Industry News


Mayor lobbies for return of councillors on local HA boards


Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham is lobbying the Government to give local councillors greater control over the social housing in their area. In the past councillors were oſten entitled


to seats on the boards of housing associations operating in their council’s area. Tis became formalised during the era of stock transfers from the late 1980s onwards, but it was scrapped by the Conservative Government in 2017. Speaking at an event organised by the


housing charity Shelter on the fringe of the Labour conference, the Greater Manchester mayor said he wanted to see a return of the “golden share” concept.


Andy Burnham told attendees: “One of the things I will be asking the Government to do is to restore that golden share concept where there has to be councillor representation on local housing associations”.


“If you don’t have that accountability you


have got a problem,” he added, refering to the disaster at Rochdale Boroughwide Council, which led to the death of toddler Awaab Ishak. Burnham said he would “go even further”


and push “to get housing stock back under significant local control, if not fully run by councils”. Polly Neate, chief executive of Shelter, set


out some key asks of the Government, which included having a target for social housing building, “so that we know what we are expecting and we are measuring whether we are getting it or not”. She also urged a change in the design of


the Affordable Homes Programme. “It needs to prioritise social rent. Affordable is an Orwellian term - we need to prioritise social rent housing and we need secure funding for 10 years,” she said. She also said the Government needed to


encourage local authorities to test out new compulsory purchase rules and replace the right to buy with a mortgage deposit scheme.


Housing Ombudsman sets key tests for improving fairness


T


he Housing Ombudsman has released its latest Insight report focusing on shared ownership, setting out nine tests for how


the Ombudsman may assess shared ownership complaints in future as it develops its approach. It also highlights what the Ombudsman can


and cannot do for shared owners, including on issues such as defects and the sales process. Te Ombudsman has also updated its website to provide key information for both shared owners and landlords. Investigations included in the report


involve errors in the sales process leading to residents being unable to afford to purchase or incorrect charges that then come as a surprise on moving in. Tere are also cases where poor understanding of a lease agreement led to residents with months of delays to vital repairs. Te Ombudsman has spoken to landlords


and shared owners throughout this report and the changes made to the publication and website reflect that engagement. While the proportion of complaints the


Ombudsman receives each year from shared owners is proportionate to the size of the tenure, the high level of dissatisfaction amongst shared owners suggests more complaints should be escalated to it. Terefore, the Ombudsman will undertake


targeted awareness raising as well as making sure complaints procedures are accessible. Miscommunication, confusion over maintenance responsibilities and the complexity of shared ownership have impaired landlords response to complaints, compounded by poor knowledge and information management. Te Ombudsman highlights key aspects


relating to shared ownership cases: • Sales process: Te Ombudsman found there were delays in instructing solicitors, the incorrect levels of charges or rents in the lead up to the sales process being incorrect so the resident did not know what they were supposed to pay, and residents not being told the correct levels of staircasing.


• Defects: Te Ombudsman found cases of landlords not chasing developers or following up with the residents following defects being raised, and how landlords should deal with defects aſter the liability period if the developers had not resolved them.


• Cladding: Cases included findings that related to the Ombudsman’s Cladding


8 | HMMOctober/November 2024 | www.housingmmonline.co.uk


guidance, including unreasonable delays in communication about documents residents may have needed or about the safety of the actual building itself.


• Repairs: Te Ombudsman examined the importance of landlords understanding their obligations in regards to repairs and how landlords can communicate effectively with residents during complex works that need to take place.


• Charges: Following on from its Insight report on charges, the Ombudsman found instances where landlords acted reasonably around charges and information surrounding them, as well as instances where this did not happen.


• Managing agents & freeholders: Te Ombudsman found that landlords did not oſten effectively manage their relationships with the freeholder or managing agent of the building, leading to difficulties in communicating effectively with residents.


Tese issues have informed the nine key tests the Ombudsman may consider during an investigation, alongside the prospect of using Paragraph 48 of its Scheme, which allows the Ombudsman to treat an individual case as a ‘test case’ where others could have been affected. Richard Blakeway, housing ombudsman, said:


“Criticisms of shared ownership stem from its inherent complexity, fundamental inequities in its design, and responsibility for residents without the same level of control. “While this report cannot fix these problems,


it gives residents the opportunity to learn about complaints they can bring to us to make their housing situation better, whilst also giving landlords the opportunity to learn from the complaints we have had to provide a better service to shared owners. “A simple concept has led to a complicated


product and miscommunication has too oſten undermined the relationship between landlord and shared owner from outset. One of the most striking lessons from our review is the ability of landlords to successfully recover service failures in their complaints process for shared owners compared to other tenures. Tis must provide lessons for overall handling. “We may be at an inflection point for shared


ownership. Any future reform of shared ownership must address the recurring reasons for dissatisfaction and service failure that is so evident in our casework.”


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44