Social landlords slammed by Ombudsman in housing report

i have noticed this many times housing association and councils having to be chased in court for repairs to be done after months of tenants suffering and finally being awarded compensation.

if it was a private landlord they are down on them immediately when tenants complain about lack of repairs and the time involved. the tenants go to the cab or shelter for advice and they deal with it for them.

however the housing associations and councils get away with it for years.

I paid for 'my electrician to go and check and fix faulty wiring in my friends council rented property. The fault was dangerous, and there was no EICR certificate for the property. We did not dare tell the council for fear of retributions from them!

Could the gentleman consider surveying the EICR and gas safety situation with Social housing providers as well?

Reply to the comment left by Sally Robinson at 11/07/2024 - 10:23
I have never understood why successive governments have introduced policies that attack and penalise the majority of private landlords and subject them to unnecessary costs that do not benefit tenants when there is a bigger problem going on in the social housing sector.

If the government wants to introduce *any* new housing requirement to impose upon landlords, private or public, then it should impose it across the board and include the social housing sector. If the social housing sector objects to it because it cannot afford it then it is not a reasonable burden to impose on private landlords. Minimum EPC at Band C for example. The government should fix the problems that need fixing first, rather than going on an anti-landlord crusade.

There should be one law that fits all - renting housing standards should be the same across the board and applicable to every property equally.

Anything less is pure TENANT discrimination, mandated and upheld by the government itself. How can one tenant's safety be deemed less important than another just by default of who they rent from?

Council/social tenants are getting a poor deal - and they know it, but they are stuck. They can't afford to rent anywhere else (private market) and they know the council have nothing better to offer them.

Just like in the PRS when you have more legislation it comes at a cost. If Awab's Law is going to cost to
It's only going to get worse....

Reply to the comment left by Reluctant Landlord at 11/07/2024 - 12:42
Absolutely. And it's more than just that. If the government introduces new costs and the social housing sector says it cannot comply with them that provides a sanity check for the whole housing sector. A lot of us weren't convinced by the way the EICR regulations were implemented for example. A lot of us faced additional costs for properties that were already safe and all that we did was to pass the costs on to the tenants (of course). The same applies with EPC regulations.

I can't understand why social housing providers spend so much on trying to get away with doing nothing, legal fees, inspections when nothing is fixed etc. Just send a decent plumber/roofer round and get the problems fixed. I'm pretty sure lawyers and court fees cost more than plumbers.

Am I missing something??

Do they employ their own workmen who must do s*d all or are there some companies making a mint out of inspecting leaks but doing nothing? What's the point? Just send a decent builder to fix problems as they occur like PRS do.

In the long run a simple cheap job like clearing a gutter of fixing a leaky pipe can easily turn into something major if not fixed. It's simpler and cheaper to fix a problem then all thr costs associated with not fixing them.

What's the mentality of these housing associations? It's a bit like the post office spending millions on court cases for years, just fix the problem with horizon it'd be cheaper surely.

Is my view to simplistic?

Reply to the comment left by Zen at 11/07/2024 - 14:55
not simplistic - idealistic.

It's about numbers/financial risk.

On the basis of probability not every tenant will go through the process of a full complaint and then take time to then go via the SO. It can take weeks/years.

Easier (and cheaper) to wait for the SO to make a decision and then pay what is usually a nominal fine. Any bad press is accepted and the cycle starts over again...

Reply to the comment left by Zen at 11/07/2024 - 14:55
I think the answer is we don't know. It might be that the average profile of a social housing tenant is different to that of the average profile of a tenant in the PRS but I don't know. Where I live there are council houses, the people who live in them are mostly normal working people and some of them have been able to buy their council houses for up to a 30% discount.

But who knows, maybe there is a difference in profile and perhaps on average the people who can't afford to rent in the PRS can't afford to keep up their part of a tenancy agreement. Or perhaps the mentality is different.....landlord does everything.

But either way if standards are applied to the PRS then they should be applied to social housing, and if the social housing sector says it can't comply with them it's probably because some of them are unreasonable.

The recent introduction of the EICR regulations did nothing to improve my tenants' lives, but it did put their rent up.