Platform Housing Group Limited (202450900)

Decision
Case ID	202450900
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Platform Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 November 2025

Background

In September 2024 the resident told the landlord they wanted to move to a property that had become available next door to one of their family. They said they suffered with their mental health and this was being made worse by their current property. They were also concerned their ex-partner was due to be released from prison and knew where they lived. The landlord considered the request under its managed move process. In December 2024 it declined the resident’s request for a move.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s managed move request.
2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s managed move request.
2. There was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s managed move request

The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s request. It provided clear explanations about why it had declined the request. It advised the resident about their options if they still wanted to move to a different property.

Complaint handling

The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its policy and procedures.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 January 2025	The resident made their complaint. They were unhappy the landlord had declined their request for a managed move. They asked the landlord to look at their case again.
30 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It had opened a Request to Move case on 22 September 2024. It explained to the resident the local council managed the lettings for all the landlord’s properties. This meant the resident would need to apply to the council’s housing register and be allocated a banding level. It could, in exceptional circumstances, carry out a managed move. However, there was insufficient evidence to show the resident’s situation met the criteria for a move. The property the resident had asked to move to was less than a mile from their current home. It did not consider moving such a short distance would safeguard the resident from their ex-partner. It was aware the council had assessed the resident’s application and allocated them to Band E (the lowest priority band). It advised the resident to ensure they had given the council all relevant evidence to support their application.
3 February 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the process. They remained unhappy the landlord had refused their move request. They said the landlord had not considered their mental health vulnerabilities. They also felt the landlord had not explained how else it could support them in moving to alternative accommodation.
11 March 2025	The landlord issued its final response. It repeated that the local council managed the lettings for all its properties. It said: The resident had told it the council was aware of their health conditions. The council had considered this information and assessed the resident as having a low priority need to move. It had reviewed the resident’s circumstances as part of the managed move request. It did not consider their circumstances were exceptional or different to what the council had considered when assessing the resident’s housing need. It advised the resident to contact the council to discuss their housing need. It also signposted the resident to information about moving home through a mutual exchange.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because they remained unhappy the landlord had refused their managed move request.

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 the resident’s managed move request
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s letting policy confirms its properties are allocated by local councils. Its managed move policy allows it to move a resident where there is an exceptionally urgent housing need. The policy makes it clear the landlord will only consider a managed move when all other options have been explored.
The evidence shows the landlord considered the resident’s request in line with its managed move policy. It was appropriate for it to have advised the resident they would need to initially apply to their local council’s housing register. Before making its decision, the landlord obtained information about the resident’s circumstances and their reasons for wanting to move. It also carried out an inspection of their property. There is no evidence it failed to obtain or consider any information that would have been relevant to its decision.
The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request was one it was entitled to make under its managed move policy. It provided the resident with clear explanations about why it had declined their request.
The landlord gave the resident appropriate advice about their options if they wanted to continue looking for alternative accommodation. The council would be the correct body to advise the resident about the lettings and allocation process. This would include answering any concerns or queries about their housing need (including their banding level).
The evidence shows the landlord acted reasonably and fairly in its handling of the resident’s request. For these reasons, we find there was no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. If it needs extra time, at either stage, it will agree this with the resident. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints within its stated timescale. At stage 1 it agreed an extension of an additional day to provide its response. It provided its stage 1 response within this agreed timescale. It provided its final response within the timescale stated in its policy.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord kept appropriate records about its contact with the resident and the decisions it made in this case. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s communication.