Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Abbeyfield Society (202332725)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332725

The Abbeyfield Society

25 March 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 the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs relating to relocation, due to the closure of the home.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in July 2022. The property was an ensuite studio within a sheltered housing scheme. While the resident is an older person, there is no record of any specific vulnerabilities.
  2. On 15 May 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to say it was beginning a consultation on the closure of the scheme. It said this was because the costs of upgrading the home to meet new regulatory and energy efficiency standards would be too great to achieve within the government’s specified timeframe.
  3. The resident gave notice to quit, which terminated her tenancy on 30 June 2023. On 17 August 2023 the landlord announced its final decision to close the home.
  4. On 15 September 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord asking for reimbursement of £2,102.01, relating to her move to a new property. This covered a security deposit, cost of mail redirection, a year’s TV licence fee, cost of removals, a pet permission fee charged by the new landlord, and a year’s council tax. She also asked for compensation for anxiety and stress relating to having to move home.
  5. On 13 October 2023 the landlord told the resident it would reimburse her for mail redirection, the pet permission fee and the removal van, but not council tax, TV licence or the refundable security deposit.
  6. On 29 October 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s response to her request for reimbursement of costs. She said the landlord should pay for the council tax and TV licence, as these had been included in her rent at the landlord’s property, but they were not included in her rent for her new home. She highlighted that having to move home had caused her uncertainty, stress and anxiety.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 14 November 2023. It apologised for the distress caused by the consultation and decision to close the home. In recognition of this it had agreed to reduce the resident’s notice period from the usual 8 weeks to 4 weeks. Additionally, while there had been no obligation for it to pay the resident’s moving costs, as she terminated her tenancy before the closure announcement was made, as a goodwill gesture it offered to reimburse her for any reasonable costs incurred. However, it did not consider council tax, TV licence, or payment of the refundable deposit as reasonable costs. Rather, it said it considered these to be “ongoing living costs and lifestyle choices.”
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. On 17 November 2023 she asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 7 December 2023 further apologised for the anxiety and uncertainty caused by the consultation and closure. It said it had endeavoured to find viable options for the home to remain open, and strove to support and reassure residents and assist in finding alternative accommodation. However, it was unable to reimburse her for council tax, TV licence and security deposit as there were not “eligible moving costs,” but were “routine, ongoing living costs.”
  10. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage 2 response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s compensation and goodwill payments policy said it could make goodwill payments in situations where it had met its legal obligations, but as a result of its fault or decision the resident had suffered loss. The policy said goodwill payments may be issued to tenants and licensees on the closure of a house or home on grounds of non-viability. The amount of such payment was subject to review by the Board.
  2. The landlord’s home loss and disturbance policy set out how it would discharge its obligations under section 29 (home loss payments) and section 37 (disturbance payments) of the Land Compensation Act 1973. The policy said it would make a home loss payment in recognition of the personal distress suffered in relation to home loss. It defined home loss as a resident being permanently displaced from their home as a result of redevelopment or improvement works. The policy said the resident must usually have occupied the home for at least 1 year at the date of the displacement to be entitled to a home loss payment. This reflected the criteria within the statute.
  3. The landlord has said it considered whether it would be obliged to make home loss payments to residents at the start of the consultation. It said it determined that the provisions in section 29 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 did not apply, as consultation was regarding the property being closed due to being not financially viable and being disposed of, not about potential redevelopment or improvement works. It was appropriate that it considered its obligations under the statute, and its decision was in line with its policy. However, the landlord did not advise the resident of her right to challenge its position on entitlement by suitable signposting to His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service.
  4. The landlord’s home loss and disturbance policy said the landlord could make a discretionary disturbance payment in situations where a resident was displaced from their home as a result of circumstances which did not include or relate to improvement or redevelopment. Although a prescribed amount for home loss payments is set out in the Home Loss Payments (Prescribed Amounts) (England) Regulations, there are no such set amounts for disturbance payments. The landlord’s policy said disturbance payments could cover, but were not necessarily limited to: removal costs; storage of furniture/belongings; replacement/re-fitting of carpets or curtains; and administration of services (for example switching a television service to a new address).
  5. On 15 September 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord asking for reimbursement of £2,102.01, broken down as follows:
    1. Security deposit – £75.
    2. Mail redirection – £53.
    3. TV licence for 1 year – £164.
    4. Removals – £115.
    5. New landlord pet permission fee – £70.
    6. Council tax for 1 year – £975.01.
  6. She also asked for compensation for anxiety and stress experienced by her as a result of the consultation period, and having to move home.
  7. In its 13 October 2023 correspondence, the landlord told the resident it was not, strictly speaking, obliged to offer reimbursement of moving costs, as she had given notice to quit prior to a final closure announcement being made. The landlord was entitled to take this position, as the resident gave notice to quit on or around 2 June 2023, with a tenancy end date of 30 June 2023. The landlord did not announce its final decision to close the home until 17 August 2023.
  8. The resident has told this Service it was her understanding that the consultation period was a formality, and the landlord was certain, at the point the consultation began, that the home would close. It is acknowledged that the consultation caused uncertainty and anxiety for the resident. However, no evidence has been provided by either party which suggests the closure of the home was certain at the time the resident chose to give notice to quit. The landlord’s correspondence on 15 May 2023 was clear that no firm decision had been made, or would be made, until the consultation process has formally concluded.
  9. Despite its position that it was not obliged to do so, the landlord told the resident on 13 October 2023 that, as a goodwill gesture, it was willing to reimburse her reasonable moving costs. This was in recognition that the consultation period had been unsettling and distressing for her. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged the impact of the consultation on the resident and was flexible in its application of its home loss and disturbance payment policy.
  10. The landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for mail redirection, the pet permission fee and the removal van. However, it said it would not pay for council tax, first year’s TV licence, or the refundable security deposit. While the landlord’s home loss and disturbance policy did not provide an exhaustive list of the moving costs it would reimburse, council tax, TV licence and security deposits were not listed. The policy also stated that disturbance payments were at the discretion of the landlord, and therefore it was entitled to reach its own decision about what it considered reasonable. It was appropriate that the landlord explained its position in the 13 October 2023 letter, saying council tax, TV licence and security deposits were not “costs of relocation, but moreover ongoing costs of residency.”
  11. It is noted that council tax and TV licence fee were included in the service charges at the property the resident rented from the landlord. The resident has raised this point in her correspondence, in support of her position that these constitute reasonable moving costs, as they were extra costs she incurred in her new accommodation. However, these were still costs the resident had to pay in her original property, albeit paid to the landlord as part of the service charge, rather than the local authority and the TV licensing authority.
  12. Furthermore, while it is appreciated that finding a new home would have been a worrying and stressful process, it was potentially open to the resident to have chosen a new home where these costs were included as part of a service charge, as before. While it would have been good practice for the landlord to offer to reimburse these costs, or a proportion of them, it was not obliged to do so.
  13. On 29 October 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s 13 October 2023 decision. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in writing on 31 October 2023, within the required timescale of its policy and the Code.
  14. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 14 November 2023. This was 10 working days after it logged and acknowledged the complaint, within the required timescale of its policy and the Code. The content of the response showed the landlord understood the resident’s complaint and the outcome she wanted, and demonstrated empathy regarding the impact of the consultation and moving home on the resident. While the landlord did not agree to reimburse all the costs requested by the resident, it was appropriate that it explained the reasons for its position.
  15. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 17 November 2023, and the landlord acknowledged this in writing on 20 November 2023. This was within the required timescale of its policy and the Code.
  16. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 December 2023. This was 13 working days after it logged and acknowledged the complaint, within the required timescale of its policy and the Code. The landlord again expressed empathy, and apologised for the impact of the consultation and moving home on the resident. While it maintained its position that it would only reimburse the resident for mail redirection, the pet permission fee and the removal van, it was appropriate that it explained the reasons for its position.
  17. Considering the landlord’s handling of this matter overall, while there were areas where its handling of the matter could have been improved, there was no maladministration. It would have been good practice for the landlord to signpost to the court and tribunal service, or at minimum suggest that, if she was unhappy, the resident could seek advice. However, it was not obliged to do so. Furthermore, while the landlord’s compensation and goodwill payments, and home loss and disturbance policies would have allowed it to reimburse all of the costs requested by the resident, they did not oblige it to do so. The landlord was entitled to reach a decision on what it deemed reasonable costs, in line with its policy. It explained its position to the resident, while showing empathy for the inconvenience and distress caused by the consultation and the move. Its complaint handling was timely and appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement of costs relating to relocation, due to the closure of the home.