London Borough of Hackney (202315092)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315092

London Borough of Hackney

18 August 2025

 

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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s rehousing request.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 2-bedroom flat. She lives there with her child who was of school-age at the time of the complaint.
  2. On 31 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to ask for a copy of an application for a home transfer. She said she completed this with the landlord in October 2022. She said she had requested the transfer so that her daughter could move schools, before the 2024 school year began. The transfer request was to move out of the area the resident was residing in.
  3. On 7 February 2023 the landlord responded to say that it could not print the application due to the format that it was in. However, it said it could write a letter which confirmed the resident had made an application for a home transfer, which the resident could show to prospective schools.
  4. On 11 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord again for proof of the transfer application. The landlord responded on the same day to apologise and advised that it had been unable to trace the resident’s application. It requested the resident come in to do a new application. The resident raised a complaint on 16 May 2023. She advised she was unhappy as she had made the application well in advance, to ensure her and her daughter could move in time for the 2024 school year. She said that the delay may mean this was now not possible. She said that despite requests, the landlord never provided proof of her application.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 of the complaints process on 16 June 2023. It said that there had been a miscommunication between the resident and the housing officer. It said that the application was originally made on the grounds that the resident was experiencing anti-social behaviour (ASB) from a neighbour, and that the housing officer was waiting on proof before submitting the application. It further said that it was unable to transfer the resident out of the area and that any application would only be in its local authority area. It said the housing officer had advised the resident of this at that time.
  6. The resident responded to the stage 2 response on 16 June 2023 to say that she was unhappy. She said the information in the response was incorrect. She said that the landlord told her to provide evidence of ASB if she wanted to speed the application up, but that this was not a condition of the application. She said it had always been clear that the move was to another area, and the landlord had informed her that by completing a transfer, she could keep her right to buy. She said she had lost 7 months on a transfer waiting list due to the error.
  7. On 10 November 2023, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to request a stage 2 response. The stage 2 response was issued 12 December 20223. It said that due to a lack of evidence, it could not determine any fault on its part in its handling of the transfer request. However, it found fault with the complaint handling, and its record keeping, which it had fed back to the relevant departments. The landlord offered £500 compensation for the complaint handling.
  8. The resident has since said that she did not move, due to the time lost on the waiting list. She advised this had a significant impact on her and her daughter’ s schooling.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.

  1. We have not been provided any evidence regarding the meeting between the resident and the Housing Officer in October 2022. Neither party has disputed that this meeting occurred, however, there is conflicting information regarding what was discussed at this meeting. The landlord said it was awaiting information regarding ASB before processing the application, and the resident has said she believed she spent 2 hours completing the application at that time. Although there are no records from the meeting, the resident emailed on 4 February 2023 asking for proof of the application. The landlord responded on 7 February 2023 and advised that the application was done via google form. This suggests that an application was made, which is contradictory to the complaint’s responses.
  2. The landlord and resident have given different accounts regarding information that was provided to the resident regarding the kind of transfer the application was for. The landlord said that it could not transfer a resident out of its area, however the resident understood that the transfer was to move to a different location. We would expect the landlord to have clearly communicated what the application was for at the time of making it, however, due to a lack of evidence the Ombudsman cannot determine what information the resident was given.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 March 2023, and it is clear from this email that the resident was discussing moving to a different local authority. She said that the new local authority could not source her application and asked her own landlord where this could be located. It was clear in this email that the resident understood that her application was to move local authorities. The landlord responded on 3 April 2023 and said that the application it had made was within the council, and it was likely the new local authority was referring to other rehousing opportunities the resident could source. While the landlord has said that any application it made would be for a move within its own property database, the landlord could have provided clearer advice on how the resident could look for properties, if she wished to move out of the area.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord again on 4 April 2023 and stated that she believed the landlord was passing her information on to another local authority. She reiterated that this was so her daughter could move schools at an appropriate time in her education. The landlord responded on 17 April 2023 providing a link to a home transfer database the resident could use. However it may have been beneficial if it had reiterated that it could not make the application for the resident, if the application was for a different local authority. Better communication may have ensured the resident understood what application the council could complete, and which application the resident needed to do herself.
  5. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 May 2023 to say that it had lost the application. While the Ombudsman understands that administrative errors can happen, the resident had been asking for proof of application since February 2023. There was a significant delay in the landlord realising the application had been lost, and there was no evidence to prove that it had been processed initially. Further the complaint’s responses suggested it was not sent initially due to waiting on more information from the resident. The landlord should have acted sooner, and had it communicated quicker and more effectively with the resident, there may have been less frustration caused to her.
  6. On 18 May 2023 the landlord advised the resident that she had been added to a waiting list for the housing register, and that she would receive a link to join this within 12 to 15 weeks. The resident was unhappy with the time this would take, given the delay she had already had. The landlord advised that she would not be affected, as the date would be backdated. It may have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether there was anything it could do to expedite her application, given the earlier delays. However, the Ombudsman is unable to say if this would have been possible. We are also unable to say whether expediting the application would have resulted in faster rehousing, due to social housing availability.
  7. On 8 June 2023 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the information it provided. She said she had always told it she did not want to lose her right to buy, and that the landlord did not tell her that she would lose her right to buy if she moved to a new landlord. We have not seen detailed records of conversations between the parties and cannot assess when the resident first raised her concerns regarding this, or what the landlord’s response was.
  8. The stage 2 response found fault with the landlord’s record keeping. This was specific to conversations and meetings with the resident and records of what had advice it had given. The landlord said it had provided feedback to the relevant departments, which is positive. However, the Ombudsman has seen evidence in which the landlord’s communication has been unclear, or misleading. Based on the landlord’s response, we also consider that it did not process the application initially, and that the landlord had opportunities to rectify this matter earlier. The delay is likely to have caused frustration to the resident and led to her concern that this delayed a potential move.
  9. Whilst Ombudsman recognises the frustration the resident felt, we note that there is high demand for social housing. Applications to move to new homes are prioritised on a number of factors. We are therefore unable to determine that, had the landlord processed the application in October 2022, the resident would have secured a property in her desired area, in the desired timeframe.
  10. The Ombudsman considers there to be maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s housing request, due to there being more than one failing, which the landlord did not recognise in its complaints process. We have considered the impact on the resident in line with our remedies guidance. We are unable to determine any permanent impact, as we cannot say if or when the resident would have been rehoused. However, we recognise that there was distress and inconvenience to the resident. We consider an award of £200 compensation to be appropriate, and in line with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It took 19 working days which is slightly outside this timescale.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It took 127 working days which was significantly outside the timescales.
  3. The resident chased the stage 2 response on a number of occasions and eventually asked the Ombudsman to become involved. This resulted in the landlord responding. It is likely to have caused frustration to the resident, that she was unable to get a response to her complaint.
  4. While there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged these in its stage 2 response. It said it did not recognise the resident’s escalation request early enough, and that it took too long to respond. It offered £500 compensation. The Ombudsman would likely have awarded less compensation for the failings identified, and as such we consider that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  5. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord has made this payment to the resident already.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by its handling of the resident’s rehousing request. It must provide evidence to the Ombudsman of this payment.