Tag: Housing Ombudsman

Categories
Blog Post

What should a national tenant body for England do?

It feels like it’s past time to set up a national tenant body for England. Parts of the Government have been talking with various groups about doing just that – predominantly Baroness Taylor, the Government’s Parliamentary Under-Secretary for housing in the House of Lords, but some other representatives from both houses too.

Why England needs a national tenant body

Beyond asking how to get it off the ground, we should ask what such a body should be for, and what, if anything, national and local government should be doing to drive progress. A properly resourced national tenant body would make the work of politicians, staff at departments involved in the regulation of the social housing sector, and ultimately landlords, easier.

England has been here before. The 2007 Cave Review into social housing regulation argued that tenants needed a far stronger role within the regulatory system, helping pave the way for the National Tenant Voice programme established by the last Labour government in 2009. National Tenant Voice was intended to provide an independent national platform for social tenants to influence policy and regulation, and was set up remarkably quickly once political momentum existed. But the Coalition government abolished it in 2010 before it had fully embedded itself institutionally or built a strong national profile. One lesson from this experience is that any new tenant body will need not only meaningful independence, but also deep roots in local communities and broad public legitimacy if it is to survive changes of government and become a lasting part of England’s housing system.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

In Wales, the National Independent Tenant Voice Cymru is already taking part in national policy debates with both landlords and the Senedd. The political landscape is different in Wales than in England, but there are certainly lessons to be learned from Wales about embedding  tenants’ priorities within policymaking and creating an effective national tenant voice.

Coincidentally, just after I was asked if I’d like to contribute my thoughts about a national tenant group to Red Brick, I attended a pair of workshops hosted by the National Tenant Alliance – one of the groups setting out the case for a tenant voice in England. These events explored what tenants want from a national body, how it could operate in practice, and what resources would be needed to sustain it.

Having facilitated some of the discussions at these workshops, I have heard first-hand what tenants want a national body to achieve.

Rebalancing power in social housing

One of the core essential features that keeps cropping up is the need to rebalance power between tenants, landlords and government. Much has been made of the changes introduced through the Regulation of Social Housing Act 2023, but many tenants rightly feel it has not met the promises made in the 2018 Social Housing Green Paper.

Rebalancing power means redistributing it.  Parts of the social housing sector seem resistant to the changing regulatory environment, but many tenants feel the promises of the 2018 Social Housing Green Paper still have not been fulfilled. From tenants’ perspective, expectations around professionalism, competence and respectful treatment can still feel secondary within the regulatory system. While organisational culture is difficult to legislate for, many other professions manage to uphold clear standards without resistance or lobbying.

Giving tenants a voice locally, regionally and nationally

Tenants also place a lot of value in ensuring that any national body actually operates at the regional and local level. Tenants need an ‘unmediated voice’ in national policymaking, but the issues shaping those discussions are usually rooted in communities and everyday local experience.

A tenant network could be a much better way of spreading what works and what is best practice. The current methods are landlords trying are apparently failing to get better outcomes. Lacklustre tenant satisfaction measures, unambitious Consumer Gradings and warnings from the Ombudsman that the scale of complaints is only getting wider and deeper suggest that the absence of a tenant body treated as equals is creating more work for everyone else, not least Members of Parliament who face a deluge of housing-related casework due to a lack of ambition or progress. Some recent housing policies have not only failed to resolve the many quality issues in social housing, but have been worsening the cost of living crisis for tenants for many years.

Independence, funding and legitimacy

One of the more innovative ideas about the purpose of a national tenant body I heard recently was as a starting point for mediation. Currently tenants have only two mediation routes: formal court-directed mediation once legal proceedings have begun, or ‘alternative dispute resolution’ processes aimed at resolving issues before they escalate to disrepair claims or other legal action. Such processes can still feel heavily weighted towards landlords. I found it fascinating to ponder a situation where a national tenant body could offer not just signposting to other resources, but real advocacy in these situations to rebalance power between tenants and landlords.

So, what should the Government and local authorities and landlords do to support a national tenant body? There are surely going to be a lot of different views among tenants about this, but for my part I think they should largely agree to recognise its validity and then get out of the way.

This doesn’t mean their involvement in funding solutions isn’t important. One of the more popular suggestions for funding is a small annual payment from rents, perhaps taken out of the significant sums paid per home for services from the Ombudsman and Regulator. Although this could take the form of a voluntary membership fee paid per tenancy (as in Wales) no doubt there will be some wrangling over the amounts needed to run a tenant body – and over what implications this funding could have on the independence a tenant body so desperately needs.

Sign up to Red Brick’s free newsletter

Would you like to write for Red Brick? Email rose.grayston@gmail.com to pitch your piece (c.600-900 words)

Categories
Blog Post

What does the Queen’s Speech mean for housing?

Despite presenting a large volume of legislation, overall the policy proposals in the Queen’s Speech will do very little to address the underlying causes of our country’s housing crisis.  Labour Housing Group has long argued for systemic change in the supply of genuinely affordable housing (the planning system and housing finance), reform of the benefits system, and regulation of the private rented sector and is campaigning for housing to be set in legislation as a human right. 

The legislation proposed in the Queen’s Speech will not address the challenge of a desperate shortage of genuinely affordable homes, the poor quality and energy inefficiency of all housing stock or the growing problems of homelessness and temporary accommodation.  The legislative programme does not bring forward ideas for the failing social security system which is leaving families having to choose between heating and eating.  I have set out the outline of what is expected in each of the Bills and then highlighted what’s missing.

The Renters Reform Bill is expected to abolish ‘no-fault’ evictions by removing Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.  We have heard this before and we must hold this Government to their promise to now deliver this.  The Bill also proposes to reform possession grounds for landlords – it is not clear what these will be or how the Bill will tackle the issues with administration of evictions.

The proposal for a legally binding Decent Homes Standard in the Private Rented Sector is certainly welcome but currently lacks detail for how this will be enforced, how the enforcement will be funded and how the works to ensure the Decent Homes Standard will be administered or paid for. Similarly, the introduction of a new Ombudsman for private landlords to resolve disputes could be a positive step forward but experience from the Housing Ombudsman, under-resourced and under-powered and struggling to keep up with the flow of escalated complaints from social landlords, suggests that unless this is properly funded this will create more uncertainty for renters.

The Social Housing Regulation Bill attempts to give more focus on consumer standards. With plans to enable the Regulator to intervene with landlords who are performing poorly on consumer issues there is hope for the many residents who struggle to secure a decent level of repair service from their landlord.  This is a u-turn from the Coalition Government’s abolition  of the Tenants Services Authority in 2010.  The impact of this Bill will only really be felt by tenants once the new powers and functions come through the Social Housing Regulator. Labour Housing Group will work with Labour MPs to make the case that the Social Housing Regulator is properly funded to deliver this expanded role. 

Enabling the Regulator to inspect landlords is encouraging – the tenants that I represent who receive a poor repairs service would welcome the chance to call for an inspection and to see the outcome of that inspection. This Bill still has gaps.  There is no stated role for Local Authorities or Local Councillors who are often the first to hear about the impact of poor consumer standards.

It is also silent on the role of local authorities with housing association disposals – local authorities have a responsibility to assess housing needs for their local areas and planning powers to secure affordable homes but there is no requirement for housing associations or the Social Housing Regulator to consult local authorities on the impact of disposals. Finally, this Bill is a missed opportunity to invest in tenant engagement including a requirement for tenants to be on Housing Association Boards or to have a say on local management decisions.

The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill promises mostly administrative changes to monitoring levelling up, alongside tinkering at the edges of the planning system. Anyone committed to seeing more affordable homes built will despair at the lack of ambition from this Bill. The idea of organising votes on a street by street basis to determine planning applications will just bring in unnecessary bureaucracy to an under-resourced planning system.

The focus should have been on supporting clear policies which prioritise affordable homes and high-quality design standards.  We await the detail on how the Bill will support local authorities to bring empty premises back into use and support the high street – currently local authorities have broad powers to support regeneration and so it’s difficult to see what more will be added which would have a meaningful impact.

It is positive that the Energy Security Bill proposes to appoint Ofgem as the new regulator for heat networks. I represent residents in new build homes who have no control over their energy prices and no powers to demand transparency over costs or choice of provider.  The appointment should go further and provide clear local involvement for consumers so that they have a say in their energy provider. There is a huge gap in making plans to insulate and retrofit existing homes so that they are more energy efficient.  Only a street by street, block by block programme, with sustained investment from national Government will secure the reduction in energy use that is needed to get to Net Zero.

It’s clear what’s missing from this legislative programme.  The Government has failed to address the issue of short term lets, which is eroding the availability of affordable homes across the country, particularly in London and areas with a growing tourist economy.  The Government’s failure to really grasp this issue and tackle the impact on housing supply and on communities lets down both homeless families and those hoping to join the housing ladder. 

It is unsustainable for short term lets platforms to continue operating in central London without further regulation.  There is a gap where there should be a long term commitment to investment in genuinely affordable council and social housing.  This should be delivered through Government co-ordination of major new housing schemes alongside a sustained funding stream.

Going forward, Labour Housing Group will work with the Labour front bench and Labour MPs to make the case for the strongest possible action within these Bills to address the housing crisis.

<strong>Rachel Blake</strong>
Rachel Blake

Rachel is a Labour and Co-operative Party Councillor in Bow East and is Vice-Chair of the Labour Housing Group.

TWITTER
Categories
Blog Post

Surviving

For someone involved in housing for 50 years, it is impossible not to feel embarrassed and ashamed by the appalling conditions lived in by some social tenants as exposed by Daniel Hewitt’s ITV documentary, Surviving Squalor.

The ‘regulator’ (sic) should be throwing the book and the ‘Ombudsman’ (equally sic) should be down on them like a ton of bricks. Sadly, they are both ineffectual. I would like tenants to be able to sue for damages more easily and for landlords to be prosecuted. But where are the highly paid Executives, and where are the Boards and where are the councillors who run these organisations?

We are rightly angry at some of the cases shown and it is excellent journalism especially when the tenants themselves are allowed to speak. Once again, we see people who are articulate but totally exasperated, just wanting a decent service in return for their rent and service charges.

But equally fine journalism and campaigning has also exposed many a bad private landlord over the years. The cases of many badly treated lessees and shared owners have also had wide coverage recently. And I recall that some of the worst housing conditions and poverty I ever encountered were amongst elderly homeowners. So, the issues are broader, not confined to a single tenure, and must be properly examined.

Across all tenures, our standards and expectations are just too low – and falling behind all the time, especially when health implications and climate change are considered – the remedies are just not good enough, and accountability is totally inadequate.

At the core, we just don’t invest enough of our national wealth in homes, and we don’t invest because we do not value highly enough the human dignity that comes with living in a decent, appropriate, warm, dry, affordable home.

There was plenty to be annoyed about in the programme. The practised apologies seemingly written by PR people. The disgrace that urgent action is taken when a bad case gets on the telly – ITV might quickly find itself inundated as the country’s leading housing advice agency. The lack of intervention by people who should intervene. The quick return to normality that inevitably follows.

But one thing above all made me feel sick. Robert Jenrick, the Housing Secretary, said it was nothing to do with the government, it was all down to bad practice and mismanagement. However guilty we feel, rightly, housing people should condemn this oleaginous brass-necked man.

His Party abolished the regulator, abolished the Audit Commission, abolished the National Tenant Voice, cut housing by 60% as its first act in 2010, ended new funding for social rented homes, introduced chaos into rent setting so no-one could plan, and pushed landlords into taking money out of housing management, maintenance, and capitalised repairs to ‘cross-subsidise’ new build as the only way of getting new homes built.

This is not an excuse for landlords, and it is not all about money – some of the worst disrepair cases in the programme seemed to be in blocks that had expensive new cladding – but for Jenrick not to admit that government drives this increasingly rickety machine is buck-passing of the worst kind.

I do think social landlords have lost sight of the bread and butter, their first duty, that homes must be properly managed and properly maintained. I know only too well that it is possible for things to go wrong even when you think you are doing it right. But now there is too much emphasis on shiny new schemes, sparkling financial products, innovative new structures, and fancy regeneration.

Development is seen to be exciting and strategic, management boring and messily detailed. Housing Association Boards do not have enough people on them with experience of running social housing in which people with relatively small incomes live. They are stuffed with people interested in development and finance, important skills but not enough. I suspect many of them never meet a tenant. I know quite a lot of dedicated councillors and I have almost no explanation as to why local councillors in the boroughs depicted were not up in arms.

Of course, some people jumped at the opportunity to denounce social housing. This is where the greatest peril lies. All too often, social housing has been made to fail by government, even if too many social landlords have also been complicit. Yet the sector has rallied due to the efforts of tenants and campaigners, and it has survived an attempt to end it altogether.

It is still the case that millions of people would be delighted to get a social rented home. Most social tenants are satisfied with their homes, the vast majority are in reasonable condition but lacking investment since the end of the decent homes programme.  

Social rented housing is still the main hope in the search for a solution to the housing crisis. But the sector must stop shooting itself in the foot, speak out for tenants, be more competent, be more caring, and be more focused on the core task of running what we already have well.

<strong>Steve Hilditch</strong>
Steve Hilditch

Editor and Founder of Red Brick blog.
Former Head of Policy for Shelter. Select Committee Advisor for Housing and Homelessness. Drafted the first London Mayor’s Housing Strategy under Ken Livingstone.

TwITTER
Categories
Blog Post Uncategorized

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.