Places for People Group Limited (202122848)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122848

Places for People Group Limited

15 February 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a leak from the dehumidifier.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen cupboards.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to resolve the issues with the driveway.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced on 15 November 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom end terrace house and includes a designated parking space in the front garden. The landlord’s records state the resident’s daughter has sickle cell anaemia. The resident told this Service she suffers from anxiety and depression.
The resident contacted the landlord in November 2021 and said the fence that had recently been erected between the two properties meant she could not park her car on the driveway. She also said there was damp and mould in the kitchen cupboards and on the kitchen and toilet walls. She told the landlord in December 2021, that the driveway was uneven and some of the slabs were broken. She also said the kitchen units were water damaged as a result of a leak from the upstairs toilet. The landlord carried out a deep clean on 17 December 2021, but the resident said the mould was still there. The resident made a formal complaint on 14 January 2022. She said she was unable to park on her driveway due to the new fence, which she did not agree to.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on the 2 February 2022. It acknowledged it had taken too long to improve access to the driveway. It said it had demolished part of the garden wall, but still had to remove a fence panel and some bushes. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 compensation for the service failure. It said it would complete the work as soon as it could. It also said it had advised the resident’s neighbour where the original demarcation line was between the driveways.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 February 2022. She said there was damp and mould in the kitchen, evidence of a leak from the upstairs toilet on the kitchen wall when she moved in and issues with carparking. She also said the dehumidifier installed by the landlord had leaked and caused damage to her possessions. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation on 2 March 2022.
The resident made a further complaint on 13 September 2022. She complained about a number of things. She said:
1. The driveway was still uneven and a health and safety risk. She had not been provided with an update following an inspection on 1 August 2022.
2. She was still waiting for compensation for the damage caused to her possessions following a leak from the dehumidifier.
3. The kitchen worktops were in a state of disrepair and not fit to prepare food on. She was waiting for a response from the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 September 2022. Although the resident’s complaint was upheld, the landlord confirmed it did not need to complete any works to the kitchen worktops or the driveway. It did, however, say it would undertake a further inspection of the driveway given the resident’s dissatisfaction. It also said it would confirm when the kitchen would be replaced as part of its planned investment programme. It said it would do this by 6 October 2022.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 21 November 2022. She said she was disappointed because her request for compensation had been turned down by the landlord’s insurers. She also said the landlord was responsible for replacing the damaged goods and it took too long to reach a decision.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 10 January 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident and offered £50 compensation for the late response. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The landlord said:
1. The resident could challenge the decision made by the landlord’s insurance company.
2. Works to the driveway had been completed and a visit had been carried out with the council. This concluded the driveway was in a ‘‘reasonable condition for its purpose.’’
3. The resident had a designated parking space outside her property and it had referred her concerns about the fence to its neighbourhood team. The referral was made because her concerns about parking had not formed part of the stage 1 complaint.
The landlord replaced the kitchen worktop on 6 January 2023. It contacted the resident on 31 January 2023 and said it could not remove any more of the garden wall. This was because of the position of the lamppost which was owned by the council. It also said it was ‘pressurised’ into putting up the fence to try and resolve the conflict between the resident and her neighbour. It acknowledged this did not work so it removed part of the garden wall, part of the fence and some bushes.
The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 6 February 2023. She said the landlord had fitted a new kitchen worktop but had not replaced the kitchen units. She also said there was rising damp on the kitchen wall, the landlord had refused to pay her compensation and that she was unable to use her designated parking space. She said the situation had caused stress and she had to pay for a car parking permit as she could not park on her drive. The resident wanted her landlord to renew her kitchen, treat the rising damp in the kitchen and replace the kitchen ceiling following the leak. She also wanted the landlord to provide her with an accessible parking space and compensate her for the cost of parking and the distress caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In considering the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, it is noted that the resident has referred to a possible impact upon her own and her daughter’s health. Whilst these concerns are referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord has a duty to carry out repairs and works in accordance with the tenancy agreement. It also has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant. It is this Service’s view that landlords should take urgent action following reports of damp and mould. They should also undertake a self-assessment against this Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould.
The housing records confirm the property was inspected when it was empty and only minor works were required. It was appropriate for the landlord to post inspect the work in accordance with its empty property procedure. No evidence of damp and mould were recorded at the void inspection or during the post inspection.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould when she moved in. It arranged for the backs of the kitchen units to be replaced and for a mould wash to be carried out in the kitchen. This demonstrated it was proactive in its approach. There is, however, no evidence, that it acted on the resident’s reports that the mould was still present following the mould wash. Neither is there any evidence the landlord diagnosed the cause of the damp and mould or told the resident what was causing it. This was not appropriate or in accordance with its damp and mould procedure. The landlord’s failure to assess the situation led to delays and meant it did not meet its obligations under HHSRS or the tenancy agreement.
Whilst it is noted in the resident’s complaint escalation request that a property inspection was caried out on 7 January 2022, the landlord has not provided this Service with any information regarding the visit. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a dehumidifier to be provided in January 2022. There is, however, no evidence, it responded to her further reports of damp and mould on 8 February 2022.
A further inspection was carried out on 1 August 2022, but the landlord has not provided this Service with any information regarding the visit. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repair obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. It is recommended the landlord undertakes a self-assessment against this Service’s spotlight review on knowledge and information management, if not already done so.
In summary, the landlord was proactive in addressing the resident’s reports of damp and mould when she first moved in. There is, however, no evidence it monitored the situation as required under the HHSRS or kept the resident updated. It is evident the resident was concerned about the impact of the damp on her daughters and her own health. She shared these concerns with the landlord on a number of occasions but felt like she was ‘‘fighting a losing battle.’’ She also said the landlord’s failure to act added to her anxiety and depression.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to follow its own policies or procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter and dealing with a matter unfairly. In this instance, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a leak from the dehumidifier.

The landlord’s compensation policy advises residents to take out their own home contents insurance to insure their possessions against accidental damage or loss. The policy does not apply to insurance claims. Liability claims against the landlord are dealt with by the landlord’s insurer.
Whilst the landlord was entitled to refer the resident’s claim for damages to its insurer, this Service expects landlords to consider whether there is any evidence it was at fault for any claimed damage and not refer them straight to an insurer. It is not clear from the information available, whether the landlord did so in this case. It is also unclear from the housing records what information was shared with the resident about making a claim when she first reported the damage to her possessions. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this and kept a record of the advice given. This would have ensured the resident was aware of the process and would have helped manage her expectations.
It is evident from the housing records that the landlord liaised with the insurance company and responded to enquires it raised. It also liaised with the contractor who provided the dehumidifier and agreed to contact the insurance company on behalf of the resident to establish why the claim was refused. This was appropriate. It is unclear, however, whether it kept the resident updated in a timely manner whilst the claim was ongoing. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about the damaged goods in its stage 1 complaint response. This was a service failure.
It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident in its final complaint response that the submission of a claim did not guarantee it would be settled and liability had to be established. It was also appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident she could challenge the decision made by the insurance company.
In summary, the lack of information provided by the landlord has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were reasonable and fair in the circumstances. There is evidence it liaised with the insurer, but it is unclear what steps it took to ensure the resident was kept updated. The housing records confirm she contacted the landlord on a number of occasions about the matter, but there is no evidence the landlord responded until it sent its final complaint response. In this instance, there was a service failure by the landlord in its communication in regard to the resident’s request for compensation following a leak from the dehumidifier.

The landlord’s handing of the residents concerns about the condition of the kitchen cupboards.

The landlord has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Government’s decent homes standard. This sets out minimum standards properties should meet. The decent homes standard assumes kitchens should be replaced every 20 years. It also has a duty to carry out repairs and works in accordance with the tenancy agreement.
The housing records confirm the landlord completed a stock condition survey in February 2020. This confirmed the kitchen was installed in 2007 and did not need replacing until 2025. The housing records also confirm the kitchen was inspected when it was empty and only minor works were required. This included cleaning the kitchen and applying a stain block. It was appropriate for the landlord to post inspect the work in accordance with its empty property procedure. It was also appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a deep clean to be carried out in December 2021 given the concerns raised by the resident about the cleanliness of the kitchen units.
Whilst an inspection of the kitchen was carried out in January and August 2022, the landlord has not provided any information to this Service about the inspection. There is also no evidence it updated the resident following these visits. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm in its stage 1 complaint response that the kitchen units did not need to be replaced. This provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to undertake a further inspection of the kitchen given the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. It was also reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident it would confirm when the kitchen was due to be replaced as part of its planned investment programme. However, there is no evidence it did this.
The landlord was entitled to rely on a suitably qualified member of staff to assess the kitchen units and worktops on the 19 October 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to say it would seek the views of the council given the resident had asked it to intervene. It was also reasonable for the landlord to agree to replace the worktops and to offer the resident decorating vouchers.
In summary, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and fair in the circumstances. It undertook a deep clean of the kitchen, confirmed the kitchen was in good condition and replaced the worktop as a good will gesture given the resident’s concerns. In this instance, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the kitchen cupboards.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to resolve the issues with the driveway.

It is not within the powers of this Service to determine whether the boundary line between the two properties was moved following the erection of the fence, as suggested by the resident. Neither is it within this Service’s power to order the fence to be removed or for the boundary line to be reinstated. This is a matter for the landlord to determine.
Whilst there is no reference to the driveway in the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord has confirmed the carparking space is in the front garden and forms part of the tenancy terms and conditions. It has also confirmed the resident is entitled to park a car on the driveway.
There is no evidence the resident was consulted regarding the erection of the fence. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this given she was in the process of moving in and this would have helped maintain good resident relationships. It is of concern to note that the landlord said it was ‘‘pressured into putting up a fence between the drives to try and resolve the conflict,’’ which it later acknowledged did not work. A referral to its mediation service may have been more appropriate in the circumstances given the residents’ opposing views about the fence.
It was appropriate for the landlord to undertake repairs to the driveway following the resident’s reports that it was uneven and a trip hazard and for the landlord to arrange for part of the garden wall to be demolished (although it is unclear when this was done). It was also reasonable for the landlord to agree to remove a fence panel and bushes to improve access to the driveway. This demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident. It is, however, unclear from the housing records when the fence panel and bushes were removed.
It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm in its stage 1 complaint response that the driveway had been inspected and no further works were required. This provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to undertake a further inspection given the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. It is of concern to note, however, that the landlord’s opinion changed following the inspection on 19 October 2022 when it was identified the driveway needed to be graded so the surface was level. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm in its final complaint response that all the works had been completed and the resident had a designated parking space.
In summary, the landlord took reasonable steps to improve the access to the driveway. This included demolishing part of the garden wall, removing a fence panel and bushes. It also arranged for the flags to be relayed. There were, however, delays in completing the required works. The limited information provided by the landlord has made it difficult to assess how long these delays were. In this instance, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to resolve the issues with the driveway.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident said she asked for her original complaint to be escalated on the 8 February 2022. The landlord has a different understanding of the situation and said the complaint was not escalated because the resident accepted £50 compensation. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence confirming the complaint was closed with the agreement of the resident. This was not appropriate or in accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code which says that landlords should provide an explanation to the resident where it decides not to escalate a complaint. It should also make it clear that its previous response was its final response to the complaint and provide information on referral to the Housing Ombudsman. There is no evidence the landlord did this. This was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Whilst the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint of 13 September 2022 within its published timescales, it did not address her complaint about the damaged goods. This was not in accordance with this Service’s complaint handling code. This says landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions it makes. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident and to agree to reinspect the driveway and kitchen. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 27 November 2022, it did not tell her when she would receive a response or who her point of contact would be. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s customer feedback policy. The landlord extended the complaint deadline on 15 December 2022 and said it would respond by 3 January 2023. It was appropriate for the landlord to tell the resident there would be a delay in sending a response to her complaint.
The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 10 January 2023 and only after contact from this Service. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer £50 compensation for the delay. It was reasonable for the landlord to set out the position regarding the resident’s claim for compensation. This provided clarity and set out the steps she needed to take if she wished to appeal the insurer’s decision. It was also reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the resident’s concerns regarding the positioning of the fence to be referred to the neighbourhood team given the matter did not form part of her stage 1 complaint. This demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident.
In summary, the landlord failed to inform the resident it had not escalated her original complaint and did not advise her of her right to contact this Service. It also did not fully address her stage 1 complaint, failed to follow its own policy and delayed issuing its final complaint response. It is evident the resident found the situation distressing and felt the landlord was not listening to her concerns. She described the situation as time consuming, frustrating and stressful. She also said the situation affected her mental wellbeing. Considering the failings set out in this report, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to resolve the issues with the driveway.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation following a leak from the dehumidifier.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the kitchen cupboards.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident an apology for the failings set out in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a damp inspection to establish the cause of the rising damp and undertake any identified remedial works, as appropriate.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to meet the resident and explain its position regarding the driveway. If the resident is dissatisfied with the explanation given, the landlord should raise a new complaint.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. Findings from the review must be shared with the resident and this Service. The review must include:
1. A review of its approach to monitoring reports of damp and mould, with particular reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight review on damp and mould.
2. A review of its record keeping practices with particular reference to the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information spotlight review.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £650 compensation directly to the resident, made up as follows:
1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of damp and mould.
1. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s request to resolve the issues with the driveway.
1. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
1. £50 previously offered to the resident for its poor complaints handling (if not already paid).