Greenhill Housing Association (202325048)

Decision
Case ID	202325048
Decision type	Investigation
Member	Greenhill Housing Association
Member type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Applicant
Date	10 March 2026

Background

1. The complaint relates to a prospective housing application with a Private Registered Provider of Social Housing (PRPSH). For the purposes of this report, we have referred to the complainant as “the applicant”, and the PRPSH as “the member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme” (the member).
2. The local authority nominated the applicant to the member in September 2023, who invited him to view a one-bed flat. The applicant told it he was vulnerable to Covid-19 and asked questions about both Covid safety and the property in general, which he asked the member to answer before he could commit to the viewing. It said it could not meet his expectations so could not go ahead. The applicant complained as he said the member had failed to answer his questions and unreasonably withdrawn its potential viewing offer.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the member’s:
   1. Handling of the applicant’s queries and decision not to proceed with the viewing.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found service failure in:
   1. The member’s handling of the applicant’s queries and decision not to proceed with the viewing.
   2. The member’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to queries and viewing offer

5. The member did not consult with the applicant before deciding not to proceed with the viewing, and it failed to respond to his request that it reconsider its decision.

Complaint handling

6. The member did not recognise the applicant’s complaint in September 2023 and did not respond under its complaints procedure until we intervened.

Putting things right

7. Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the member to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

8. Members must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The member must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the member must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The member must pay the applicant £250, broken down as follows: £150 for its handling of the substantive matter. £100 for its complaint handling. It must pay this directly to the applicant and provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 08 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 to 26 September 2023	The member contacted the applicant to offer the viewing. He replied to say he was interested in the property and asked a range of questions, including queries about Covid safety measures. The applicant explained he could not accept or decline the viewing until the member provided satisfactory answers. It said it was unable to arrange a viewing after all, as it could not provide assurances about the risk of Covid transmission.
27 September 2023	The applicant complained as he said the member had not correctly understood or answered his questions. He asked it to look at these again and reinstate the viewing offer, if he was satisfied with the member’s answers.
3 October 2023	The member replied to the applicant in more detail, but it did not provide a stage 1 response.
2 July 2025	Following contact by the applicant, we asked the member to provide a response to his complaint.
24 September 2025	The member issued a stage 1 response, in which it set out its actions in 2023 and did not uphold the applicant’s complaint. He replied to say he was unhappy with its response and asked it for further explanations.
30 September 2025	The member issued its stage 2 response. It addressed the applicant’s points but ultimately repeated its position at stage 1.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The applicant asked us to investigate his complaint, as he remained dissatisfied with the member’s handling of the matter.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the member is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Viewing offer
Finding	Service failure

9. The member wrote to the applicant on 11 September 2023, inviting him to view a flat within a block which it owned and managed. Hesent follow-up questions throughout September which included requests for information about airfiltration systems, the layout of the property, and installing fixtures and fittings. The applicant explained he was vulnerable to Covid so his questions about air quality were crucial to whether he could view the flat.The applicant queried if the filtration system was of at least the same standard as that of the local public library.
10. The member discussed the applicant’s questions with its managers and concluded that it did not have such advanced ventilation systems. It wrote to him on 26 September 2023 to say it was unable to facilitate the viewing because it could not give assurances about the air quality or risk of Covid transmission.
11. Nothing we have seen shows that the member failed to meet its Covid safety obligations, or that it was required to have the technical knowledge to answer all the applicant’s questions. However, it did not explain why it could not answer each point, nor did it ask him whether he wanted to accept or decline the viewing in light of this.
12. The applicant replied to the member on 2 October 2023 to say he wanted to appeal its decision about the viewing, and he asked it to respond to his points immediately. It did so the next day when it confirmed the air filtration systems within the block, and it explained it did not have the means to provide some of the information he had requested. However, it did not address his request to potentially reinstate the viewing. The applicant complained about its actions the same day, but it did not respond.
13. Following our intervention, the member issued its stage 1 response on 24 September 2025. It referred to its email of October 2023 and said it was clear it could not have met the applicant’s requirements. He escalated his complaint as he said the member had misquoted him, such as referring to his “high level requirements” when he had not used this phrasing. The applicant said the member’s response was misleading as it had misrepresented his questions and reasons for asking them.
14. The member issued its stage 2 response on 30 September 2025. It clarified its wording, such as explaining that its use of the phrase “high level” was in the context of systems in public spaces, which it did not have in place within the block. The member did not change its position regarding its actions in 2023.
15. Whilst the member did answer the applicant’s questions about air filtration in its complaint response, the applicant had to chase for this. Its decision not to proceed with the viewing was premature and unreasonable, in the circumstance that it could have given the applicant the opportunity and choice to continue with the viewing, albeit without the full clarity he said he was seeking. The member did not identify or address this point in its responses, therefore it did not adequately resolve the applicant’s complaint.

 

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

 

16. The member’s complaints policy at the time defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of its service, actions, or lack of actions. This aligned with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) of 2022. The Code also stated that, if a member decides not to accept a complaint, it must give evidence of its reasoning.
17. The applicant emailed the member on 27 September 2023 to say he was unhappy with its actions. He titled the email subject “complaint”, and he quoted sections of the member’s complaints procedure. However, the member did not respond at stage 1 or explain why it would not accept the applicant’s complaint. It therefore failed to follow its own policy and the Code. The applicant referenced his “complaint” again in follow-up emails on 3, 10 and 17 October 2023, however the member did not respond to any of these.
18. The applicant subsequently requested our assistance with resolving his complaint, and we wrote to the member on 2 June 2025, asking it to provide a Code-compliant response. The member contacted us to request further clarification about its complaint handling obligations. Our response to the member was delayed, which contributed to the subsequent delay in the member issuing its complaint response. It issued its stage 2 response within a week of the applicant’s escalation request, within its policy timeframe of 20 working days. In the circumstances, the member handled the 2025 complaint as well as could be reasonably expected.
19. However, the member did not adequately handle the applicant’s original complaint of 2023, which caused him frustration and led to him seeking our assistance. Accordingly, we have made a compensation order of £100.

Learning

20. It is evident from the member’s questions to us that it did not consider that its complaints procedure applied either in 2023 or 2025, as it was not in a landlord and tenant relationship with the applicant. The member would benefit from reviewing its complaint handling in this case. This may help to ensure it recognises complaints and responds appropriately, and that applicants for a property can legitimately make complaints to the owning member.