do not cause a nuisance or annoyance to others. They agree not to use drugs within their homes. They agree to keep pets under control at all times and not allow them to behave in an aggressive manner or cause a nuisance, annoyance, or disturbance. They also agree to keep the garden and hedges in a tidy, safe and manageable state.
  4. The resident made reports of ASB on 19 April 2023, relating to the garden, drug issues and the pets. The evidence shows the landlord wrote to the neighbour on 25 May 2023 to remind them of their tenancy obligations. It also arranged to visit the neighbour on 31 May 2023 with animal control. While this was an appropriate response, there is no evidence to show the landlord carried out a risk assessment or contacted the resident to agree an action plan in accordance with its ASB policy. This was not in line with its policy and this was a failing.
  5. The evidence shows that the resident made a further 5 reports of ASB in June, July, and November 2023. This was another opportunity for the landlord to follow its ASB procedure to carry out a risk assessment and contact the resident to agree an action plan, which it did not do. It is unclear why it did not do so, but this was not appropriate.
  6. Furthermore, the landlord only attempted to contact the neighbour during June 2023, where it arranged to visit the neighbour on 16 June 2023. However, for an unknown reason, the neighbour cancelled the appointment. The landlord missed the opportunity during this period to respond appropriately and set out what it planned to do. The lack of updates to the resident during this period was also not appropriate. Its failure to do this was not in accordance with its policy, which negatively impacted its handling of the resident’s concerns.
  7. The landlord’s ASB policy sets out that it will close a case once the action plan has been completed, all necessary actions have been taken and review the case to determine whether the matter is resolved. It will contact the resident to inform them of the decision to close the case and ensure they understand why the case is being closed. It will confirm this in writing and explain what action was taken to resolve the matter. 
  8. The landlord’s records show that it closed the case in December 2023 as the reports had stopped. However, there is a lack of evidence to show that it followed its ASB procedure. It should have informed the resident in writing that it had made the decision to close the case explaining its reasons for doing so. It was a failing that it did not do so. It understandably left the resident feeling ignored.
  9. The resident continued to make reports of ASB in April, July, and October 2024. The landlord attempted to visit the resident on 23 October 2024, but there is no evidence that it tried to visit her sooner. In its ASB procedure policy, the landlord states it will take reasonable, proportionate, and timely action to tackle ASB. The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord did so in this case. Its attempted visit was 18 months after the resident’s initial reports. This was not timely.
  10. The landlord failed to undertake a risk assessment, create an action made, investigate her reports and keep her updated. There is also a lack of evidence to show that each report of ASB was acknowledged in line with the ASB procedure. Considering all of these factors combined, this was a significant failing.
  11. Having not been able to establish contact with the resident on 23 October 2024, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to reschedule another visit. That it did not do so was a failing. The evidence shows that after the resident made her complaint the landlord made a more conscious effort to contact her and investigate her reported ASB. While this was reasonable, its handling of the resident’s reports until she made her complaint was inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy and procedure.
  12. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that its lack of communication had been impacted by the challenges in contacting the resident. However, we have only seen evidence of 2 instances where the landlord tried to visit the resident. This is despite there being numerous reports of ASB made in the year preceding the complaint. The landlord failed to identify this when it investigated the resident’s formal complaint. Had it done so it would have realised that it missed several opportunities to acknowledge the reports of ASB and to conduct a risk assessment much earlier in the process. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to acknowledge failings in its handling of the matter, and to try to put things right.
  13. The resident explained how the cannabis smoke was affecting her day to day living. She had also previously told the landlord she had depression, anxiety, and asthma. Therefore, the landlord’s response that there was a lack of verifiable evidence from independent authorities was not reasonable. While the use of illegal drugs is a criminal matter, landlords are able to and should investigate such reports given that drug use is prohibited under a resident’s tenancy agreement. It is acknowledged that a landlord is somewhat limited in the action it can take in relation to drug use specifically, but it does not follow that responsibility for investigating such reports should be given to the police solely.
  14. Later in the landlord’s stage 2 response, it proposed to:
    1. write to all the neighbours to advise them to report any instances of cannabis smoking to it and the police.
    2. contact other neighbours in an attempt to verify the smells.
    3. install CCTV and notices in the car park as a deterrent.
    4. provide information about rehousing.
    5. visit the resident to inspect the issues and carry out a risk assessment.
    6. continue to monitor the issues.
    7. update the resident regularly.
  15. While it was not timely, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised the wider options available to it to investigate and resolve the matter. It suggested a number of ways to investigate this issue and set out what it planned to do which was reasonable. This was proportionate, however, this action could reasonably have been taken sooner.
  16. In the stage 1 response, the landlord explained it would inspect the overgrown hedge. We have not been provided with any evidence that shows this was done and what the outcome of that inspection was. Therefore, it has not been possible to establish if the landlord’s response was reasonable. The resident informed us that the hedge was trimmed and has now grown back but she could not be certain who trimmed it. The lack of evidence from the landlord about the progress of this issue is not appropriate.
  17. The landlord contacted the neighbour on 6 February 2025, to remind them of the terms of the tenancy and their obligations towards it in relation to the garden and pets. As a result of this the neighbour agreed to install bamboo screening to cover the fence, to alleviate the issue about the dogs barking. It was hoped this was reduce visual stimulation for the dogs. The neighbour also agreed to an inspection of their property on 27 February 2025. It was appropriate for the landlord to carry out these discussions with the neighbour and it demonstrated that it was attempting to mediate between the parties to come to a resolution. The evidence shows that the landlord tried to update the resident about this at the time but was unsuccessful in doing so.
  18. It was reasonable for the landlord to discuss the reports with the neighbour and to work with them in finding a solution. However, this was not a timely response, because the resident reported these issues in 2024. We have seen no evidence which suggests that this delay was unavoidable.
  19. The resident informed us that the neighbour was issued a fine in relation to clearing the dog faeces and since this, the situation has improved. Reference is made to this in the landlord’s internal records which suggests that the fine was potentially issued in or around April 2024. However, the records corroborating this are not comprehensive. As such it is not clear what, if anything, the landlord did leading up to issuing the fine and whether it kept the resident updated about events.
  20. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB was not reasonable. It failed on a number of fronts to:
    1. follow its ASB procedure for closure of cases.
    2. acknowledge and investigate reports of ASB in a timely manner.
    3. make timely contact with the resident to carry out a risk assessment and action plan.
    4. keep the resident updated about events.
    5. acknowledge its communication failings at stage 1.
    6. acknowledge its failings to investigate cannabis smells at stage 1.
  21. In the stage 2 response the landlord offered £900 compensation where it acknowledged the above failings for:
    1. £200 for failing to carry out a risk assessment or action plan.
    2. £350 for distress and inconvenience caused.
    3. £350 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident.
  22. Despite the landlord’s offer of compensation, we cannot make a finding that it provided reasonable redress. This is because we have identified additional failings, which the landlord should reasonably have done when it investigated the resident’s complaint. For example, it did not follow its ASB procedure for closures of cases and adequately assess its handling of the overgrown hedge. The impact of closing the ASB case without following the procedure meant the landlord did not engage with the resident to truly satisfy itself that, from the resident’s perspective, it was indeed resolved. Had it made such enquiries at the time it could have managed its overall handling of the issues better. Given the procedural failing, and the associated detriment to the resident, we have made a finding of maladministration.
  23. The landlord’s overall offer of compensation is proportionate to its own identified failings and the further failings we have identified. The amount recognises the time and trouble incurred by the resident for chasing the landlord and the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow its own policies and procedures. This is broadly in line with our remedy guidance and what we would have ordered for similar failings which adversely affected the resident. For this reason, we have not ordered further compensation, but have ordered the landlord to apologise for the additional failings we have identified.
  24. The landlord has informed us that similar ASB handling issues were identified in relation to a separate case. It has stated that a report was to be filed with senior leaders on the importance of risk assessing. We consider that this is proportionate action in the circumstances and should help to mitigate the risk of similar errors occurring in the future. For that reason, we have made no learning orders on this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for all the additional failings identified by this investigation, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on making apologies.
    2. Provide confirmation that it has paid the resident compensation of £900 that it offered.
    3. Provide written assurance that it will continue to work with the resident to find a solution in relation to the dog barking issue.
  2. The landlord should reply to us with evidence of compliance within the timescale above.