Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Places for People Group Limited (202230044)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230044

Places for People Group Limited

26 April 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 applicant 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the applicant’s housing application.

Background

  1. The applicant is not a resident of the landlord and is instead an applicant for housing. Under paragraph 25 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, applicants for housing with members of the Scheme can have complaints considered by our service.
  2. On 25 January 2023, the applicant applied for a property through the landlord’s website. On 15 February 2023 at 4:41pm, the landlord emailed the applicant advising that she was first on the list for the property and asked her to confirm her interest by 9am on 16 February 2023.
  3. On 28 February 2023, the applicant complained to the landlord because the landlord had not given her sufficient time to confirm her interest and it had not contacted her by telephone. She felt upset, frustrated, and unfairly treated, highlighting that she had been bidding on every available property in the area for almost 2 years. She felt that she had missed the opportunity to apply for the property.
  4. On 6 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised to the applicant. It advised that its minimum deadline for applicants to confirm interest is 24 hours and it agreed that it should have attempted to contact her by telephone also. It advised that the property she applied for was now available and allowed her until 8 March 2023 to confirm if she wishes to proceed with an application. It specified that the property was part of its intermediate and mid-market portfolio with eligibility requirements including a minimum annual income requirement of £25,500.
  5. On the same day the applicant escalated her complaint. She said that the advertisement did not clearly show that it was an intermediate property because it displayed the eligibility requirements at the bottom of the advert. The applicant felt that the landlord’s website should have been clearer on the type of property it was advertising because applicants had to be quick when registering interest due to the demand for social housing. She did not feel the landlord’s offer to consider an application for the property was appropriate because it could see from her account that it would not be affordable for her. As a resolution, she wanted to be considered for an available and suitable property.
  6. On 6 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It partially upheld the complaint because of the failure acknowledged at stage 1. It also agreed that it would recommend a review of how it advertises properties on its website. The landlord did not agree that its offer for the applicant to apply for the property was inappropriate because it would only verify her full income through the application process. It confirmed it could not provide her with an offer of a suitable property or provide advance notice of properties because it operated an open and transparent letting process.
  7. When the applicant brought her complaint to this Service, she remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that she missed out on a successful bid on a property because the landlord’s advertising was not clear on its website. As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted the landlord to offer her a suitable property. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The applicant remains unhappy because the landlord did not make it clear on its website advertisement, the type of property she applied for. The role of this Service is not to assess the quality of the landlord’s website or whether the content was sufficiently clear. Our role is to establish whether the landlord responded reasonably and fairly to the applicant’s reports that the website was unclear.

The landlord’s handling of the applicant’s housing application.

  1. The landlord has a lettings policy for intermediate and market rent properties. The rent for intermediate rent housing is set at a figure less than the full market rental rate to make properties affordable for residents with lower incomes. The policy sets out that it will advertise these properties using several methods including advertising on its website.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord accepted that it did not set a reasonable deadline for the applicant to confirm if she wished to proceed with an application and agreed that it should have also telephoned her to confirm her interest. It apologised for this service failure and confirmed it had addressed this error with its staff member. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. This is because it accepted its failings, apologised, and took action to reduce the likelihood of its failure reoccurring.
  3. The landlord called the applicant 3 days after it received the complaint and explained its lettings process. It confirmed that the property was still available, explained the eligibility requirements, and provided the applicant with an opportunity to confirm her interest. This was a reasonable step for the landlord to take to put the applicant in the same position she would have been in had it not made the error.
  4. When the applicant complained that the advertisement on its website was not clear, the landlord investigated the complaint appropriately. It noted that the information on eligibility requirement was displayed at the end of its advertisement but that it would consider reviewing its advertisements going forward to make the property type clearer. This was an appropriate complaint investigation and response by the landlord which demonstrates that it took the applicant’s feedback onboard to give consideration to improving its service. 
  5. The applicant was frustrated because she felt she missed out on a suitable property and wanted the landlord to offer her an alternative property. However, the landlord explained that it operates an open and transparent letting process and would not be appropriate to do so. This was a reasonable position for the landlord to take.
  6. This Service finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the applicant’s housing application. This is because when it identified a service failure it apologised to the applicant took steps to reduce the likelihood of the same service failure reoccurring.
  7. It also offered the applicant the opportunity to apply for the same property, and while the applicant advised that she would not meet the eligibility requirements, it was a reasonable offer in the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in this Service’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.