Platform Housing Group Limited (202335307)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335307

Platform Housing Group Limited

24 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s rent account.
2. The resident’s concerns regarding the condition of his kitchen and his request for a new kitchen.
3. The resident’s tenancy queries including its communication.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord under an agreement dated 30 March 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident has vulnerabilities including dyslexia and he has dyspraxia. The landlord has an undated note that the resident has vulnerabilities.
On 2 August 2022, the resident asked the landlord to urgently stop third-party deductions of £33.49 per month on his account as had no arrears. The landlord found that the deductions were linked to a previous account that had £99.46 credit which it said it noted it could refund. It contacted the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) to stop the deductions. It then wrote to the resident the following day to advise him that he needed to inform Universal Credit directly as it would not take the details from the landlord.
On 28 April 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint. He advised that an issue with his rent account had been resolved, and money paid back to him. However, he said that Universal Credit was still paying the landlord money for rent arrears that he did not owe. He asked the landlord to contact Universal Credit to sort this out. He also raised concerns about poor communication concerning his tenancy queries and long call wait times.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2023. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that there was shortfall in the rent charged and the Universal Credit payments that had created a static debt on his account. It had contacted Universal Credit who confirmed the amount paid as correct on 17 May 2023. It said it had made no errors concerning its handling of the rent account. It apologised for an error that meant the resident had not been contacted concerning his tenancy queries. It provided details of its customer portal and webchat online enquiry service. It partially upheld this complaint issue.
The resident escalated his complaint on 3 October 2023. He said that having 2 rent accounts was confusing and requested the previous one to be removed. He said the landlord had refunded £1,000 but he felt it should have been more. He disputed the landlord’s claim that he was in arrears. He added a further complaint issue concerning his kitchen. He said that the landlord replaced cupboard doors with ones that did not match. He said that the kitchen was unhygienic when he moved into the property and he had an infestation of silverfish which were getting into his food making him unwell. He requested proof of when the kitchen was installed.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 November 2023. It explained that the arrears were due to the Universal Credit not updating a change in the resident’s rent until 8 May 2023. It advised that an earlier compensation payment related to his previous use and occupancy tenancy had been used to clear some arrears that were owed in May 2022. A backdated housing cost payment from Universal Credit led to a £999.19 refund that put that account into credit. It said it had spoken with the resident on 31 October 2023 about the tenancy issues. It confirmed that the kitchen was installed in 2009 and that it was not due for replacement until 2029. It partially upheld the complaint regarding its poor communication about the tenancy queries offering £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience that would be offset against any arrears.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. He referred his complaint to us on 10 January 2024. As a remedy, the resident requested a new kitchen He also wanted an explanation if there was anything owing on the rent account and why, along with an explanation as to why it took them so long to let him know.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

The resident referred to the impact of the landlord’s actions regarding the condition of the kitchen and the presence of silverfish on his health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on specifically how the resident’s health may have been affected by any errors made by the landlord. Claims of personal injury ultimately, are better suited for courts or liability insurers to decide. The Ombudsman can however consider the overall detriment, inconvenience and time and trouble experienced by the resident due to a landlord’s failings as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health.
For the avoidance of doubt, this investigation covers the period from August 2022 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 7 November 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account

Following the resident’s initial report concerning his rent account on 2 August 2022, he requested the landlord to stop the third-party deductions as he no longer had arrears on his rent account. The landlord contacted the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) the same date, which was reasonable, but the call was cut off.
The landlord emailed the resident the following day advising that it could refund £99.46 credit due to Universal Credit paying the arrears on his old rent account. It also provided a letter for the resident to give to the DWP. It said that the DWP had refused to take the details from them. However, this was inaccurate as the landlord’s call record evidenced that it had told the DWP that it could not see a way of updating the resident’s record on the Universal Credit portal. The landlord recorded that the DWP advised that it should be possible but before the landlord’s query was answered the call was cut off.
The landlord put the onus on the resident to contact the DWP which he would need to do. However, this was contrary to the Government guidance to landlords regarding managed payments under the Third-Party Deductions Scheme. This states that where a managed payment is in place, landlords are equally responsible for telling the DWP of changes they could reasonably know might affect a tenants’ Universal Credit payment. The landlord also repeated in its final complaint response of 7 November 2023 that it was the resident’s responsibility to update his housing costs with the DWP. Given the resident’s vulnerability, the landlord needed to ensure that it had made reasonable attempts to do this. The one attempt to contact the DWP was therefore inadequate.
On 18 August 2022 the DWP phoned the landlord asking for confirmation of the rental charges. The landlord sent an email to confirm this the same date which was reasonable to advise of the rental charges and the current balance on the resident’s rent account. The landlord sent a further email to the DWP on 29 November 2022 asking for the third-party deductions to cease with immediate effect. This was a 3-month delay after the resident’s request in the landlord following up with the DWP to request the third-party deductions to cease. This delay was inappropriate.
We have seen no further records that the landlord checked whether the third-party deduction payment had stopped until the resident contacted the landlord on 17 July 2023 querying his rent arrears. He advised that there had been a mix up when he took the tenancy on after his auntie’s death and there were 2 tenancies in his name. One was the former tenancy for which there was £100 credit due to arrears payments still being received from Universal Credit. He advised that his current tenancy should not have been in arrears. The landlord emailed internally that day to request the relevant officer to sort this out. However, there is no further record that this happened or that the landlord contacted the resident indicating poor internal and external communication. This was inappropriate.
The resident chased up the landlord on 27 September 2023 requesting a call. He said that Universal Credit was still paying arrears and that the landlord owed him money. The landlord’s records state that it left a message for him the same date. It checked his account on 3 October 2023 and found that there was a static debt of £206.93 since May 2022. It noted that the debt was still present as at the end of March 2023. When the rent increased to £447.06 Universal Credit did not cover the increase. This increased the resident’s debt to £307.40 from June 2023. As the resident’s former account was in credit by £100.47 it had transferred this to reduce the debt. It noted that Universal Credit was paying the full rent, but the static debt remained.
According to the landlord’s records, it phoned the resident on 3 October 2023 to explain about the arrears. The resident felt that he owed nothing and the landlord noted that he had hung up. This would have meant that the landlord would have been unable to explain the issues with the 2 rent accounts and the reasons why the account was showing arrears. The landlord failed to follow up on this call with an email or letter to explain the situation clearly considering any reasonable adjustments that the resident might have required in its communication. This was inappropriate given the resident had vulnerabilities.
The landlord also needed to consider whether a referral to its successful tenancies team would be appropriate at an early stage. There is no record that it made a referral for the resident to gain some support to help him to manage his tenancy. The only reference to any support being provided was in the landlord’s final complaint response of 7 November 2023 when it said that a neighbourhood officer had contacted the resident on 31 October 2023 when it said some tenancy advice was given. However, as the landlord had a separate team that could provide support and advice around budgeting and benefits advice then a referral would have been a reasonable action to take.
Instead, the landlord sent the resident rent arrears reminder letters between 17 October 2023 to 30 November 2023 showing varying amounts from £653.99 reducing to £206.93 on 20 November 2023. The landlord’s final complaint response of 7 November 2023 did not uphold the resident’s complaint concerning its handling of his rent account. The landlord subsequently issued a Notice of Seeking Possession (NOSP) on 14 December 2023.
Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the resident phoned the landlord on 5 February 2024 for a call back. The landlord phoned the resident back the same date which was appropriate. It checked the resident’s account and found that the letters should not have been issued as the arrears left were due to the date the Universal Credit payments were received. It noted that if Universal Credit was paid weekly there would be no balance.
Having discovered this error, the landlord sent an apology letter to the resident on the same date which was appropriate once the error was discovered. This confirmed the removal of the NOSP from the resident’s account. It said that based on the current payment arrangement, that no further letters would be sent out to the resident. It also enclosed a rent statement. This error caused unnecessary worry and distress for the resident who was concerned about losing his home. It also evidenced issues with the landlord’s record keeping as the letters and NOSP should not have been sent.
In summary, there were failings in the landlord’s communication with the resident. It failed to follow up on the phone call of 3 October 2023 instead it used a heavy-handed approach in sending the arrears letters that it discovered should not have been sent. It failed to consider any adjustments in its communication with the resident or additional support at an early stage. There was a 3-month delay in the landlord following up with Universal Credit to request that the third-party deductions be stopped. The landlord could have considered compensation for the poor communication and errors made in line with its compensation policy. However, it failed to recognise any errors had been made.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can consider compensation for distress, inconvenience and time and trouble up to £350 for low impact, £350 to £850 for a medium impact and £850 plus for a high to severe level of impact. It will consider individuals and whether it had any known disabilities or vulnerabilities that would compound the impact. It can consider compensation if it provides misleading or insufficient or inadequate information.
The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account, and we have made some orders for this. Having carefully considered our guidance on remedies, where maladministration has been found we have awarded £350 in compensation. This comprises £150 in respect of the delays, poor communication and record keeping and £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
We have also ordered the landlord to provide a clear explanation about the fluctuating balances it reported on the resident’s rent account in the arrears letters. It must consider any reasonable adjustments required by the resident, in the way the information is presented, and confirm any balance on the rent account. It must also provide the resident with the option to receive some support from its successful tenancies team and make any necessary referral.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of his kitchen and his request for a new kitchen

The resident reported the issues with his kitchen in his complaint escalation request of 3 October 2023, though he told us that he had issues with the kitchen since he moved into the property from 2021. He also reported to the landlord at the same time the issue about the non-matching cupboard doors and the presence of silverfish. He distrusted the date of installation provided by the landlord in its final complaint response of 7 November 2023 being 2009. He said he had been told that the kitchen was installed in 2019. He asked for proof of the date it was installed.
There is no record of the landlord responding or taking any action on the issues raised until it issued its final complaint response of 7 November 2023 a month later. The resident disputed the landlord’s date of installation; however, the landlord has since provided a record that confirms the date of the kitchen installation being 27 March 2009. Its records were unclear when the kitchen cupboard doors were replaced. This evidenced poor communication and record keeping.
The resident reported that he was not happy about the kitchen unit door being replaced with one that was not like for like. The landlord advised in its final complaint response that it was not always possible to match a manufacturer’s components when units are discontinued over time. It advised the resident to continue to report any repairs required to the kitchen.
Whilst this may have been the case, the landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a position on matching kitchen cupboard doors. The landlord may wish to update its policy, so its position is clear. The resident has provided us with a photo showing the non-matching door, as well as a wall cupboard with a door missing. The resident told us that he refused to have the landlord put further non-matching doors in and that this caused him to stop having visitors as he was embarrassed about the condition of the kitchen. Whilst the resident’s concerns about having non-matching cupboard doors were understandable, this would mean that the landlord would be unable to complete repairs to replace the doors. The landlord could have been more proactive in managing the resident’s expectations at the time the cupboard doors were reported so that he understood what to expect.
The landlord’s final complaint response did not address the resident’s reports concerning silverfish and that he felt that the kitchen was not hygienic when he had moved in. We expect landlords to address all aspects of a resident’s complaint. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to answer these specific queries. The landlord could have referred to its lettable standard and how it checked the property was ready for occupation. The landlord’s pest control guidance on its website states that insect infestation can include wasps, ants, bedbugs, cockroaches, fleas and silverfish. It will deal with an insect infestation if it is found to be an inherited issue and where there are obvious defects. Where a resident has vulnerabilities, it will work with the resident to remove the pests and complete any repairs to prevent entry.
We have seen no records that the landlord raised any inspection to consider if there were any defects that were causing the infestation or that it raised any works orders where necessary. This again was indicative of poor record keeping. There was a lack of records demonstrating good internal communication and there was poor communication with the resident to provide a solution or advice about this issue. This was inappropriate and not in line with its own guidance.
As set out in our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025), without good knowledge and information management, a landlord cannot adequately understand its own housing stock and proactively monitor the completion of repairs or to provide timely responses to residents. The landlord should review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management if it has not already done so to improve its record keeping practices.
The Ombudsman considers that due to these failings, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of his kitchen and his request for a new kitchen. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation. This comprises £120 in respect of the lack of response to the resident’s queries concerning the infestation of silverfish, the state of the kitchen when he moved in and the poor communication and record keeping. It also includes £180 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident in seeking an adequate response to his queries.
We have also requested that the landlord complete an inspection of the resident’s property to determine any repairs required in the kitchen, including repairs required to resolve the silverfish infestation. It must send a copy of its inspection record, along with any schedule of works to the resident and to us.
We have ordered the landlord to provide further information to the resident concerning the kitchen replacement, including any change to its planned date of installation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy queries including its communication

The resident requested his landlord to contact him in his complaint of 28 April 2023 concerning his tenancy as it appeared that it was out of date. He also wished to ask about some other tenancy-related matters. He was unhappy about waiting over 45 minutes for his phone call to be answered. The landlord upheld this part of the resident’s complaint in its response of 5 June 2023 as it had made an error in its internal communication. It appropriately apologised for this. It also provided some information about its customer portal and the webchat facility and online enquiry service. However, the landlord failed to recognise that the resident had vulnerabilities, and it needed to check whether he required any reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010.
If it had done so, it would have been aware of the resident’s dyslexia that would make written forms of communication more challenging. It would have been able to update its records to show the resident’s preferred method of communication. This was inappropriate.
The resident said in his complaint escalation request of 3 October 2023 that he had asked his housing officer to contact him multiple times, but they never did, and it caused him to worry. We have seen no records of this, so it is not possible to verify how many times the resident called and whether the landlord made any attempts to phone him back concerning his tenancy queries.
The landlord said in its final response of 7 November 2023 that it needed to provide information after the resident initially complained which would have avoided the need for the resident to escalate his complaint. It apologised for its lack of communication regarding his tenancy queries which was appropriate. It said that that a member of staff responsible had left in August 2023 and it had requested the new staff member to contact the resident. It said that it had spoken to the resident on 31 October 2023 where it had provided advice to the resident regarding his tenancy.
There was a 6-month delay in the landlord providing the tenancy advice. Poor record keeping would not have helped the landlord follow up on actions that needed to happen after its stage 1 complaint response. Though it cited a staff member leaving and its lack of communication, which was evident, the staff member did not leave until August 2023. The landlord should have been able to follow up with the resident after he raised the tenancy queries in April 2023.
The landlord awarded £100 in compensation in respect of the poor communication and misinformation that has previously been communicated. This would be offset against any rent arrears owed. The Ombudsman considers that this does not fully recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident.
The Ombudsman considers that these failings amount to maladministration, and we have made orders for this. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 in compensation. This comprises £100 in respect of the delay in providing a response, its poor internal and external communication, record keeping and lack of consideration of any reasonable adjustments the resident required. It includes £150 (inclusive of the £100 previously offered) in respect of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
We have ordered the landlord to contact the resident to update its vulnerability records and to record any required reasonable adjustments in how it communicates with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The resident made his complaint on 28 April 2023 by post which the landlord said it received on 2 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 May 2023 which at 12 working days was outside of the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code’s timescale for an acknowledgement. It sent its stage 1 complaint response on 5 June 2023 which was 10 working days after its acknowledgement. It apologised for a delay in acknowledging the complaint and in allocating the complaint for investigation.
The landlord’s policy states that it will act in accordance with its legal and regulatory requirements. The Code requires a complaint to be acknowledged within 5 working days of the complaint being made. It requires a response to be issued at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The delayed response was therefore inappropriate.
The resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 3 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 10 October 2023 which was within 5 working days which was reasonable. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 7 November 2023. This was issued The landlord’s final complaint response was issued 20 working days after its acknowledgement which was in line with the Code timescale which was appropriate.
The landlord’s initial complaint response gave inaccurate information as above. Its final complaint response missed the opportunity to answer all the resident’s queries such as the silverfish infestation and the state of the kitchen when he moved in. This would have caused unnecessary frustration as well as inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident. This was inappropriate. However, the landlord did consider some learning which was appropriate that resulted in a change in process around property inspections and condition checks for residents with a use and occupation licence.
The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and we have made orders for this. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, as above, we have ordered the landlord to pay £100 compensation to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s complaint handling failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of his kitchen and his request for a new kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy queries including its communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to issue a written apology to the resident from a senior leader. It should send a copy of this to us within the same period.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1,000 in compensation (inclusive of the £100 previously offered). This comprises:
1. £350 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account comprising (£150 in respect of the delays, poor communication and record keeping and £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings).
2. £300 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of his kitchen and his request for a new kitchen (comprising £120 for the lack of response, poor communication with the resident and poor record keeping, and £180 in respect of the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings).
3. £250 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy queries including its communication (comprising £100 in respect of the delay, its poor internal and external communication, record keeping and lack of consideration of any reasonable adjustments. It includes £150 (inclusive of the £100 previously offered) in respect of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings).
4. £100 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the complaint handling failings.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide a clear explanation about the fluctuating balances on the resident’s rent account from the rent arrears letters. It must consider any reasonable adjustments required by the resident, in the way the information is presented, and confirm any balance on the rent account. It must also provide the resident with the option to receive some support from its successful tenancies team and make the necessary referral. It must send a copy of its explanation to us within the same period.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete an inspection of the resident’s property to determine any repairs required in the kitchen, including repairs required to resolve the silverfish infestation. It must send a copy of its inspection record, along with any schedule of works to the resident and to us within this period.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide further information to the resident concerning the kitchen replacement, including any change to its planned date of installation. It must send a copy of its response to us within this period.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident to update its vulnerability records and to record any required reasonable adjustments in how it communicates with the resident. It must send confirmation of its updated records to us within the same period.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of this case to identify why the failings have occurred and to consider learning that can be used to prevent similar failings from happening. The landlord must send a copy of its review outcomes and action plan to the resident and to us within this timeframe.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord update its repairs policy to provide a clear position on matching kitchen cupboard doors.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its self-assessment against our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025), if it has not already done so to improve its record keeping practices.