Cottsway Housing Association Limited (202347716)

Decision
Case ID	202347716
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Cottsway Housing Association Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Applicant
Date	18 November 2025

Background

1. The applicant wanted to move into a 2-bedroom property advertised by the landlord. She did not have any adaptation requirements at the time. Prior to April 2024 the property was not advertised by the landlord for people with mobility needs and adaptations. However, when she first viewed the property in March 2024 it became apparent the property had aids and adaptations, leading to her complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The applicant’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of its property allocation process.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of its property allocation process.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of its property allocation process

6. The landlord acknowledged some of its errors and demonstrated it learnt from outcomes. While it offered a remedy to recognise the impact caused to the applicant, it was not proportionate to all the events. There was a lack of transparent communication with her. It did not provide its position on how the allocation of an unsuitable property happened.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy. Its offer of £50 for failing to escalate the applicant’s complaint to stage 2 was not enough to put things right. She experienced significant time, trouble, and inconvenience during the landlord’s complaints procedure.

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 applicant 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 16 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the applicant £500 in compensation made up as follows: £350 (inclusive of the £250 previously awarded) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of its property allocation process. £150 (inclusive of the £50 previously awarded) to recognise the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the applicant by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 December 2025

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 March 2024	The applicant complained via the landlord’s webchat that it had provided poor communication about moving into a property. She said: She was given an expected move in date between 15 and 20 March 2024 but had not heard anything from it. She had complained 2 times since confirming she wanted the property on 9 December 2023.
20 March 2024	The landlord told the applicant: That it could not give accurate dates for when a property was ready to let. Estimated handover timescales for new build properties were outside its control. Its staff would keep her informed via fortnightly updates. Once references and budget checks were approved, it would let her know about next steps, but the property handover was imminent. If she wished to escalate her complaint, for her to explain why and what she wanted as a resolution. She replied to it on the same day and said: She chased it 3 times before getting this response. She was given 3 days’ notice to move in January 2024 which was extended by it for another week, then extended until March 2024. That she had been “living out of boxes” since January 2024 due to the delays and poor communication by it.
22 March 2024	Both parties viewed the property and found it to have adaptations for disabled and wheelchair users. The applicant was told by the landlord that she would not be able to proceed with signing up for the property due to this reason. It called her later that day to apologise and that it would be looking at the property advertisement to find out what went wrong. It would contact the local council to help support her.
Between 27 March 2024 and 12 April 2024	On 27 March 2024 the applicant emailed the landlord asking if anything could be done to find her a suitable property. It then spoke to her by phone call on 12 April 2024 and apologised it could not offer her a property. It said there was a failure in its service and wanted to offer £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
17 April 2024	The applicant emailed the landlord to escalate her complaint. She believed the £250 in compensation offered by it was “unacceptable” due to her experience in the past 4 months. She wanted a new property, increased compensation, a written apology for all of its errors. She also told it she had contacted us.
24 April 2024	The landlord sent its written stage 1 complaint response to the applicant and: Apologised for the confusion caused in January 2024 by telling her that the property was ready to let at that stage. It had since discussed this with the staff members involved. Reiterated that it apologised from 22 March 2024, and that it would not let her sign up for the property. It had advised her then to let her housing provider know what had happened, so her tenancy termination notice could be rescinded. Said it would contact the local council to see if they would offer her additional support. The advice from the council at the time was to re-submit a new housing application to them.  Reiterated its offer of £250 as a gesture of goodwill.
13 May 2024	The landlord told the applicant it had allocated the property to someone else via the local council’s nomination form. Therefore, it could not reconsider her for the property.
Between 11 September 2024 and 5 November 2024	On 11 September 2024 we got in touch with the landlord on behalf of the applicant, as she had not received a stage 2 complaint response. By 5 November 2024 we had asked it to issue its stage 2 complaint response.
12 November 2024	The landlord sent the applicant its stage 2 complaint response on this date and said: That it recognised the property being unsuitable for her and her son on the day of sign up was “challenging”. It was aware she had been provided a new property by the local council. That it had no alternative properties in the area to offer her. It would not have agreed to give her the property she viewed in March 2024 as it was for physically vulnerable residents. Her request to escalate the complaint was marked as resolved by it in error, and it offered £50 for its complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 13 November 2024 the applicant told us to investigate her concerns because she believed the level of compensation offered by the landlord was insufficient. She wanted more compensation due to the distress caused.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 landlord’s handling of its property allocation process
Finding	Service failure

8. The landlord confirmed to us that the property is part of its own housing stock. The property was a new build and was made with adaptations. It is reasonable for the landlord to have knowledge of the type of properties in its housing stock.
9. The landlord’s lettings policy states it will work with the local council to allocate adapted properties to people with those needs. The properties will be advertised as such.
10. As above, the property was initially advertised as a property without adaptations. Both parties were unaware that it was an adapted property until 22 March 2024, and the landlord accepted the property was not initially advertised with adaptations. This evidenced that the landlord did not have accurate and complete records about its stock of properties. It should have reasonably known from the outset that this was an adapted property, which would have avoided the detriment caused to the applicant. This was inappropriate. However, we note it later acknowledged it had provided an unsuitable property and the confusion this had caused.
11. In addition, there was a delay to the expected move in date. The evidence shows that the applicant experienced inconvenience from 16 January 2024 when she began arranging her move and tried to cancel her internet at her former address. The landlord subsequently delayed the move in date several times, without providing clear communications as to why. This was a missed opportunity to manage her expectations and avoid further distress.
12. However, during the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it acknowledged the inconvenience caused and its poor communication between January 2024 and April 2024. It also identified learning by speaking to the staff involved and it had reviewed its processes. It said it aimed to input information on its void property form accurately.
13. We note that the landlord’s lettings policy allows for it to refuse applicants, and in such circumstances, it would explain why. While it was frustrating that it transpired that the property was adapted and therefore unsuitable, the evidence showed the landlord reasonably communicated its reasons for refusal to the applicant on 22 March 2024 and subsequently in its complaint responses. However, it is clear the applicant experienced avoidable distress and inconvenience between 16 January 2024 and 12 April 2024.
14. In summary, the landlord should have reasonably known its portfolio of properties and could have avoided mismanaging the resident’s expectations. In its formal responses, it sought to put things right and offered £250 in compensation. It also said that it had learnt from the outcomes of this case. However, while the landlord acknowledged the property was unsuitable, it was not transparent and did not set out its position on how the error happened. Additionally, the total it offered was not proportionate to the near 4 months of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. We have therefore awarded an additional £100 in recognition of this, in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

15. The landlord updated its complaints policy to have a 2-stage process in March 2024. Prior to that it had a ‘feedback stage’ (like a stage 0) before stage 1 of its complaints procedure, where it aimed to respond in 2 working days. Also, before March 2024 it aimed to respond in 8 working days at stage 1 and 5 working days at stage 2.
16. In its updated complaints policy, it aims to respond at stage 1 in 10 working days from complaint acknowledgment. At stage 2 it aims to respond in 20 working days from acknowledgement of the complaint escalation. This is now in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The evidence showed the applicant first complained about lack of communication from the landlord about its allocation process on 17 January 2024. The applicant submitted her complaint again the following day adding that her potential tenancy start date was delayed until March 2024. These complaints were responded to in line with the landlord’s ‘feedback stage’ targets.
18. The applicant escalated her complaint to stage 1 on 22 March 2024. The landlord failed to acknowledge the complaint at stage 1, it should have done so by 1 April 2024. While it called the applicant to respond to the complaint on 12 April 2024, it did not explain its complaints process to her until its written stage 1 response of 22 April 2024. Ultimately, it did not follow its complaints policy, and the response was 5 working days over target. These errors were not identified by it during its investigation.
19. Additionally, the applicant had asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 prior to the landlord issuing the written copy of its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord should have acknowledged the applicant’s escalation by 24 April 2024 or explained the next steps to her. It was inappropriate the landlord did not escalate the complaint until our intervention in November 2024. It is clear the applicant expended time and trouble during her complaint journey.
20. It was positive that the landlord provided its position as to why it failed to escalate the applicant’s complaint. However, the landlord’s offer of £50 was not proportionate to the circumstances of this case. There were inappropriate delays at stage 1 and nearly 7 months of delays at stage 2 which protracted the applicant’s complaint journey. Under our remedies guidance, we have considered £150 in compensation is reflective of the time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced by her.

Learning

Communication and knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management recommends that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. Knows its products, services, and residents well.
    2. Ensure databases are capable of adequately capturing information about homes.
    3. Ensure databases are easy to interrogate, and that the data can be extracted and used.
22. Had the landlord considered the above recommendations, it may have mitigated the applicant’s dissatisfaction and detriment caused.
23. In this case the landlord’s communication and adherence to its complaints policy was poor. It was positive that the landlord updated its complaints policy to be in line with the  Code. This is statutory and says a complaints process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances and the landlord has removed its feedback stage.