We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Hackney (202304210)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304210

London Borough of Hackney

31 July 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time taken to relocate her via its right to return scheme (RTR).
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. Her current property is a 3-bedroom maisonette. The household comprises 2 adults and 5 children. The resident informed this Service and her landlord that she has an anxiety disorder and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In addition, her eldest daughter has autism spectrum disorder and sensory needs. At the time of the resident’s complaint, her other daughter was also awaiting an assessment for autism spectrum disorder.
  2. In 2010 the resident was decanted from her original property as part of an estate regeneration programme. The programme was due to be completed by the end of 2026 but faced considerable delays. Residents who requested the RTR were temporarily housed in existing Council stock until the new blocks were completed. Residents who did not want RTR were assisted in bidding for an alternative property in their preferred area via the Council’s Choice Based Lettings (CBL) initiative. The evidence shows that the resident chose to pursue her RTR, as a result she was awarded a home loss payment of £4,700.
  3. At the time of the decant the resident was placed in a property which met her needs. The evidence shows that since the decant the resident’s family has grown and the property is no longer suitable.
  4. On 3 February 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She said that:
    1. Since her decant in 2010 she felt that she had been ignored and misinformed by the landlord.
    2. She was promised a property at one of the new developments. However, upon completion she was then told that there was not a property big enough.
    3. Her current property was overcrowded, and this was affecting her mental health.
    4. In resolution of her complaint, she wanted “what was promised 13 years ago”.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 8 August 2023. It apologised for the delayed response and said that:
    1. In 2020 the resident was informed that the new development would be completed by 2024, due to delays this would now be 2028.
    2. These delays were due to financial and contractor issues. It also took the landlord longer than anticipated to decant all residents.
    3. The resident’s RTR remains valid. It is intended that there would be a 4-bedroom, 6-person property at the new development that could be suitable for the resident.
    4. The resident would receive a regular newsletter with updates and predicted timescales.
    5. A visit would be arranged to assess the resident’s current housing needs and to determine if she is overcrowded.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 September 2023. She felt that the stage 1 response did not provide her with an action plan as to how the landlord intended to resolve her housing needs. In addition, she was not given any details of who would be dealing with her case.
  7. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 26 October 2023. It said that:
    1. Since moving into her current property, it acknowledged that the family composition had changed. In response to this, it carried out a home visit on 21 August 2023 to assess the families housing needs. The assessment concluded that although the household had increased, the resident was still adequately housed under the Council’s new Lettings Policy.
    2. Following this, a medical assessment was carried out in September 2023. This determined that the family had a 4-bedroom need. The resident appealed this, and the matter was currently pending.
    3. Due to the length of time the resident had been decanted and the medical needs, the case would be presented to the Council’s Housing Needs Exceptional Case Panel for consideration. The panel meeting was due to take place on 30 October 2023 the outcome would be communicated to the resident in due course.
    4. The RTR remains valid, and the resident had also been accepted on the Council’s Housing Register in Band ‘B’. This was a favourable exception to the rule, as normally residents would only be eligible for one or the other.
    5. In recognition of the delayed response at stage 2 it offered £75 compensation, plus an additional £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to this Service in December 2023. In resolution of the complaint, the resident wanted a definitive plan of action as she felt that she was currently “living in limbo”.
  9. At the time of this investigation, the resident has informed this Service that she has received no further updates regarding the completion of the new development.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within her complaint, the resident has expressed dissatisfaction at the way in which the landlord has assessed her application for housing. This is separate from her RTR. When a tenant of a local authority landlord applies for re-housing on the grounds of reasonable preference (for example because they are overcrowded or need to move on medical or welfare grounds) they must apply via the social housing register.
  2. When the resident was originally decanted in 2010 she was placed in a suitable 3-bedroom property. As her family size increased and the medical needs of the family changed, she informed the landlord that her current property was no longer suitable due to overcrowding. The evidence shows that following the birth of her daughter in 2021, the resident would have been classified as overcrowded according to the landlord’s occupancy guidelines.
  3. The assessment of the resident’s social housing register application is a service provided by the landlord in its capacity as a local authority. This aspect of the complaint therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), not this Service. The resident may refer her case to the LGSCO if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the issue.
  4. In accordance with our remit and in fairness to both parties, we focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding her RTR and the length of time taken to relocate her under this scheme. Reference to her application to join the housing register is made in this report to provide context only.
  5. Throughout the complaint process, the resident informed the landlord of the detrimental effect the situation was having on her mental and physical health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s health. 

Relocation

  1. In 2010 the resident was decanted as part of a large scale regeneration programme. She was granted a RTR certificate and informed that upon completion of the redevelopment in 2024, she would be allocated a new build property. The resident was appropriately housed in a 3-bedroom property and awarded a home loss payment in line with the landlord’s decant policy.
  2. The evidence shows that the redevelopment experienced considerable delays, resulting in the resident raising a formal complaint in February 2023. It is acknowledged that large scale redevelopments can be delayed for a number of reasons, and this can sometimes be out of the landlord’s control. In this case the landlord said that the delays were a result of legal complications, the increase in the price of materials and labour and the procurement of contractors. It is also noted that COVID-19 would have undoubtably had an impact. While, these are all mitigating factors, it would be reasonable to expect that a landlord would contact the resident, explain in detail the reasons for the delay, and provide a new timeframe. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively provided the resident with any updates prior to her complaint. This was a communication failure and left the resident feeling like “she was living in limbo”.
  3. Following the resident’s complaint, she was informed that the development completion date had been extended to the end of 2028. This was evidently distressing for the resident given that she felt that her decant property was no longer suitable for her family. In response to this, the landlord arranged a home visit to assess her housing needs. Although this was an appropriate action, it was unreasonable that this did not take place until 21 August 2023. This was 28 weeks after the resident’s complaint. It was vital that the landlord was aware of the family composition and medical needs, in order to ensure that an appropriate property would be available under the RTR scheme. Therefore, the landlord should have acted with more urgency.
  4. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said that the new development should contain a 4-bedroom, 6-person property that “could be suitable” for the resident. This response was vague and did not provide the resident with any assurance that she would be allocated a suitable property. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with any further updates. This was another communication failure.
  5. The resident has informed this Service that she had previously been offered a property on a new development. However, upon completion the landlord withdrew the offer as the property was not big enough. As a result, she had little faith that this would not happen again. The landlord was aware of the impact that the uncertainty was having on the resident, it was also aware of her medical anxiety. Therefore, it should have done more to provide clarity and reassurance, such as sharing more information regarding the development plans. If it did not have this information or was unable to share, it should have provided the resident with an explanation of this.
  6. The landlord also said that the resident would receive regular newsletters with updates and predicted timescales. The landlord has only provided evidence of 1 newsletter, issued in August 2023. The resident has informed this Service that she has not received anymore. This demonstrates that the landlord has failed to do as it said it would.
  7. Throughout the complaint journey, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction at some of the communication she received from the landlord. Particularly, in relation to the alternative options available to her outside of the RTR. While it is acknowledged that this may have been confusing and frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable of the landlord to inform her of all viable options for rehousing.
  8. In summary, while the delays to the redevelopment may have been out of the landlord’s control, the length of time and the uncertainty has caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident, provide updates and re-assurance. There is no evidence that it demonstrated any learning throughout the complaint process and the resident remains unclear if there will be a suitable property available for her when the development is complete. This amounts to service failure.
  9. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £200 compensation would provide adequate redress for the failures identified and is in line with our remedies guidance as well as the landlord’s own compensation policy.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The Stage 1 response was overdue by 24 weeks. This was a significant delay which caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to acknowledge this within its complaint response and did not offer the resident any compensation. Failure to adhere to timeframes for responses is a service failure.
  3. The Stage 2 response was delayed by 3 weeks. However, the landlord did inform the resident of the delays in email correspondence dated 5 and 17 October 2023. Within its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately apologised and offered the resident £275 compensation. It said that £75 was specifically for the delay at stage 2 and that £200 was for “time and trouble and inconvenience”. It would have been appropriate for the landlord clarify what aspect of the complaint the offer of £200 covered.
  4. In summary, the delay at stage 1 was unacceptable and the landlord failed to provide any explanation or demonstrate learning. Had it not apologised and offered appropriate redress at stage 2 this would have amounted to service failure. While it is unclear how the landlord calculated the total amount of compensation, the Ombudsman considers that this amount was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling failings. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the length of time taken to relocate her.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her concerns about the length of time taken to relocate her via its RTR scheme.
    3. Provide the resident and this Service with an update regarding the new development. This should include reassurance that the plans include a property that will be suitable for the resident and current estimated timescales. If it is unable to provide this reassurance, it must explain the reasons why. The landlord must also come to a realistic agreement with the resident as to how often it will provide updates going forward.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £275 it offered within its stage 2 response (if it has not already done so). The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination has been made on the basis that this payment is made.