Ombudsman Case Digests

Ms W complained about her landlord’s decision that she was not eligible for a Home Loss Payment. She also complained about its handling of her complaint about this.

Ms W had complained to the Ombudsman previously in 2007, it determined then that the landlord had failed to:

properly follow its policies and procedures covering decants, allocations and tenant consultation in attempting to modernise Ms W’s home; and
properly deal with her complaints.

Findings of maladministration were made in relation to both complaints and a number of orders issued, including payment of £300 compensation and the carrying out of a risk assessment in relation to modernisation work at her home. The Ombudsman also arranged mediation between the parties and the subsequent agreement included an undertaking to seek legal advice in relation Home Loss payments and a proposed decant.

The substantive complaint was determined to be outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 13 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme: "13 - the Ombudsman will consider complaints about the actions or omissions of a member landlord. The person complaining…must have been adversely affected by those actions of omissions, in respect of their occupation of property, or the delivery of services to them, or in the course of any transaction with the member landlord."

At the time Ms W made her complaint she and the landlord were discussing a hypothetical situation, i.e. whether she should receive a Home Loss payment when she moved. Consequently there could be no adverse effect from something that had not, and may never have occurred. However, as Ms W had since moved the Ombudsman exercised his discretion and considered the current situation as part of his investigation of the landlord’s complaint handling.

When the landlord started a modernisation programme in 2002 Ms W had been on the transfer list for approximately 4 years. In June 2007 the landlord agreed that she could move out during these works on medical grounds. Initially this was apparently planned as a permanent transfer to a two-bedroom flat in the same property; this move would warrant making a disturbance payment to Ms W and she accepted this proposal in September 2007. However, the landlord subsequently offered her a temporary decant to one-bedroom accommodation followed by a return to her original property. Ms W declined the second offer because she did not wish to move twice, first for the works and then again once her transfer came through.

The complaint panel of July 2008 concluded that the central issue was why Ms W was moving; whether the permanent move was a result of the works or of her transfer request. It concluded that it was the latter and taken legal advice. Based on that the panel decided that under the Land Compensation Act 1973 Ms W was not entitled to a Home Loss payment, and confirmed that under that section the landlord had no power to make a discretionary payment.

Determination

The complaint was solely concerned with Ms W’s eligibility for a Home Loss payment and Ms W’s situation did not meet the relevant criteria; it would have been inappropriate for the landlord to make a payment under the scheme.

It took the landlord five months to arrange the panel hearing of Ms W’s complaint, and it was unclear what contact the parties had between her request of February 2008 and the hearing of 14 July 2008. In light of our previous finding of maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of Ms W’s complaints this was of concern to the Ombudsman. In response to our enquiries the landlord provided evidence such as emails and phone records and this demonstrated not only that there had been communication but explained the reason for the delay.

Although Ms W was also concerned about the involvement of the panel chair and chief executive because of their previous involvement in the complaint we found that it was reasonable for both to contribute. The chief executive’s role at the panel was to ‘make a statement on behalf of’ the landlord and there was no evidence that he did anything other than that or played any role in the panel’s decision-making. Equally the panel chair was a solicitor who specialised in social housing law. We considered it appropriate that the landlord had asked if he "...could add anything to what was said by our solicitors on the question of discretionary payments....". We also noted that the request had been made six months before the panel, a sufficient time to establish an appropriate distance between the request and the panel. Nonetheless, in the interests of transparency and fairness - perceived and otherwise - it would have been appropriate to acknowledge and address any previous contact either before or during the Panel hearing.

Complaint reference 01923 - Allocations, Complaint handling, Regeneration

Determination