Places for People Group Limited (202453328)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453328

Places for People Group Limited

7 October 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 damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident became an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom house, following a starter tenancy in August 2021. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. Limited records show the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom on 27 February 2023. She followed this up on 21 November 2023 with another report of mould in her front bedroom and bathroom. Although the landlord booked a survey at that time, there is no record of any appointment until 27 June 2024. This did not go ahead and was re-booked the following day but cancelled shortly after.
  3. Internal emails suggest a housing officer inspected the property on 10 January 2025 and requested a specialist damp and mould survey. The landlord also carried out a mould wash on 28 January 2025.
  4. The resident complained about the delay treating damp and mould on 29 January and 6 February 2025. She said it had affected her health and well-being and she had been unable to work since May 2024. She believed the mould wash was not effective as mould remained. She asked when the landlord would remedy the mould in her living room.
  5. The specialist damp and mould survey took place on 12 February 2025. The surveyor recommended a further mould wash for the base of the gable wall (to treat the mould in the living room). This was in addition to upgraded ventilation for the kitchen and the installation of an extractor fan in the bathroom.
  6. In its stage 1 response of 18 February 2025, the landlord apologised for unnecessary delays remedying damp and mould and communication failures. It said it could not assess whether the delays impacted the resident’s health or employment. It listed planned work and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It awarded £500 compensation for its failures.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 February 2025, reiterating that the delay had affected her health and she had supporting medical evidence. She said the remedial work did not include any structural survey or long-term resolution. She said the compensation did not reflect the full impact of the landlord’s failures and additional financial costs.
  8. The landlord carried out a further mould wash on 5 March 2025. However, the operative applied it to the exterior gable wall instead of the interior. The resident reported this and the landlord resolved it shortly after on 7 March 2025.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 19 March 2025 it acknowledged the error of 5 March 2025 and apologised that this had compounded the resident’s frustration. It confirmed it had scheduled all the ventilation improvements for 17 March 2025. It said a damp and mould expert had already surveyed the property and found no structural defects requiring further investigation. It awarded £800 compensation made up of:
  1. £550 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by extended delays and communication failures.
  2. £250 for increased energy costs when the resident needed to heat her home to a comfortable temperature over an extended period.
  1. The landlord completed the ventilation upgrade in the kitchen on 17 March 2025. It fitted the extractor fan in the bathroom shortly after on 4 April 2025.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to deal with appointable repairs (such as damp and mould) within 28 days. There is no evidence the landlord acted on the resident’s reports of 27 February 2023 within this time. This was a failure.
  2. The survey of 27 June 2024 was 219 days after the resident’s report of 21 November 2023, significantly outside the 28-day repair period. The resident told us this did not go ahead as a general contractor attended rather than a damp specialist. Some landlord records support this, but others suggest the contractor attended but could not gain access. We have not been able to definitively determine why the survey did not go ahead at that time. However, the landlord’s damp and mould policy of 1 November 2023 says it will implement a zero-tolerance approach to such issues. We have not seen evidence it did so in this case. This was another failure that compounded the detriment to the resident.
  3. There is no record of any tangible action to address the issue until the mould wash of 28 January 2025. We do not know if the landlord planned the earlier inspection as it has not provided a record of this. Nor has it provided a copy of the specialist survey of 12 February 2025. The landlord told us it does not complete reports when internal staff have carried out the survey or inspection. This contradicts its damp and mould policy which says it will keep detailed reports and photographic evidence to help resolve longer term more complex cases. It should have been able to provide such records in this case.
  4. We do know the survey of 12 February 2025 found that ineffective ventilation was contributing to the damp and mould. While it is positive the surveyor recommended measures to address this, this was almost 2 years after the resident first reported damp and mould. The time taken to identify the cause of the issue and arrange remedial work significantly outside the landlord’s repair policy period.
  5. It is positive the landlord completed the ventilation work shortly after. This was after the date promised in the stage 2 response and outside of the 28-day appointed repair period. However, records show the contractor could not carry out both pieces of work in the same day. This was due to health and safety issues regarding hand-arm vibration exposure (because of drilling). Therefore, it was appropriate to reschedule the bathroom work to 4 April 2025.
  6. We understand why the resident asked for a structural survey, given the issue had gone on for so long. However, the landlords response to this was appropriate. There was no record of any identified structural issues. The survey of 12 February 2025 recommended ventilation improvements. It was reasonable that the landlord wanted to determine if these improvements resolved the damp and mould before considering further investigations.
  7. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events that led to the complaint and the landlord’s response to those. The landlords recognition and efforts to address any shortcomings are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration if the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  8. The landlord has acknowledged significant delays remedying the damp and mould from 2023. It has also acknowledged the other failings identified in this report. Therefore, the question before us is whether it has provided appropriate remedy for these failures and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
  9. The resident has complained that prolonged exposure to damp and mould affected her health and prevented her from working. We are not medical experts so cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions impacted her health or not. She could seek independent advice on this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. It would have been helpful if the landlord explained whether the resident could make a claim through any liability insurance. However, we can consider any distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident because of the landlord’s failings.
  10. The resident told us she spent a significant amount of time and trouble progressing this issue. While landlord records do not show this, the resident has provided supporting evidence. She said the landlord did not take her concerns seriously until senior managers were involved. We understand the resident’s view. Evidence shows the issue was unresolved until she complained and sought the help of a residents union, which contacted the Chief Executive of the housing association.
  11. However, the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged these delays and communication failures. The resident did not describe her increased financial costs, other than saying they were medical costs and reiterating she had been unable to work. As we have explained, we would not expect the landlord to consider such liability issues and associated costs as part of the complaint process. However, it was positive that the landlord accepted the resident spent more on energy and awarded £250 for this.
  12. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will make awards of between £100 and £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by failures to address repairs within the policy timescales. In addition to when residents have had to repeatedly chase responses resulting in an unreasonable level of involvement.
  13. The landlord’s award of £550 was at the top end of this range. This shows it acknowledged significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. This award was also in line with our own remedies guidance. This suggests awards of between £100 to £600 when there has been a failure that adversely affected the resident, albeit with no permanent impact.
  14. We do not dispute the resident’s view that she spent a significant amount of time and trouble pursuing a resolution for damp and mould. However, we are satisfied the landlord has recognised this and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. Therefore, we find the landlord provided reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £800 previously offered for its failures handling the reports of damp and mould and increased energy costs. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is based on this being paid.