Places for People Group Limited (202519961)

Background

1. The resident reported concerns about damage to the living room and bedroom ceilings from late 2023, following repeated leaks and water ingress. The landlord raised several repair orders over the following months, but the works remained outstanding and the resident later complained about the delays.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damage to the bedroom and living-room ceilings.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of damage to the bedroom and living-room ceilings.
   2. Service failure in its response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damage to the bedroom and living-room ceilings

4. The landlord did not complete the ceiling repairs within a reasonable timeframe and there were repeated delays, cancellations, and instances of poor workmanship which meant the issue remained unresolved for a prolonged period. Although it upheld the complaint and offered compensation, this did not fully address the extent of the delay or its impact on the resident.

Complaint Handling

5. The landlord did not handle the complaint in line with its policy. There was a significant delay in issuing the stage 1 response and a further delay in issuing the stage 2 response. The landlord’s failings relate to delay rather than incorrect application of its complaint procedures. Although the landlord acknowledged the delay and offered £100, this did not reasonably reflect the length or seriousness of the failings, and the issue remained unresolved for an extended period.

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.

6. The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including ceilings and plasterwork.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, and complete follow-on works within its published timescales. It also says it will carry out inspections where required and complete repairs effectively.
8. The resident reported a ceiling issue on 21 October 2023. The records show the ceiling had split and water was leaking onto electrical sockets.
9. The landlord raised an emergency repair and follow-on works between October 2023 and February 2024. This shows it responded appropriately to the initial report. However, its actions did not resolve the issue.
10. The landlord raised a damp survey on 4 April 2024 which recorded water staining had reappeared. This suggests the earlier repairs had not addressed the underlying issue. The landlord therefore needed to take further steps to identify and resolve the cause.
11. The records do not show clear repair activity between April 2024 and September 2024. This is a significant gap in the repair history. The landlord has not provided evidence to show how it managed the repair during this period. This represents a record-keeping failure and limits its ability to demonstrate that it acted appropriately.
12. The landlord carried out further repairs in November 2024. The records state that operatives had to remove and redo previous plasterboard repairs. This shows earlier works were not completed to a reasonable standard.
13. The landlord attended again in January 2025, and the records again state that previous repairs required removal and redoing. This shows repeated attempts did not resolve the issue and that the landlord did not complete repairs effectively.
14. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint response that earlier works were of poor quality and needed to be redone. This supports that the repairs were not completed to a reasonable standard.
15. The landlord attended again on 1 July 2025, and the records state that the whole ceilings in both rooms required replastering. This shows the scope of the repair had increased and that earlier works had not addressed the issue.
16. At the point of the stage 2 response on 3 September 2025, the repairs remained outstanding. This shows the landlord had not resolved the issue within a reasonable timeframe.
17. The overall repair period was approximately 22 months. While the landlord carried out multiple attendances, these did not result in a lasting repair.
18. The landlord did not complete the ceiling repairs within a reasonable timeframe and did not complete them to a reasonable standard. It carried out repeated repairs that failed and had to be redone. The issue escalated and remained unresolved at the end of the complaint process.
19. The landlord also failed to demonstrate effective management of the repair process. The records show gaps in activity and do not clearly evidence how the repair was progressed at key stages. These failings amount to maladministration.
20. The landlord offered compensation within its complaint responses. When considered together, this amounts to between £400 for the repairs issue. While this recognises some delay and inconvenience, it does not fully reflect the impact on the resident.
21. In line with our remedies guidance, where a resident experiences prolonged disruption and repeated failed repairs, a higher award is appropriate. The resident experienced ongoing inconvenience over a period of approximately 22 months, including repeated disruption to her home and multiple unsuccessful repair attempts.
22. Taking this into account, we consider that the landlord has not fully put things right. We therefore made an order for the landlord to increase the total compensation for this issue to £500.

23. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. It also requires residents to request escalation within two months of the stage 1 response.
24. The resident raised a complaint on 5 December 2023. The landlord issues its stage 1 response 1 response on 7 February 2025. This was significantly outside its policy timescale. This affects the determination, and in this respect the landlord acted appropriately.
25. The evidence shows that after issuing the stage 1 response, the landlord sent a further stage 1 acknowledgement stating it would respond by 4 August 2025. Its decision to investigate at stage 1 was in line with its complaints policy, which states that residents should escalate complaints within 2 months unless there are special circumstances. Our Complaint Handling Code does not specify a timeframe for escalation, and it was appropriate for the landlord to set out this limit within its policy.
26. While the landlord’s stage 1 response advised the resident to request escalation “as soon as possible”, it would have been appropriate for it to clearly set out the 2-month timeframe within that response.
27. The evidence suggests that the landlord subsequently used the discretion set out in its complaints policy and issues a stage 2 response on 3 September 2025. This was a reasonable step to take in order not to delay the complaint process further. We have not seen evidence of communication with the resident to explain its change of position. Further, the stage 2 response would have been due on 11 August 2025 and was therefore issued outside the landlord’s policy timescales.
28. Overall, the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy. It delayed its stage 1 response significantly and issued its stage 2 response outside policy timescales. These failings amount to service failure.
29. The landlord offered £100 compensation for its delay in issuing the stage 1 response. It did not consider compensation for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response or for its lack of communication. This was an oversight.
30. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £50 to the resident for the impact of its complaint handling failures at stage 2.

Learning

Repairs Management

31. Our Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance highlights that delays and repeat visits can be reduced when landlords maintain clear oversight of repairs, monitor progress, and ensure works are completed to a satisfactory standard. It also emphasises the importance of diagnosing the root cause of an issue before carrying out remedial work.
32. In this case, the repair records show repeated ineffective repairs and periods where there was no clear progression of the works. Had the landlord followed the good practice set out in our Spotlight report by monitoring the repairs more closely and ensuring earlier interventions were effective, the prolonged delays and repeat visits may have been avoided.

Communication and Record Keeping

33. That Spotlight report also explains that landlords should keep accurate records and provide residents with clear, timely updates throughout the repair process, particularly where multiple visits or follow‑on works are required.
34. Here, the records do not demonstrate consistent communication with the resident or clear documentation of how the repair was managed at key stages. Improved record‑keeping and communication would have given the resident clearer expectations and supported more effective oversight of the works.

Complaint handling

35. Our Complaint Handling Code states that complaints should be responded to within the timescales set out in a landlord’s policy and must be progressed through the correct stages. It also explains that delays and unclear escalation routes can undermine confidence in the complaint process. The landlord should consider including its timescale for accepting an escalation request in its stage 1 complaint responses.