Archived analysis

This page is old. Housing.com was reviewed on 2026-02-14.

This is a historical, policy-only review. Policies, product behavior and source URLs may have changed since this analysis was published.

For current public evidence from website trackers, policy findings and proof samples, go to State of Privacy 2026.

Real Estate

Housing.com

Ready Score 42/100
Sushant Pasumarty
ANALYSIS SUPERVISED BY Sushant Pasumarty
πŸ“… 14 Feb 2026

Discuss this page with an LLM

Housing.com's property search data reveals income brackets, family stage, geographic preferences, and investment capacity β€” shared with dozens of broker partners. At 42/100, the platform's broadcast model to real estate agents creates DPDP consent issues similar to PolicyBazaar's insurance model.

How To Read This Analysis

This is an archived policy-only review of the company's public privacy policy. It is not a government certification and it is not legal advice.

For current public evidence from website trackers, policy findings and proof samples, see State of Privacy 2026.

We look for:

  • Notice and consent clarity
  • Purpose limitation
  • Data minimization
  • Retention and deletion language
  • Vendor and processor disclosures
  • Data Principal rights
  • Grievance redressal
  • Breach and security posture

Source Check

  • Source policy was reviewed for this archived analysis, but the old policy URL is not linked because public policy locations may have changed.
  • Date reviewed: 2026-02-14
  • Company: Housing.com
  • Readiness score: 42/100
  • Policies and product behavior may have changed since review
  • Whether the current source policy still matches this archived policy-only review
  • Whether app, web and product flows match the policy

What To Do With This

If your company has a similar data model, use this analysis as a warning map. Do not copy the score. Map your own data flow.

Ask internally:

  • Do we collect similar categories of personal data?
  • Do we share data with the same number or type of vendors?
  • Can users understand why their data is shared?
  • Can we prove deletion, retention and grievance workflows?
  • What evidence would we show if questioned?

If this analysis resembles your business model, the next step is not a better privacy-policy paragraph. It is a data map and gap analysis.

Book a DPDP readiness call

⚠️ Compliance Gaps

  • No DPDP Act 2023 reference
  • Property search data reveals income bracket and life stage
  • Location preferences shared with multiple broker partners
  • No data retention timelines for property search history
  • Data Protection Board not referenced
  • Broker data sharing creates uncontrolled data dissemination
  • Financial pre-qualification data handling undefined

βœ… Strengths

  • Property listing categories documented
  • Security measures described
  • Grievance officer designated

Overview

Housing.com is a leading Indian proptech platform connecting property seekers with brokers and developers. When users search for properties, they reveal some of their most personal financial and life-stage information: budget range (income indicator), property size (family composition), location preferences (lifestyle and community), and whether they’re renting or buying (financial status).

DPDP Readiness: Section-by-Section Analysis

Property search consent covers broad data sharing. When a user clicks β€œContact Agent” or submits an inquiry:

  • Name and phone number go to the broker/developer
  • Search history (budget, location, property type) may be accessible
  • Financial pre-qualification data (if submitted) goes to loan partners

DPDP concern: A single property inquiry sends your phone number and life-stage data to individual brokers who will call repeatedly. No granular consent.

Section 9 β€” Data Retention πŸ”΄

No retention for:

  • Property search patterns (2BHK in South Mumbai = specific income/lifestyle inference)
  • Broker inquiry data (how many brokers have your number now?)
  • Financial pre-qualification submissions
  • Wishlist and saved properties

Section 11 β€” Rights of Data Principal πŸ”΄

  • Can users force brokers to delete their contact information?
  • No mechanism to retract data from multiple agents who received it
  • No data portability
  • No nomination rights

Risk Assessment

CategoryRisk LevelPotential Impact
Broker data disseminationCriticalPhone numbers distributed to uncontrolled agents
Financial inferenceHighBudget searches reveal income
Life stage inferenceHighProperty type reveals family status
Data retentionHighSearch history indefinitely stored

Recommendations

  1. Implement broker data agreements β€” Require agents to delete data if user requests
  2. Mask phone numbers β€” Route communications through platform instead of sharing direct numbers
  3. Add search data retention limits β€” β€œProperty searches: 6 months; broker inquiries: 90 days after last interaction”
  4. Build inquiry transparency β€” Show users which brokers received their data

Fix these compliance gaps today.

Book 1:1 Consultation >
Book clarity call