Places for People Group Limited (202419222)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419222

Origin Housing Limited

8 August 2025

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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s request to be rehoused.
   2. the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord of a 2-bedroom property. The resident shares the property with her partner and 5 children. The resident has an advocate acting on her behalf. For ease of reading, the resident and the advocate will both be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
3. The resident raised a complaint on 18 August 2023 about:
   1. her home being overcrowded.
   2. damp and mould in the property.
   3. the condition of the windows and radiators.
4. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 18 September 2023 in which it said:
   1. the resident’s home was overcrowded which can lead to can lead to damp and mould issues.
   2. the resident’s housing transfer application had been completed, and it was waiting for this to be authorised by a supervisor.
   3. a surveyor had inspected the property and identified various works required, including a full bathroom replacement, which would commence on 28 September 2023.
   4. it identified a failing as the repairs should have been completed sooner. It offered £300 compensation in recognition of this.
5. The resident raised a new complaint on 22 April 2024, in which she said the landlord had failed to implement the findings of its stage 1 complaint response, dated 18 September 2023.
6. The landlord issued a new stage 1 complaint response on 29 May 2024, in which it said:
   1. it had completed the works, including bathroom replacement on 29 September 2023.
   2. the resident was awarded band B priority for overcrowding, which was the highest band it could award her and it was unable to advise when a suitable property would be available.
   3. priority is given based on the priority bandings and time spent on the transfer list.
   4. it had a high number of applicants waiting to move and the particular area was in high demand.
   5. it had not identified any service failures.
7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 4 September 2024. She said that the stage 1 response did not address the issue of rehousing and that the landlord had deliberately misled her by stating it would rehouse her family.
8. The landlord responded to the resident on 13 September 2024 and said:
   1. it had applied the lettings policy correctly, and so there was no need to conduct an investigation at stage 2 of the complaints process.
   2. the resident’s application for a transfer remained at band B and she was 14th on its waiting list for a 4-bedroom property, which suggested there would be a very long wait.
   3. it encouraged her to explore other housing options.
9. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 September 2024 and stated that the landlord had failed to comply with its findings at stage 1. On 21 November 2024, the resident said that the landlord had promised to rehouse her, and that it should do so immediately.
10. On 31 July 2025, the resident told the Ombudsman that the housing situation was affecting her and her family’s mental health. The resident said that the landlord was intentionally refusing to rehouse her and that it should move her family to adequate accommodation as soon as possible.

Assessment and findings

Scope

11. The resident stated that she wished to be moved to a different property due to overcrowding. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s reasons for wanting to move. However, we are unable to order the landlord to do this. The way the landlord allocates its social housing is governed by its statutory obligations and its allocation policy which determines the priority of applicants on its waiting lists. The landlord can only offer properties based on the availability of suitable properties and taking into account other applicants who may have an even more urgent need to be moved. The Ombudsman is unable to make orders that could cause an adverse impact on other individuals who may have higher priority than the resident for the landlord’s properties. However, we can look at how the landlord has handled the resident’s transfer application, considering whether the landlord followed proper procedure and good practice, and whether it acted in a reasonable way.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

12. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states that it allows residents to register to move on its internal transfer list. It will work with residents to support them to explore other housing options and work with local authorities to support applications to their registers. It can support residents to obtain a priority rating for urgent moves.
13. The landlord has a priority banding system relating to its internal management transfer process. It awards priority in bands A to C. Band B will be awarded in circumstances where a property is overcrowded and the resident is lacking 2 or more bedrooms. The policy says that if a customer’s circumstances meet the criteria for priority banding, they will be considered as eligible to be added to the internal transfer list.
14. A landlord’s role is to ensure a transfer application is assessed accurately and the correct banding awarded. It would be expected to provide support to a tenant when requested, ensuring that it is clear and transparent with the information it provides. It is also helpful for landlords to manage expectations around sourcing a suitable property. Housing stocks are usually severely limited and therefore it is good practice for landlords to provide other rehousing options so that a tenant is fully informed of how best to facilitate a move, such as a mutual exchange or joining the local authority’s housing list.
15. The resident currently lives in a 2-bedroom property and requires a 4-bedroom property. The landlord’s decision to award the resident band B was therefore in line with its allocations and lettings policy.
16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that band B was the highest band it could award her and that it was unable to advise when a suitable property would become available. The landlord appropriately explained how it allocates housing and made efforts to manage the resident’s expectations due to the high demand for properties. It highlighted that this may not have been explained to her within its September 2023 stage 1 response and offered an apology. The landlord recommended that she explored pursuing a mutual exchange.
17. In its 13 September 2024 email to the resident, the landlord explained that there was a national housing crisis and that there is not enough housing to meet demand. It encouraged the resident to explore other rehousing options including bidding via the local authority’s housing register, seeking mutual exchange and looking at options in the intermediate rent and private rented sector. The landlord acted appropriately by offering advice about alternative options. However, there is no indication that it had provided advice regarding the local authority’s’ housing register prior to this date, which indicates a shortcoming by the landlord. The landlord ought to have provided this advice sooner.
18. The Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s living situation and does not dispute that her property is overcrowded. However, the evidence supports that the landlord acted in line with its allocations and lettings policy. There is nothing in the evidence provided to indicate that the ongoing wait for a suitable property is due to anything more than the lack of availability of such a property.
19. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy does not specify any timescales for management transfers. The landlord has limited control over the availability of properties, which is broadly based on the rate at which current occupants vacate them. Overall, the duration of the resident’s wait time for rehousing does not evidence a failure by the landlord, and the landlord has provided appropriate advice to the resident on other options for rehousing.
20. It is unclear whether the landlord has provided any recent update to the resident on her current position in its internal transfer waiting list. We have therefore made a recommendation below for the landlord to update the resident and establish whether she requires support to register on the local authority’s housing register.

The landlord’s complaint handling

21. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that if all or part of a complaint is not resolved to a customer’s satisfaction at stage 1, it will be progressed to stage 2 of its complaints process. It states that it will not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint to stage 2 and that it will give careful consideration to determine whether a request warrants a review at stage 2 of its process. The policy says that the landlord will not usually escalate a complaint to stage 2 if it followed its own policies and procedures correctly and all the points of the complaint were addressed at stage 1.
22. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that landlords must not refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure unless it has valid reasons to do so. Landlords must clearly set out these reasons.
23. The resident raised a new complaint on 22 April 2024 about her request to be rehoused and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 May 2024. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 4 September 2024. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 September 2024 and stated it had applied its lettings policy correctly, and it saw no need to conduct another investigation at stage 2. The landlord gave further advice to the resident about her rehousing options.
24. The landlord’s reasoning for not escalating the complaint was in accordance with its complaints policy. The landlord offered further advice to the resident about her options for rehousing in September 2024. As such, there is no indication that the landlord’s decision not to escalate the complaint caused any detriment to the resident and we have therefore made a finding of no maladministration regarding its complaint handling.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

27. It is recommended that the landlord provides an update to the resident on her current position on the internal transfer waiting list for a 4-bedroom property if it has not already done so and establish whether she requires any support to register on the local authority’s housing register.