Tuesday 11 December 2012

Housing Ombudsman

Firstly I would like to state that the requirements to go through a step are flawed and unnecessary. The Government’s intentions would have been better served by tightening up the regulatory requirements on Registered Providers to deal with complaints ‘right first time’ and ensuring Tenant Scrutiny Panel had an explicit role in overseeing handling of and learning from complaints backed up by good relationships between Ombudsman and Regulator. It is perverse that social housing tenants are the only group of people unable to access an Ombudsman directly and in the longer term this will prove hard to sustain.
That said I have four main areas of comment:
1. The consultation proposes informing involved Designated Persons of the outcome of their referral and Regulator or Boards or Scrutiny Panels where landlords refuse to comply with the Ombudsman’s findings. This is unnecessarily restrained. I would propose that all outcomes, not just non-compliance, are shared with Regulator, Boards and Scrutiny Panels. This would ensure that the Regulator had access to available information about poor services, Boards were aware of outcomes as the accountable and responsible body for landlords and Scrutiny Panels to support their co-regulatory role in holding landlords to account. All can then decide what response, in line with co-regulation, they should take from a position of knowledge not ignorance.
2. The consultation also rightly raises the issue of time limits for handling of complaints but is unspecific about what these might be. Either the Ombudsman should set some broad parameters for time limits or refer tenants and landlords to industry standards which would be a reasonable guide.
3. The proposal to only hear cases where there is “significant adverse effects” on tenants seems unduly restrictive and contrary to the concept of co-regulation as set out by the Government. Tenants would want to be reassured that cases where their complaint might be justified was dealt with satisfactorily. Restricting this to the worst cases only would condemn most referrals to a perverse limbo where tenants were unable to have their case dealt with.
4. Finally many landlords are considering the best way to handle the requirements of the Localism Act. Should they stay with three or reduce to two stages? What is the role of Tenant Panel – could this be the Scrutiny Panel? Should there be a preferred route? I understand and agree that the Ombudsman won’t arbitrate in the process but instead offer feedback. However some consideration with landlords and tenants by the Ombudsman before 1st April 2013 and sharing examples more widely might avoid the need for such feedback in the future.

Response to Housing Ombudsman Consultation

Firstly I would like to state that the requirements to go through a step are flawed and unnecessary. The Government’s intentions would have been better served by tightening up the regulatory requirements on Registered Providers to deal with complaints ‘right first time’ and ensuring Tenant Scrutiny Panel had an explicit role in overseeing handling of and learning from complaints backed up by good relationships between Ombudsman and Regulator. It is perverse that social housing tenants are the only group of people unable to access an Ombudsman directly and in the longer term this will prove hard to sustain.
That said I have four main areas of comment:
1. The consultation proposes informing involved Designated Persons of the outcome of their referral and Regulator or Boards or Scrutiny Panels where landlords refuse to comply with the Ombudsman’s findings. This is unnecessarily restrained. I would propose that all outcomes, not just non-compliance, are shared with Regulator, Boards and Scrutiny Panels. This would ensure that the Regulator had access to available information about poor services, Boards were aware of outcomes as the accountable and responsible body for landlords and Scrutiny Panels to support their co-regulatory role in holding landlords to account. All can then decide what response, in line with co-regulation, they should take from a position of knowledge not ignorance.
2. The consultation also rightly raises the issue of time limits for handling of complaints but is unspecific about what these might be. Either the Ombudsman should set some broad parameters for time limits or refer tenants and landlords to industry standards which would be a reasonable guide.
3. The proposal to only hear cases where there is “significant adverse effects” on tenants seems unduly restrictive and contrary to the concept of co-regulation as set out by the Government. Tenants would want to be reassured that cases where their complaint might be justified was dealt with satisfactorily. Restricting this to the worst cases only would condemn most referrals to a perverse limbo where tenants were unable to have their case dealt with.
4. Finally many landlords are considering the best way to handle the requirements of the Localism Act. Should they stay with three or reduce to two stages? What is the role of Tenant Panel – could this be the Scrutiny Panel? Should there be a preferred route? I understand and agree that the Ombudsman won’t arbitrate in the process but instead offer feedback. However some consideration with landlords and tenants by the Ombudsman before 1st April 2013 and sharing examples more widely might avoid the need for such feedback in the future.