Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Matter for Decision
From April 2013, there will be two regulatory changes
to the system for handling tenants’ unresolved complaints about their landlord,
namely that:
(i)
Local authority tenants will now take their
unresolved complaints to the Housing Ombudsman (rather than to the Local
Government Ombudsman, as they used to do).
(ii)
There will be a new middle stage or local
‘buffer’ between tenants and the Ombudsman, technically referred to as a ‘Designated
Person’, who can be a local councillor, an MP or a designated Tenant Panel.
The Officer’s report explained
the changes and made recommendations for how the Council might implement the
regulatory requirements locally. Any steps taken locally would be in line with
the Council’s corporate complaints procedure.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing
Approved the
following plan of action as a way forward for Cambridge under the new scheme:
(i)
Run a Freepost postal survey in the spring 2013
edition of Open Door magazine, sent to all Council tenants, asking whether they
want a Tenant Panel for complaints.
(ii)
Work with resident representatives to design a
Tenant Panel for complaints, if the Open Door residents’ survey indicates that
tenants want one.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the
Officer’s report.
Any
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee
received a report from the Principal Tenant
Participation Officer regarding
the Regulatory Changes to the Ombudsman System.
In response to
Members’ questions the head of City Homes and Principal Tenant Participation Officer confirmed the following:
(i)
A
consultation was proposed to ascertain if people wanted a Tenant Panel. If so,
the Council would have to reflect how the Tenant Panel would fit into its
current process.
(ii)
A
report would be brought back to HMB in future regarding activity on the Tenant
Panel. If one were implemented, Officers and Tenant Representatives would
develop a suitable process and ensure resources were in place for the Tenant
Panel to operate.
(iii)
The
proposed Tenant Panel would have influence rather than powers, so it would
operate like the Housing Regulation Panel.
(iv)
The
Tenant Panel would be welcomed by council officers, as it should enable
complaints to be dealt with in a more efficient way and avoid the need to
involve the Housing Ombudsman. It should also enhance the service provided to
tenants.
(v)
The
Tenant Panel should work well with HMB and the Housing Regulation Panel.
(vi)
Guidance
was emerging on how the Tenant Panel would operate. Tenants could approach the
Tenant Panel to resolve issues before formally complaining to a landlord. If
people did not like advice from, or did not wish to take advice from the Tenant
Panel, they could approach the Ombudsman (following the process timeline).
(vii) The Tenant Panel would provide a mediation
service. It would be made up from local representatives and be independent to
the Housing Ombudsman. The Council would set the Tenant Panel’s ‘powers’/roles.
(viii) Only 6 complaints had been made to the Local
Government Ombudsman, most had been resolved locally.
The Committee
resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation,
subject to review at a future Housing Management Board.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.