Places for People Group Limited (202223017)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223017

Places for People Group Limited

22 August 2024

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. Repairs to the property.
2. The removal of rubble from the garden.
3. The resident’s reports she was told the front garden was for her exclusive use.
4. The resident’s reports of belongings damaged by removal contractors.
5. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The resident moved into the property, a 2-bedroom semi-detached bungalow, in June 2021. The landlord is aware that the resident has difficulties with her mental health.
Shortly after moving into the property the resident told the landlord that some of her belongings had been damaged by the removal company, operating on behalf of the landlord, and she was told she needed to complain to them directly.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 22 July 2021, however a copy of this complaint has not been provided to this Service. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 27 August 2021, in which it acknowledged some repairs issues and provided a schedule for remedial work. It said that it had not found any rubble in the back garden, and that the front garden was enclosed and for the resident’s exclusive use, with only the shared footpath open.
The resident responded on 31 August 2021 and asked for the complaint to be escalated. She said the complaint had not been investigated properly and she felt that the landlord had implied she should be grateful it had moved her. She also said that the landlord had told her to cancel the removal company she had already organised and use the company it had arranged.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 9 October 2021 in which it said it had tried to attend about the rubble in the garden but was refused access. An appointment had been booked for 15 December. It confirmed that the back door had been fixed and jobs for windows and door handles had been raised with contractors. At this time it provided the resident with a single point of contact.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 November 2021 saying that mould was growing on her belongings and that she was told a fence would be put up in the front garden to make it private. The landlord responded on 15 November following a visit that day to say that it could not find any evidence of mould. It said its contractor would liaise with the resident directly to remove the rubble in the garden.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 December 2021 in which it said a dehumidifier had been delivered and it would reattend after this had been in place for 4 weeks to check moisture levels. It accepted that there was a large amount of waste in the garden that was there when she moved in and agreed to clear this. It also said it had raised jobs to carry out repairs to doors, windows and handles.
In relation to the front garden, it said that covenants stipulate that it is open plan. It found that a fence installation at a neighbouring property contravened restrictions on the land. It said she would have to apply for planning permission herself if she wanted the boundary to be enclosed but said that if this was granted, as a goodwill gesture, it would install a 3 foot fence.
It offered £300 compensation: £25 for poor repair timescales, £50 for miscommunication about the front garden, £75 for lack of security due to issues with window and door mechanisms and £150 to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by these issues.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 December 2021 asking for the complaint to be reopened. It initially agreed to do this, however it then closed the complaint on 20 January 2022, saying that the resident needed to escalate it to this Service, however it is not clear whether it communicated this to the resident.
The resident contacted this Service to ask us to investigate the complaint on 29 December 2022. The Ombudsman notes that this was slightly more than 12 months after the landlord sent its stage 2 response, however the resident has explained that this delay was due to her significant mental health issues. As explained above, the landlord also agreed to reopen the complaint when it should have directed her to contact this Service. It did not close the complaint down until February 2022 and it is not clear if/when it communicated this to the resident. So, the Ombudsman considers this complaint to be within the jurisdiction of this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman has also investigated a further complaint, our reference 202314012, for the resident’s repairs issues that occurred after the landlord’s stage 2 response of 14 December 2021, and orders relating to repairs and damp and mould have been made as part of that determination which have not been duplicated in this investigation.

Repairs

The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s repairs obligations. This shows it is responsible for upkeep of the property, apart from decoration or anything damaged by the resident. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and an appointment will be made for routine repairs, at the resident’s convenience, within 28 calendar days.
On 19 June 2021 an emergency job was booked as the resident reported a gap at the bottom of the back door and said rainwater was leaking in and flooding the kitchen floor. The initial appointment on 20 June did not go ahead as the landlord could not gain access to the property and the resident said she would call back when she was available.
The landlord tried again to visit on 18 August 2021 to carry out the repair, however the resident would not let it in as she said she had Covid-19. She said that it had not told her that it had booked an appointment for that day.
The landlord has provided an email from its surveyor on 19 August 2021 when it was evidently able to gain access to the property, where they said that there was a high moisture profile to the floor, after the resident had reported water ingress around the back door frame. The surveyor recommended upgrading the extractor fans.
The landlord carried out a general property inspection on 24 August 2021, which included testing for damp and mould, and has provided a copy of a property condition report. This found that there was high humidity throughout the property and recommended a dehumidifier be installed for 4-6 weeks. This inspection found problems with the back door, which would not close or lock properly, allowing water to seep through, and gaps around bedroom and lounge windows allowing wind and rain in.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 27 August 2021 it said that a lot of work was carried out during the previous void period and the property may not have been allowed to dry properly before the resident moved in. It said the extractor fan in the bathroom was not capable of removing the moisture and there was not one in the kitchen, so it said it would replace the bathroom fan and install one in the kitchen. It said these works were scheduled for 2 December 2021. There is no explanation for this lengthy timescale, which was outside the landlord’s policy timescales.
The landlord also said a dehumidifier would be dropped off on 3 September 2021. It said the resident had raised concerns about the running costs, and said that it would review costs, and asked her for a pre-installation electricity bill. It said that it had found that the floor by the back door was dry when it was surveyed and no defects were found.
The landlord agreed that the back door was not locking and shutting as it should and windows in the bedroom and lounge were also not sealing properly. It said it had raised jobs for these, due to be completed on 2 December 2021. This was far outside its policy timescale of 28 days and the response does not explain the delay.
In its letter of 9 October 2021, the landlord said that the back door had now been fixed and the window job raised with a contractor. It said the door handles would be replaced on 15 November.
On 11 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say there were repairs outstanding and mould growing on her belongings. The landlord’s repairs records state that a mould survey was carried out on 15 November, and that no evidence of mould was found, however the landlord has not provided a copy of a report relating to this survey, so it has failed to evidence that it took appropriate steps to ensure the property was damp and mould free at this stage.
In its stage 2 response of 14 December 2021 the landlord said a dehumidifier had been delivered but the resident was not yet using it as she was concerned about energy costs. It agreed to make an upfront payment of £56 (£2 per day for 4 weeks) and would check moisture levels after 4 weeks and make a further payment if needed. As the resident had raised concerns about the costs when the dehumidifier was dropped off, it could have been more proactive in making this payment sooner, speeding up the drying process.
The landlord said that it had ordered a new back door and bedroom window mechanism, however there was a lengthy delay for this. It said it would bring these appointments forward if possible and offered compensation of £25 for poor repair timescales, £75 for lack of security due to the faulty door and window mechanisms, and £150 for the stress and inconvenience caused by these issues, bringing the total compensation offered for repairs to £250.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 January 2022 to chase up the installation of the new extractor fans and said there was more mould growing. The landlord’s records do not make it clear when the fans were installed, but a damp report sent to the resident on 6 April confirmed that they had recently been fitted. As the landlord had agreed in to install these fans in August 2021, it was not appropriate for it to have taken between 5 and 7 months to install these.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property at this time. Despite finding high moisture levels, it has not provided evidence to support it having done a full damp and mould survey during the period being investigated as part of this complaint. Whilst it noted that it found no evidence of mould, the resident reported mould on multiple occasions, so this Service would expect the landlord to have carried out a full survey and have a report to support its findings.
It acknowledged the need for the an upgraded extractor fan in the bathroom and for one to be installed in the kitchen. However, it did not install these within a reasonable timeframe, despite the resident chasing this up and continuing to report problems with mould.
The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did face some difficulties in carrying out appointments, with no access given by the resident on more than one occasion, and that it offered compensation to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused by the delays to repairing the back door and windows. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £250 to recognise its failure to complete ventilation works within a reasonable timeframe as well as its failure to provide evidence that the property was free from damp and mould. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £500.

Removal of rubble

This Service would expect the landlord to ensure that the property is handed to the resident at the start of the tenancy in a tidy and uncluttered state, following void checks and works.
It is not clear from the landlord’s records when the resident first raised the issue of rubble in the back garden, however in its stage 1 response it said it had not noted any rubble, but acknowledged that the resident was cutting back foliage at the time it carried out a survey.
In its letter of 9 October 2021, the landlord said that it had tried to attend to collect the rubble but it was refused access as it had not pre-booked an appointment, despite its repairs policy stating that it would book appointments that were convenient for residents. Whilst it did not need to access the house, it was not unreasonable for the resident to refuse access without an appointment. It then confirmed it had booked a new appointment for 9am on 15 December.
In its stage 2 response of 14 December 2021 the landlord said that there was a large amount of garden waste that was present when the resident moved in. It agreed to clear this and said it would raise a work order.
On 21 December 2021 the landlord emailed the resident saying that it needed to reschedule the collection of items from the garden, however it is not clear why the appointment did not go ahead on 15 December. On 4 January 2022 it said a contractor would be removing the rubble on 7 January. There is no evidence in the landlord’s records of this appointment going ahead, and on 11 March another appointment was booked for the rubble to be removed and tested for asbestos on 15 March.
On 15 March 2022 a contractor rang the resident to say they were running late but she hung up on them after saying she would arrange for someone else to collect the rubble. The landlord contacted her the same day to find out why she would not let the contractors collect it and she said she would not wait around for contractors.
Further jobs were raised on 3 May 2022, 8 August and 1 December, however it is not clear from the landlord’s records why these appointments did not go ahead, as some of these jobs were raised directly with contractors and so the landlord does not have records relating to the appointments. On 11 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident with a copy of its stage 2 response from 14 December 2021, and said it had not agreed to remove rubble, which contradicted what the attached letter said.
A further job was raise don 3 February 2023 with an appointment being made for 17 May, however this appointment was cancelled and the landlord asked the contractor to make contact with the resident directly. On 12 May 2023 a final job was raised and completed by a contractor on 29 June 2023.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the removal of waste rubble from the garden. Whilst there was an occasion when the resident would not allow the contractor to carry out an appointment as they were running late, this does not account for why it took more than 18 months for the removal to be carried out.
The landlord accepted that there was rubble it needed to remove in its stage 2 response, yet later told the resident it had never agreed to do this. Its communication and management of this issue was not clear and it has provided no explanation for the long delay in carrying out this removal. During this time the resident had to continue to chase the landlord on many occasions. The landlord did not consider compensation for this aspect of the complaint during its internal complaints process, which would have been appropriate given the delays and its failure to manage expectations.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 for cases where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and/or made no attempt to put things right”. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the long delay in it removing the rubble.

Privacy of front garden

During her complaint, the resident told the landlord that she was told that the front garden was private. The tenancy agreement does not comment on the presence of fences or walls enclosing the garden, so there is no evidence that there should be anything more in place than what was there when the resident accepted the tenancy and moved in.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response of 27 August 2021 that it had inspected both the front and back gardens and found that both were enclosed, although there was some gaps in the hedgerow in the back garden, which it said was not unusual. It explained that the front garden was enclosed to the front boundary but that the footpaths to the front are shared so could not be enclosed within her property. It said if she was concerned about the neighbours use of the paths she should discuss this with them.
In an email of 11 November 2021 the resident told the landlord that she was told that a fence would be put up, but she did not say when she was told this. In its stage 2 response of 14 December the landlord said that such a fence would contravene covenants and that a fence at a neighbouring property had contravened restrictions. It said she could apply for planning permission, and if successful it would build a 3 foot fence for her as a goodwill gesture. It acknowledged that there may have been a miscommunication at the start of the tenancy and offered £50 compensation for this.
The Ombudsman is of the view that the compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 2 response was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused. There is no evidence to show what the resident was told about the front garden prior to moving into the property, however the landlord has acknowledged that a miscommunication was possible, and has offered compensation in case it was not clear.
The landlord has, however, clearly explained to the resident that a fence cannot be put up without planning permission. There is nothing in the tenancy agreement to state that the landlord is obliged to put such a fence in place, so it is reasonable that it offered to put one up at its own cost, should the resident obtain planning permission.
Taking all matters into account the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports she was told the front garden was private.

Damaged belongings

The landlord has not provided records that show it was responsible for employing the services of the removal company. However, on 31 August 2021 the resident said that the landlord had arranged the removal company and said she could cancel the arrangements she had already made, and there is no evidence that the landlord has challenged this.
The records the landlord has provided do not show when the resident first contacted it to say that some of her contents had been damaged. The earliest record provided is an email from 28 June 2021 where the landlord said it had chased the removal company about a complaint but had not yet had a response.
On 29 June 2021 the resident told the landlord that she had tried to speak with the removal company directly but they would not discuss it as she was not their customer. On 9 July she asked the landlord for an update and it said it was still waiting for a response. It gave her the company’s phone number and said she should speak to them directly as the possessions were hers, however she responded to say the company would not speak to her.
On 12 July 2021 the resident said an electrician witnessed that the items were not damaged in situ at her old address. On 22 July the landlord said that the removal company had confirmed it had not damaged any of her items, and the resident said this was untrue. She raised a complaint the same day.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 27 August 2021 did not mention her damaged belongings. Her escalation response reiterated her dissatisfaction with this issue, however the landlord’s stage 2 response of 14 December also failed to address this issue.
On 8 March 2022 the landlord told the resident that it would review the damaged furniture. The resident responded on 14 March to ask when this would be, and said that her freezer was not working due to damage caused by the removal company. The landlord has provided no evidence of an inspection being carried out. On 6 May it told her that it had already issued a stage 2 response about the damage caused by the removal company, however this was not covered in the stage 2 response the landlord has provided to this Service.
As the landlord engaged the services of the contractor the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to provide assistance to the resident when she told it she was having trouble speaking with the company. The landlord should have provided the resident with details on how she could pursue an insurance claim with its contractor. As the landlord hired the contractor to move the resident’s belongings, it would have been the landlord’s responsibility to provide the resident with further details on how she could make a claim which would have included the contractors’ details and insurance details.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of belongings damaged by movers. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident that her damaged belongings would need to be considered as an insurance claim, or that it inspected the items itself. Normally, damage to a resident’s belongings would be considered as part of an insurance claim under a landlord’s or contractor’s liability insurance policy (if it has one). Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance as a means of managing such claims.
A landlord’s or contractor’s insurer is usually a separate organisation from the landlord and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. Therefore, this Service cannot comment on the outcome of a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance if a claim is made. The landlord should provide the resident with details of how to contact the contractor’s insurer so she can make a claim for her damaged belongings if she wishes to do so.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of this issue.

Complaint handling

Landlords must have an effective complaints process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaints process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and send a stage 1 response within 10 working days. At stage 2, it will acknowledge the escalation request within 3 working days and provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of escalation.
The resident first raised the complaint on 22 July 2021, however the records provided by the landlord do not give any information about the details of the complaint. No record of an acknowledgement to the resident has been provided. In its response the landlord incorrectly said that it had received the complaint on 11 August 2021. It said that it had spoken to her on 18 August and said that it would respond by 30 August.
It sent its stage 1 response on 27 August, 26 working days after it was raised. This was outside the policy timescale and represented an unreasonable delay.
The resident responded to the landlord on 31 August 2021, saying that it did not investigate her complaint properly. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 3 September and told the resident it aimed to respond by 29 September. The landlord did not provide any update until 9 October, when it sent a letter with an overview of her open complaints.
The landlord did not send its stage 2 response until 14 December 2021, 75 working days after the resident requested the escalation. This far exceeded the 20 working day timescale in its policy and represented a further unreasonable delay in responding to this complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its response.
The resident responded to the landlord on 20 December 2021, asking for the complaint to be reopened. On 12 January 2022 the landlord reopened the complaint for a new stage 2 response. The landlord’s records show the complaint was subsequently cancelled as the resident needed to approach this Service if she remained unhappy, but it is not clear from its records whether this was communicated to the resident at that time.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. It failed to respond within its policy timescales at either stage, taking almost 5 months to respond to the complaint fully. It then incorrectly reopened the complaint rather than signposting the resident to this Service, leading to a further delay in her complaint being progressed.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £200 to recognise the delays in its handling of her complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the removal of rubble from the garden.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports she was told the front garden was for her exclusive use.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of belongings damaged by movers.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £1,050, less any amount already paid, broken down as follows:
1. £500 in relation the landlord’s handling of repairs, including the £250 offered by the landlord during its internal complaints process.
2. £200 in relation to the rubble in the back garden.
3. £150 in relation to the resident’s damaged belongings.
4. £200 in relation to its complaint handling.
The landlord to provide the resident with details of its insurers and the removal company’s insurers for her to make a claim for her damaged belongings, should she wish to.

Recommendation

Within 28 days of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £50 in relation to any miscommunication about the front garden, if this has not already been paid.