Ombudsman should have stronger role
The housing ombudsman should lay its annual report before Parliament, a report by the Law Commission has suggested.
The commission, which advises the government on law reform, has launched a consultation into reforming the public services ombudsmen.
The consultation makes a number of proposals which would bring the work of the five ombudsmen – the Parliamentary commissioner for administration, the public services ombudsman for Wales and the local government, health service and housing ombudsmen – into line.
It says the housing and local government ombudsmen would gain useful publicity by being allowed to lay reports from their investigations before Parliament. There is currently no obligation on the housing ombudsman to lay its reports before an elected body, which the commission claims is ‘anomalous’.
Since many of the housing ombudsman’s findings are of interest to MPs in their constituency work, the report suggests that Parliament would be a useful forum for the reports to be published.
The report says: ‘Publicity is at the core of the work of all of the public services ombudsmen. It is undeniable that having access to elected bodies is one of the ways of achieving this.
‘Therefore, we think that the position of the local government ombudsman and the housing ombudsman should be strengthened, so as to give them similar access to this valuable resource as enjoyed by the other public services ombudsmen.’
The commission says its proposed reforms would make it easier for the public to seek redress when they have complaints. It also hopes to reform the work of the ombudsmen to keep cases out of court by giving courts the power to transfer appropriate cases to the relevant ombudsmen.
Frances Patterson QC, the law commissioner leading on the project, said: ‘The public services ombudsmen have a vital role to play in providing remedies for administrative injustice suffered by individuals. By improving access to these ombudsmen, we can reduce the burden that falls on the citizen, public bodies and the courts, and realise savings for citizens and government.’
The consultation runs until 3 December 2010.
Readers' comments (6)
kass | 6-Sep-2010 10:10 am
The social housing ombudsman should be abolished all together.
1) most residents complainst do not even get to it because of the length and difficutly of landlords complaint procedures;
2) landlords abuse the own complaints procedures;
3) it does not deliver justice or any kind of compensation proportionate in any way to proved claims. There is widespread unsatisfaction from residents WHO WIN their cases.
4) With the excuse that the ombudsman is there to keep cases from going to court is a only excuse for residents not to be able to fight their cases. this can only be done with bringing back legal aid.
Any parliamentary tinkering will not change susbstantially the distrust of residents for the Ombudsman. Residents simply DO NOT WANT their grievances to have to go through the Ombudsman. So why this institution has been going on for so long against the wishes of those it should have helped?
Only beinging back legal aid can offer a real and effective defence against landlords abuse and injustice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paine | 6-Sep-2010 10:44 am
Housing associations leave many residents dissatisfied. There should be an annual compulsory poll of tenants and leaseholders - a simple form in which they grade performance of their landlords. Those which perform below a set standard should have their access to HCA funds reduced. The standard should be weighted to hit larger HAs harder, because tenant satisfaction is lower the larger a landlord gets.
The Ombudsman is mere window-dressing and needs to demonstrate what benefits its continued existence would bring.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sidney Webb | 6-Sep-2010 11:12 am
Imagine if Paine's idea was applied to governments - you could be onto something here, and it may even be democratic!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Colledge | 6-Sep-2010 11:24 am
Kass & Paine
Spot on! Why are MPs apparently unaware that there is no justice for tenants and that there is no hope of getting a fair deal from Ombudsmen generally? Abolish HOS. Government should get feedback on landlord performance - direct from tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Sep-2010 7:20 pm
My new (admittedly first time) MP was dubious as to whether he should become involved in some very complex complaints against an RSL/TSA/HO because 'The Ombudsman is now involved'. Is this understandable ignorance on the part of a 'new boy', or is there substance to this idea?
Comments from those who know, please.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7-Sep-2010 7:38 pm
PS (to Anon. 7.20pm post) I am currently endeavouring to make the HO consider a long-overdue series of complainst against a recalcitrant RSL. That RSL's complaints system is flawed, incomplete, secretive and inequitable - hence I refuse to submit myself to what is now a perverse procedure, especially at stage 3. The HO continues to insist that I do so, contending that it can only consider the validity of a complaints process AFTER the complainant has submitted himself to it. Stalemate. My question to the HO was 'If I were to insist, with evidence, on the injustice of corporal punishment about to be administered to me, would you, as judge, apply the same principle - namely that I would actually have to suffer beating/beheading etc. before you would be willing to consider whether it was right for me to have been treated this?'
No response to date - but then the 'Dispute Resolution Team' which allegedly deals with complaints hides behind group anonymity. Who knows how many different HO staff (with greater or lesser knowledge and ability) take over from each other during the course of any one complaint. The lack of personal accountability which seems to be at the root of so many problems with RSLs extends to those who are supposed to be monitoring and regulating them. No wonder there is no real justice for customers/tenants.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment