Hackney Council (202119792)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119792

Hackney Council

25 May 2023

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 decision not to award a home loss payment.

Background

2. The resident held a secure tenancy agreement with the landlord which is a local authority.
3. The property is a two bedroomed flat on a housing estate undergoing regeneration.Regeneration refers to large scale works in an area to replace old homes with modern homes and infrastructure.
4. The resident was scheduled to be decanted into a new home under the regeneration programme in 2026.
5. In 2018, the resident’s elderly father joined the household, and the accommodation was no longer suitable for the family on medical and overcrowding grounds.
6. The resident joined the local authority housing register and successfully bid for a three bedroomed house. On 29 August 2021, the resident moved into the new property and contacted the landlord the following week to request a statutory home loss payment. The landlord declined to award the payment.
7. The resident complained under stage one of the landlord’s complaint process and the complaint was not upheld. The landlord’s position was the resident did not move because of the regeneration scheme but made separate arrangements to move on the grounds of medical priority and overcrowding.
8. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The landlord’s final response was to confirm its decision not to award a home loss payment.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

10. The conditions for payment of home loss are set out in Section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Home loss payment is only payable where a displacement is compulsory.
11. The landlord’s regeneration schedule indicates the resident was due to be decanted under a decant arrangement during 2026. However, the resident’s circumstances changed in March 2018 and the resident independently secured accommodation through the local authority housing register.
12. The resident’s housing register application was given priority on medical grounds and overcrowding. This was because of the resident’s father moving into the property. The resident did not have decant status at the time of application in 2018 or at the time of the move in 2021.On 14 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and advised she had to “take action… and look for a suitable accommodation with regards to medical needs”. This move was initiated by the resident and therefore was not a compulsory move.
13. The documents provided to this Service demonstrate the resident was not eligible for a statutory home loss payment at the time of the housing application and was not eligible at the time of the move. Accordingly, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to award a home loss payment.

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision not to award a home loss payment.