Platform Housing Group Limited (202503843)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 4-bedroom house with her son. The tenancy commenced on 29 July 2024. The resident is a wheelchair user, and her son has autism, which the landlord is aware of. The resident complained about a hole in the roof and rats in the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the roof.
   2. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of reports of repairs to the roof.
   2. Maladministration in its handling of reports of a pest infestation.
   3. Reasonable redress in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the roof

4. The landlord missed several appointments, did not inspect or finish the repairs within its policy timeframes, and gave incorrect information about the work. Its actions also show it did not properly consider the household’s situation.

Pest infestation

5. There was poor communication, no investigation of the issue from the start, and proofing work was left incomplete.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s compensation was fair and resolved the delay in its stage 2 response.

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.

7. The landlord accepts that there were failings in how it handled the resident’s reports. When this happens, we assess if the complaint was resolved fairly and if the landlord offered suitable redress. We also look at whether the landlord followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
8. In August 2024, the resident reported a hole in the roof. The landlord missed several scheduled appointments to inspect and fix the problem. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as she waited at home and worried that asbestos might have been disturbed.
9. The resident believed this issue existed before she moved in and should have been repaired then. And the landlord’s stage 1 response noted that it had “further identified actions overlooked by the voids team” when responding to this part of the complaint.
10. The landlord did not treat this issue with urgency. It only took steps to repair the roof in mid-February 2025, around 6 months after the initial report, contrary to its repair policy timescales. This delay caused distress to the household, who had to live through winter with a hole in the roof and said they had to keep the heating on constantly.
11. Scaffolding for the roof repair was scheduled for 19 February 2025, but the work did not start. The contractor refused because the resident’s car, which was untaxed and uninsured, was parked on her drive, which they said blocked access and risked damage. This caused frustration for the resident, as she explained that the landlord had previously agreed that the work could proceed with the car in place. In its final response, the landlord admitted this was a mistake.
12. Although the landlord was entitled to change its decision after reassessing the issue, its earlier misinformation caused distress and inconvenience. The resident told us she had made arrangements for her son, expecting the work to go ahead, as he would find this type of work stressful.
13. The resident said the landlord had agreed to tax and insure her car so it could be moved to the highway during the works. While there is evidence that the resident provided quotes to the landlord, we cannot confirm that any such agreement was made.
14. However, the landlord could have avoided these issues if it had completed the roof repairs within a reasonable time after the initial report. The resident told us that when she first reported the problem, her car was taxed and insured. More than a year later, the issue remains unresolved. The resident told us that in June 2025 she informed the landlord that she could now move her car from the driveway, but the landlord has taken no action.
15. Overall, the landlord handled the roof repairs poorly. It missed several appointments, failed to inspect or complete the repairs within its policy timescales, and provided misinformation about the works. Its actions also showed that it did not adequately consider the household’s circumstances.
16. The landlord apologised for the missed appointments in its stage 1 response. It is reasonable to say that part of the £300 compensation offered was for this issue. However, the landlord did not learn from the outcome, and the offer did not go far enough to put things right for the resident, given the failings identified in this report.
17. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends awards from £100 where failings have adversely affected a resident. We have also ordered the landlord to start the roof repair.

18. In her complaint, the resident said she had lifted the floorboards, due to an unpleasant smell and discovered a large rat’s nest. She also found a dead rat, several poison bags, a rat box under the sink, and droppings in all 4 bedrooms. According to the resident, the landlord told her it was her responsibility to resolve the problem. She said she replied that the evidence showed the rats were there before she moved in.
19. We have not seen this correspondence, which suggests problems with the landlord’s recordkeeping. It is unclear why the landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns, especially since it knew some actions had been missed by its void teams and understood the household’s circumstances. The landlord’s inaction caused distress and inconvenience. The resident said her son would often lie on the floor and lick objects, and she worried about the health implications for him.
20. The evidence indicates poor communication, as the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s contact. As a result, the resident chased updates about the rat problem in January 2025, saying she could not sleep in her bedroom.
21. The landlord’s repair records show that in February 2025 the resident asked it to fill the access holes. The landlord marked the job as completed on 18 February 2025, but it is unclear what work was done or whether any holes were filled. In its final response, the landlord said its contractor left the resident “required products and concrete” so she could fill the holes herself. However, the landlord was responsible for fixing these holes after being told about them, in line with its pest control guidance and repair policy.
22. Although the landlord addressed its contractor’s behaviour in its final response, it is unclear whether it checked the work or made sure all access holes were properly filled. The landlord’s final response stated that the resident told it on 18 March 2025 that the pest control work was complete. However, there is no evidence to confirm this. The resident reported to the landlord in April 2025 that there was still a hole in the kitchen. And the resident told us the rat problem and proofing work was still unresolved.
23. The landlord offered £250 compensation in its final response, but this only covered its contractor’s conduct. It did not investigate the resident’s reports or complete the proofing work within a reasonable timeframe, contrary to its repairs policy. The resident was left to finish some of the work herself. She said the situation has been extremely distressing, especially for her son, and she remains worried about the health risks.
24. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £400 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s own compensation guide, which suggests compensation from £350 where the problem is not resolved within a reasonable timescale, causing a high level of distress.
25. We have also ordered the landlord to inspect the property and create a schedule of works to resolve any repairs that may be causing the rat infestation. Gaps in the landlord’s record–keeping made it difficult to piece together what steps it took and how it communicated with the resident. We have highlighted this as a learning point below.

26. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 within its 10-working-day policy timescale. However, it failed to respond at stage 2 within its 20-working-day timescale, taking more than two months to issue its final response. The landlord apologised for the delay and for extending the complaint and paid £50 compensation. This was a fair and reasonable way to put things right.
27. The landlord seemed to have extended the complaint because the resident raised more issues after her escalation request. The landlord included a summary of these in its final response, but we have not seen all the evidence of these extra issues. This is another record-keeping issue the landlord should address.

Learning

28. The landlord should complete repairs within its policy timescales. It must also consider the urgency of the repair, taking into account the household’s situation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord should keep accurate records of all decisions, agreements, communications, and actions. Good record–keeping helps show what the landlord did and proves compliance with policies.

Communication

30. Some aspects of the landlord’s communication were inadequate. It should respond promptly to residents’ queries and keep them informed of progress.