Tenants’ complaints: another hurdle to jump

On Friday the chief executives of the National Housing Federation, TPAS and Shelter had a letter published in the Independent (go here and scroll down) concerning an aspect of the Localism Bill that has not so far attracted much attention: tenants’ complaints.

Specifically, the Bill’s new arrangements for making complaints to the Housing Ombudsman will prevent tenants from being able to complain directly: in future they will have to get a referral from an MP, councillor or a ‘designated tenant panel’.  The authors of the letter say this will be disempowering, costly and bureaucratic, causing delays and ‘red tape’.

Under current arrangements, tenants can only take a complaint to the Ombudsman if they have exhausted the landlords’ own complaints process, which can often take many months in itself.  They then have to go through the Ombudsman’s own filtering process (they decline requests to investigate complaints in many cases) and then wait for an investigation and report.  Many MPs and councillors are highly accessible to their constituents and no doubt would do the job as quickly and conscientiously as they can:
others are not, do not deal with correspondence effectively and sometimes do not even have ‘surgeries’ for tenants to attend.  We do not know what processes a ‘designated
tenant panel’ might adopt and there is a danger that they will not be very independent of the landlord.

Either a councillor or MP will just pass the complaint on, which is a complete waste of everyone’s time, or they will act as a filter of some kind, either refusing to pass it on for their own reasons or making their own enquiries, which will require the tenant to explain the matter all over again, including revealing their personal details.  Tenants may well feel that MPs and councillors are not always neutral when dealing with such matters, especially a complaint against the council as landlord*.

There can only be one motivation behind this process: to reduce the volume of complaints going through to the Ombudsman because it will be under-resourced for the job it should be doing.  But the procedure will put additional burdens on MPs and councillors that they are often not geared up to handle, and will undoubtedly act as a disincentive to tenants to take their complaint forward.

An effective complaints process is one mechanism for ensuring the accountability of landlords.  It is therefore encouraging that the NHF, as the landlords’ trade body, is opposing this change.  Good landlords welcome complaints, pursue them properly and seek to learn lessons from them.  There has already been a damaging reduction in regulation and independent inspection of service quality in the housing sector.  Making it harder for tenants to complain to the Ombudsman will make it easier for poor landlords to ignore their tenants.

*The Bill creates a unified service for investigating housing complaints, transferring
responsibility for council housing from the Local Government Ombudsman.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Tenants’ complaints: another hurdle to jump

  1. Pingback: Tenant complaints and the new Localism Bill « The ReACT Blog

  2. Sue says:

    As a councillor in a London Borough I wholeheartedly agree that these proposals would be a retrograde step. Ideally no case should have to go to the Ombudsman, but since we don’t live in an ideal world I’m appalled that tenants should have to jump through extra hoops to get a review of what will already have been a protracted and exhausting struggle with their local Housing Department.

  3. DaftAida says:

    Tenants have already been left in the lurch through Legal Aid cutbacks. All but threat of reposession does not give much advice and no support. The Ombudsman service isn’t as robust a watchdog as it ought or needs to be. Creating further barriers for tenants to even this lip-service, is a green light for landlords already making a nuisance of themselves. There’s little faith to be justified in either Counsellors or MP’s. We’re going backwards ….. ‘transferring responsibility for council housing from the Local Government Ombudsman’ is a daft premise; this is squarely where the responsibility belongs and should stay. Just because billions were sucked from the public purse for no good reason and without consent, all essential services to the public are now withdrawn. We have anarchy, we have the Rackmans’ Return.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s