Places for People Group Limited (202507065)

Background

1. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of repairs. He has told us that despite several inspections, many repairs remain outstanding. He has not felt able to have family visit him due to the condition of the property, leaving him feeling isolated. The resident has both physical and mental health issues, which he feels have been made worse by the landlord’s actions.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs
   2. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs

5. The landlord did not carry out repairs in line with its repairs policy and issues remain unresolved more than 7 months after its stage 2 response. Its actions did not demonstrate consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Complaint Handling

6. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaints policy and did not recognise the extent of its failings in its complaint responses.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not considered

7. The resident has told us that the condition of the property has impacted his mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We will consider whether the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.
8. The resident raised an earlier complaint relating to a leak in the bathroom. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to this complaint in May 2024. The resident did not subsequently refer this complaint to us within 12 months and we have seen no evidence the landlord did not resolve this issue at that time. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s response to that complaint.

Repairs

9. The resident reported a problem with his front door on 31 October 2024. The landlord attended the same day to carry out a temporary repair, in line with its repairs policy timescale of 24 hours. The landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation on 27 November 2024. Its records are not clear whether it moved him solely due to the issue with the door, or whether it needed to carry out other repairs at that time.
10. On 4 February 2025 the resident raised a complaint as he was unhappy that the landlord had not completed repairs. On 14 February 2025 he told the landlord that he felt isolated from his family and this was causing him stress. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged delays in raising other repairs to internal doors and the bathroom. It offered the resident £75 to recognise these delays, which was reasonable to recognise its delay in raising repairs and was in line with its compensation policy at that time.
11. On 6 May 2025 the landlord acknowledged a second complaint for the resident, which its records state was about delays to the front door replacement and his move to temporary accommodation. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed its contractor fitted a new front door on 20 February 2025.
12. The landlord accepted that this was outside its repairs policy timescale and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused by his move to temporary accommodation. This repair significantly exceeded its 60-day timescale. The compensation offer was not proportionate to its failure, when taking the resident’s vulnerabilities into consideration.
13. The landlord’s records show it carried out an inspection on 8 May 2025, but it has not provided us with a copy of the inspection report. In its stage 2 response of 27 June 2025, it acknowledged that following the resident’s period in temporary accommodation it had identified outstanding repairs but that these remained incomplete. It said it had replaced internal doors as agreed, but that these were scraping along the floor and needed adjustment. It also said it would reattend to install fire strips on these doors. The landlord’s repairs policy says it has a ‘right first time ethos’. However, its contractor failed to demonstrate this leaving the doors hung incorrectly at this visit.
14. In this stage 2 response, the landlord said it had authorised replastering in the kitchen and hallway in February 2024 following a leak and that this remained outstanding. This represented an unreasonable delay. It said it would arrange this work but did not provide a date for this. It said it had booked other repairs for July and August 2025, with a full property inspection scheduled for 27 August 2025. It offered additional compensation of £575, bringing its total compensation at this time to £750. This amount was reasonable and proportionate at this time, combined with the actions it proposed to complete outstanding works.
15. Following the stage 2 response the resident raised additional repairs issues, including a full kitchen replacement and issues with a toilet seat and shaving mirror in the bathroom. As the resident did not raise these issues as part of the complaints above, we have not investigated these. If the resident remains unhappy with these issues he should raise this directly with the landlord.
16. The landlord completed an inspection of the kitchen flooring on 4 July 2025 and found that was rotten and spongy due to a previous leak and needed repairs. We have seen no evidence that it has completed this work, which is not appropriate.
17. The landlord’s internal notes say it carried out a full property inspection on 27 August 2025. However, it has not provided us with a copy of the report to show what repairs it identified. During that visit it identified that the internal doors did not need fire strips to be added, as fire and building regulations did not require this. It was not appropriate that it led the resident to believe these were necessary and would be fitted in its stage 2 response, which caused the resident confusion and further distress.
18. The landlord’s internal records from October 2025 indicate that its contractor discussed a list of repairs with the resident and did not set a clear expectation of whether the landlord would complete these works. It is unclear what was included in this list of repairs. In a conversation with us, it acknowledged it has had difficulty in getting information from its contractor. The landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractors, and so it should have been more proactive in liaising with the contractor to understand the outstanding works.
19. The resident subsequently reached out to the local authority for support. The local authority has been in communication with the landlord since November 2025, trying to find a resolution to the repairs issues. It asked the landlord for a start date for works on several occasions, but the records do not show that the landlord provided this or scheduled any work.
20. We acknowledge that the landlord has had some issues with arranging appointments and gaining access as the resident has spent some time in hospital. However, this does not account for the fact that it has made little progress with repairs in over 7 months since its stage 2 response. Its records do not appear to be complete, which has likely impacted its ability to schedule and complete outstanding repairs.
21. The resident has made the landlord repeatedly aware of his vulnerabilities and the impact the condition of the property is having on him. It has failed to reasonably consider these vulnerabilities during its handling of the repairs, causing the resident additional, unnecessary distress and inconvenience.

22. As can be seen above:
    1. the landlord did not log the resident’s first complaint until 21 working days after the resident raised it (4 February to 5 March 2025) – outside its complaints policy timescale of 5 working days
    2. it then took an additional 16 working days to send an acknowledgement email (5 March to 27 March 2025) – again outside the timescale of 5 working days for logging and acknowledging a complaint
    3. it updated the resident 9 working days after acknowledgement (27 March to 9 April 2025) – in line with its policy timescale
    4. it sent its stage 1 response 20 working days after acknowledgement (27 March to 25 April 2025) – in line with its policy timescale
    5. it sent its stage 1 response to the resident’s second complaint 5 working days after acknowledging it (6 May to 13 May 2025) – in line with its policy timescale
    6. it sent its stage 2 response 42 working days after the resident asked for the first complaint to be escalated and 28 working days after he asked for the second complaint to be escalated (28 April and 15 May to 27 June 2025) – which was not in line with its policy timescale
23. The landlord has not provided full complaint records, so it is not clear when the resident raised his second and third complaints, or if the landlord sent the third stage 1 response within a reasonable timeframe. There was a long delay in it logging the first complaint. Although it acknowledged this delay, it failed to then promptly send a stage 1 response, and this response did not recognise the further delay.
24. It was reasonable for the landlord to combine the 3 stage 1 complaints together to issue 1 stage 2 response. However, it failed to update the resident when it decided to do this, leaving the resident waiting a long time for a response without any updates.
25. We have made our compensation order in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for where there was a failure resulting in some impact on the resident that was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it kept good records of inspections and work carried out. It is likely that this contributed to its failure to complete all repairs in line with its policy. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlights that without good data management, landlord may struggle to use or analyse information to improve services. The landlord should take steps to improve how it records and uses data. This could include better training, clearer guidance, or more support for staff.

Communication

27. The landlord’s records do not show that its overall communication with the resident was good. It did not keep the resident regularly updated throughout the repairs process, relying instead on the resident, and the local authority acting on his behalf, to chase it for updates. It should be more proactive in keeping its residents updated while repairs are ongoing.
28. The landlord’s records also do not demonstrate good communication with its contractors. It should ensure it has clear communication channels with its contractors and keeps clear records of what contractors have discussed directly with residents, where applicable.