Places for People Group Limited (202513488)

Decision
Case ID	202513488
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	5 March 2026

Background

The resident moved to the property via a mutual exchange in July 2024. In January 2025 the resident raised concerns about the condition of the property. They said since they had moved into the property there had been damp, mould and draughts and that the fencing was falling apart.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of:
1. Reported damp and mould, and associated damage.
2. Reports of the garden fencing being poor quality.
3. A reported pest infestation.
We will also consider the landlord’s complaint’s handling.

Our decision (determination)

There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the reported damp, mould and associated damage.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports the garden fencing was poor quality.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a reported pest infestation.
There was a service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord recognised that its lack of communication had led to delays. It offered the resident compensation and agreed to complete repairs to address damp and mould issues in the property.
Under the landlord’s policies and the tenancy agreement it is a resident’s responsibility to maintain fencing.
Under the landlord’s policies and the tenancy agreement it is a resident’s responsibility to manage insect infestations.
The landlord’s stage one response was significantly delayed, and the compensation offered by the landlord was not proportionate when considering the length of the delay.

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 £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct the £25 previously offered from the total figure if already paid.	No later than 02 April 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct the £25 previously offered from the total figure if already paid.

No later than

02 April 2026

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss possible arrangements for future repair appointments. The landlord should obtain information about the resident’s working schedule, if anyone can facilitate access on the resident’s behalf and if it can offer weekend or evening appointments. Any information obtained should be recorded and stored appropriately.
The landlord should contact the resident and provide them with a timeframe for the kitchen repairs and how long it anticipates the repair might take.
The landlord should pay the £365 previously offered if it is yet to do so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 April 2025	The resident complained to the landlord, they said: They felt the condition of the property was poor. They noted that the kitchen was unusable due to mould damage, and that significant cracks around the front door were causing severe draughts. They were awaiting updates for the damaged kitchen cupboards and for a bathroom extractor fan repair. They had been trying to arrange repairs with the landlord, but there had been difficulties in identifying suitable dates for the works. They asked for repairs to occur during school holidays to accommodate their work in education and their responsibilities as a single parent. Previous repair appointments had resulted in works being left incomplete, and operatives not attending.
4 July 2025	The resident brought their concerns about the property to us as the landlord had not responded to their complaint. On 20 August 2025 we asked the landlord to respond to the complaint through a stage 1 response.
5 September 2025	The landlord sent its stage one response, it said: It apologised for the time it had taken to respond to the complaint. It noted the resident’s preference for appointments during school holidays. It said this may not always be possible, but it would try to meet this preference. Following a damp and mould survey, it had carried out a mould wash and raised works to check the insulation. It planned to install a roof tile vent and fit an extractor fan in the bathroom on 4 December 2025. It said it would try to bring this appointment forward. It had raised repairs to replace window glazing on 14 November 2025. It had booked an appointment for kitchen repairs to take place on 11 September 2025. It assessed the fencing on 6 August 2025. It declined to repair the fencing as maintaining garden fencing is a tenant responsibility. It offered the resident £265 in compensation.
7 September 2025	The resident escalated their complaint as they felt the compensation offered was insufficient considering the disruption experienced and that they needed to take time off work. The resident also disagreed with the landlord’s stance around the fencing.
1 October 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response, it said: It apologised that it had not covered all matters in its stage one response. The resident had said they had no method to ventilate the bathroom and that this was causing significant damp and mould. In response, a surveyor inspected the bathroom and raised an emergency repair for a ventilation system to be installed. This was completed on 29 September 2025. It had booked repairs to the kitchen cabinets for 6 December 2025. It had booked in a repair for the front door on 12 December 2025. The resident was not happy with the quality of the fencing. The landlord said it would not repair the fencing as this was a tenant responsibility. It also said the resident had accepted the condition of the property when they completed the mutual exchange in July 2024. It committed to inspect the fencing to ensure it was not dangerous. The resident had said there had been an infestation of ladybirds outside the property and that they had paid for pest control measures. The landlord said it is a resident’s responsibility to manage insect infestations. It offered the resident compensation of £25 for complaint handling, £50 for poor communication and £50 for stress and inconvenience.
5 October 2025	The resident asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of their complaint. They were dissatisfied that the landlord had identified additional issues at stage 2, but it had reduced its offer of compensation made at stage one.

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	The landlord’s handling of the reported damp, mould and associated damage.
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s repairs policy commits to offering a flexible appointments system. In exceptional circumstances it can offer residents evening or weekend appointments. If access is not provided to a property, the landlord will leave a card and keep the repair open for 72 days for the resident to arrange an alternative date. If the resident does not follow up, the repair will be closed unless the matter is damp and mould related.
The resident said they felt the property had not been properly checked during the mutual exchange process and cited their issues with damp and mould as evidence of this. The landlord provided evidence of mutual exchange inspections which took place in April 2024. It also said the resident viewed the property and accepted its condition before moving in. The landlord’s position here was fair as a mutual exchange is not a new tenancy, and it was reasonable for it to rely on the inspections done at the time and that the resident had accepted the property’s condition at the time of the agreement.
On 15 January 2025 the resident complained about the condition of the property. They said the property was damp and draughty, there was mould growth, and the mould had damaged the kitchen cupboards. The landlord agreed to raise repairs to the windows and front door cracks, and to install a bathroom extractor fan. The resident agreed to withdraw their complaint after the landlord committed to conduct repairs. The bathroom fan works were cancelled due to emergency appointments. The window and front door works were cancelled because access to the property was not provided. Records indicate that after this, the landlord did not attempt to reschedule the repairs.
In their April 2025 complaint, the resident raised further concerns about the condition of the property. They also said they felt the landlord was inflexible in scheduling repairs, given their work in education and their parental responsibilities. Following this complaint, the landlord raised repairs to replace the bathroom extractor fan, carry out mould washes, and inspect the kitchen cupboards.
Repairs records show the mould wash and the installation of the bathroom extractor fan were delayed due to no access and contractor non‑attendance. Considering the content of the resident’s complaint, the landlord should have taken greater steps to discuss or try to meet the resident’s access requirements.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord detailed the repairs it had raised, and the dates of associated appointments. This included an appointment to install a bathroom extractor fan on 4 December 2025. Although the landlord said it would try to bring this appointment forward, the date offered was unreasonable as the repair was first reported in January 2025. The landlord adapted its approach during stage 2 of the complaint, it re‑assessed the matter and treated the repair as an emergency. The fan was installed on 29 September 2025. While it should have completed this repair earlier, it was positive that the landlord adapted its approach at stage 2.
The resident told us they feel the landlord’s approach to scheduling repairs is unfair. They said the landlord often books repairs during their working hours, meaning they are required to take unpaid leave. They said this is frustrating, particularly when the landlord is unable to attend planned appointments. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would try to meet the resident’s requirements, but it would not always be able to do so. This was reasonable, as scheduling repairs can be complex, as the landlord must balance repairs at other properties and contractor availability. We do recognise that this caused difficulty for the resident and we have recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss arrangements for future repair appointments to try and prevent further inconvenience
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident could have been improved, and its lack of communication would have caused distress. This was appropriate. To address this, it offered the resident a total of £365 in compensation. We consider this amount to be reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord has provided up to date records of the repairs it committed to at stage 2 of the complaint. The only outstanding matter are the repairs to the kitchen cupboards. The landlord has inspected this area and taken measurements, this indicates the landlord is working towards making good the damage. Considering this we have recommended that the landlord provide the resident with a timeframe for when this repair will occur, and how long the repair is anticipated to take.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports the garden fencing was poor quality.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy says that when a resident has sole use of a garden, the maintenance of the fencing and the garden is the resident’s responsibility.
The resident’s tenancy agreement outlines that it is the resident’s responsibility to ensure the garden is safe and well maintained.
The resident has told us that the garden fencing in the property is old and was damaged by the previous tenants. They said this allows foxes to enter the garden. The resident feels the landlord should replace the fencing as they did not cause the damage, and because the fencing requires updating.
The landlord inspected the fencing in August 2025. In its complaint responses the landlord declined to repair the fencing as:
1. Under its policies and the tenancy agreement maintaining garden fencing is a resident’s responsibility.
2. The resident viewed the property prior to agreeing to the mutual exchange and therefore they would have been aware of the condition of the fencing.
3. When the resident agreed to the mutual exchange, they signed paperwork which outlined that they had agreed to accept responsibility for the condition of the property.
We consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns to be reasonable when considering the content of the landlord’s policies and the tenancy agreement. While the resident did not cause the damage themselves, under the tenancy and mutual exchange arrangement maintenance of that the fencing is the resident’s responsibility. Therefore, we have found no maladministration occurred as the landlord did not have an obligation to repair the fencing and it clearly explained its position on this issue, with reference to the tenancy agreement and the mutual exchange agreement.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a reported pest infestation.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s pest infestation policy says it is a resident’s responsibility to address insect infestations when the infestation occurs within or around the property.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the property and garden free from insect and vermin infestations.
The resident told the landlord there had been an infestation of ladybirds around the external areas of the windows. They were dissatisfied that they had paid for and arranged pest control measures to address the infestation. They confirmed that the pest control methods had been successful.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it did not consider a service failure had occurred in this area as:
1. It had no records to suggest the resident had reported the infestation.
2. Its policies state that it is the resident’s responsibility to manage insect infestations.
When considering the content of the landlord’s policies and the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation was reasonable. This is because there was no record of any earlier report and the landlord clearly explained its position, in line with the tenancy agreement, when the resident raised concerns. Therefore, we have found no maladministration occurred.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement.
The resident complained on 11 April 2025, and the landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 working days later. After acknowledging the complaint, there was a lack of action from the landlord. It did not update the resident about the complaint, or any associated delays. The distress and frustration this caused is evidenced by the resident complaining again on 27 May 2025, and the resident contacting us for assistance on 4 July 2025.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response 101 working days after acknowledging the complaint. This fell significantly outside the landlord’s complaints policy, and the response was only issued after the landlord was prompted to do so following our intervention. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for this failing.
The landlord provided its stage 2 within its required timescales. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for its complaint handling and offered £25 in compensation. While it was positive that the landlord recognised its failings, this amount did not fully resolve the significant delay at stage one of the complaint. This was a service failure and we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 in compensation.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £265 in compensation. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £125 in compensation. It did not explain whether the stage 2 amount was intended to be in addition to the stage 1 offer, or whether the compensation had been reduced. This caused the resident confusion. The landlord has provided evidence which outlined that it paid £390 in compensation, which is the total of the two amounts offered. Therefore, we consider this matter to be a learning point for the landlord going forward.

Learning

Our review of the complaint has identified areas where the landlord can learn from this case to support future service improvement.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should consider retaining information on the resident’s files around general availability for appointments to prevent additional delays occurring for any future repairs.

Communication

The landlord identified that its communication relating to repairs required improving, this was positive. However, its communication around complaint handling also could have been improved. In addition to the learning identified in paragraph 35, the landlord’s actions could have been improved if it had managed the resident’s expectations by explaining that it was experiencing delays in its complaint handling.