Platform Housing Group Limited (202420806)

Decision
Case ID	202420806
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Platform Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 October 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom semi-detached house with his wife and stepson. The resident and his wife are disabled. He complained the landlord would not allow him to bid on a bungalow which had been restricted for allocation to residents aged over 55 years. He explained that the household has medical needs which would make a bungalow with a wet room suitable for them. He also stated that he knew of other people under the age of 55 living in similar bungalows, so he felt discriminated against.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to bid on alternative housing.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to bid on alternative housing.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the request to bid on alternative housing with age restrictions

5. The landlord appropriately recognised it had not followed the choice based letting policy correctly and changed internal procedures accordingly. It appropriately offered compensation for this. However, the landlord did not implement the necessary changes after the complaints process ended. This has resulted in the resident raising a further complaint.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was appropriate and in accordance with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 November 2025
2	Learning order The landlord must review, in writing, its handling of the resident’s request to bid on alternative housing. The review should identify points of learning to prevent similar failings happening again. It should review its training programme for its lettings policy and the choice based lettings policy and consider what additional training is required.	No later than 24 November 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £850 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response.
The landlord should contact the resident to ensure it holds accurate information about vulnerabilities in the household.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 April 2024	The resident expressed an interest in bidding for a bungalow. The landlord explained he would need to wait for the property to be advertised before he could bid.
9 May 2024	The resident attempted to bid on the bungalow but was unable to as there was no option for him to place a bid.
10 May 2024	The landlord informed the resident he would not be able to bid on the property because it was restricted to individuals aged 55 and over.
15 May 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s response. He stated that they had a medical need for a 2-bedroom bungalow with a wet room. He said that other residents on the street under the age of 55 were occupying other bungalows. As such, he felt the landlord was discriminating against him.
6 June 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said the council had transferred the bungalows to its stock for tenants over 55. While it accepted that some tenants under 55 had previously been considered for age-restricted properties, the requirements for these properties were now stricter. As such a property advertised for those over 55 would not be offered to him despite meeting his needs otherwise.
7 June 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He disagreed with the decision on the basis that others under 55 had been placed in bungalows. As a result, he felt the landlord was discriminating against him and his wife on the basis of their age.
2 July 2024	As a result of an internal investigation, the landlord noted it had not been working in line with the choice based letting’s policy. Rather it had been applying a blanket approach. As a result, it would be changing its procedures.
12 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it could let a property to someone under the specified age criteria to meet their needs. It confirmed he would be able to bid on age restricted properties with level access with such details reflected in the advert. It offered £850 compensation comprising of: £500 for failing to take his vulnerabilities into account. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
27 August 2024	The resident attempted to bid on a suitable property but was unable to and contacted the landlord.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us he was not happy as he later went to bid on a bungalow and the system did not allow him to place a bid. He ended up losing out on this property and has made another complaint to the landlord about this. He wants to be rehoused in a bungalow with a wet room.

 

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.

Complaint	The resident’s request to bid on alternative housing with age restrictions
Finding	Service failure

7. The landlord uses a “choice based lettings” housing register scheme where it advertises available homes to residents.
8. The landlord appropriately explained to the resident what the bidding process for a property involved. The resident stated he and his wife had been working with an occupational therapist (OT) in relation to his disability needs. However, it is unclear if there is an OT assessment or whether this was provided to the landlord.
9. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s concerns that he had been unable to place a bid. However, the information it provided at that time and in its stage 1 response was incorrect. It was only because the resident escalated his complaint, that the landlord carried out a more thorough investigation into the matter. The resident was caused further distress and inconvenience as a result, and this could reasonably have been avoided if the landlord had given his complaint thorough consideration at the outset. The landlord’s initial response also led the resident to believe that he and his wife had been discriminated against. This belief and the associated distress was a direct result of the error by the landlord.
10. The landlord’s choice based lettings policy sets out that a property with an “age-designation” may be let to someone under the specified age to meet their medical, disability or support needs. When the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2, it appropriately recognised that it was not following the policy and communicated this to its empty properties team. It also outlined a new procedure internally. This was appropriate. The landlord’s offer of £850 compensation was also proportionate to the identified failings and was broadly in line with our guidance on remedies and what we would have ordered for similar failings.
11. However, after the stage 2 response the resident attempted to bid for a suitable property, but he was not able to do so. This prompted him to make a further complaint in February 2025. The landlord issued a stage 1 response in respect of this complaint on 11 March 2025. Within this, it accepted it did not lift the restriction on the advertisement in question. It offered a total of £400 compensation, £200 of this related to the distress and inconvenience caused by the failure to lift the restriction. The remaining £200 was for customer service related matters. The resident has indicated that he was happy with the amount offered.
12. As the resident has not indicated dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response to the second complaint, and did not escalate this further, we have not assessed the action taken by the landlord. However, we have considered the events as a whole and that the landlord failed to take appropriate measures after the resident’s initial complaint, to ensure that the relevant restrictions were lifted. In other words, it failed to apply its learning from the initial complaint. As a result, the resident was caused further inconvenience. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and made a corresponding learning order for the landlord.

Complaint	The complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

13. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the April 2024 edition. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
14. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in 5 working days. It provided its stage 1 response in 10 working days on 6 June 2024. This was in line with the Code and its policy. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request in 5 working days. It provided its stage 2 response in 20 working days on 12 July 2024. This was also in line with the Code and its policy. As a result, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Learning

15. It was positive that the landlord sought to learn from its error by communicating this with the relevant department and by outlining a correct procedure to follow in the future. However, the steps taken did not go far enough to rectify the issue at that stage.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. The landlord’s record keeping was mostly accurate. However, we have noted that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. As a result, we have made a recommendation above.

Communication

17. The landlord’s communication throughout the complaint was timely.