| Publishing organisation: | Housing Ombudsman Service |
| Topic: | Allocations, Regeneration |
| Determination: | No maladministration |
| Tenure: | Assured |
| Country of relevance: | England |
The complaint was about two transfers by the landlord, and in particular that it had misled the complainant about whether the moves were permanent and that the transfers were contrary to its transfer policy. A further complaint was made that appropriate recompense had not been received from the landlord for the moves.
The complainant’s property was situated within a redevelopment area. Under the terms of the redevelopment scheme tenants whose homes were due for demolition were entitled to one offer of accommodation once the redevelopment was complete.
First transfer
On 7 January 2005 the ceiling collapsed at the complainant’s home. Following inspection the landlord confirmed that given the property was scheduled for demolition under phase 2 of the redevelopment it was not cost effective to repair the ceiling. The complainant was moved to alternative accommodation as a management transfer.
The complainant was concerned that this move would result in him losing his entitlement to an offer of accommodation and a Home Loss payment, once the redevelopment was completed . When he signed the assured tenancy agreement for the alternative accommodation he noted that it was signed under duress. The landlord requested a Home Loss payment from the Local Authority, and although initially refused, this was paid to the complainant along with a Disturbance Payment in April 2005.
Following the move the Local Authority announced that residents that had been decanted from the redevelopment area would be entitled to a new build property back within the area once works were completed. The complainant therefore registered his claim which was accepted in May 2006. The complainant was allocated plot 14.
Second transfer
Then, in July 2006 the complainant applied to the landlord for a transfer. This was initially refused as there were arrears on his rent account, but shortly after he was given the opportunity to move to an address within the redevelopment area. He accepted this and moved in November 2006, even though the property was not in the exact location he desired. Prior to his move the complainant had reported damp in his new home and this was confirmed by the landlord in September 2006.
As a result of the move the offer of plot 14 was withdrawn as no applicant was entitled to two offers within the redevelopment area. The landlord did not inform the complainant of this, for which it apologised.
Determination
The Ombudsman found that the first move to alternative accommodation was by way of a management transfer which complied with the transfer policy. There was no evidence that the move was intended to be temporary.
Appropriate recompense was made by way of Home Loss payment and Disturbance payment. The second move was also permanent and arose as a result of the complainants transfer request. As a result there was no entitlement to a second Home Loss payment, however the landlord did meet a number of the complainants costs on moving.
There was no clear audit trail regarding how the second offer arose. In addition the complainant was in rent arrears and so under the terms of the transfer policy was not eligible for a transfer.
However, the landlord used its implicit discretion to offer the accommodation as a pragmatic solution. The property offered was a new build and generally, if not specifically, located in the area the complainant wanted. A recommendation was made that the landlord ensured accurate and contemporaneous record keeping in order to provide an audit trail of its decision making.