In accordance with the Council’s Constitution (Article 12.03(a)), to report to Cabinet if any decision or omission relating to the exercise of an executive function has given rise to maladministration. This report concerns omissions that the Housing Ombudsman has determined were serious maladministration on the part of this Council.

Members were reminded that the Council’s Constitution (Article 12.03(a)) required the Monitoring Officer to report to Cabinet (or to Council for non-executive functions) if any decision or omission had given rise to maladministration.  This report concerned omissions that the Housing Ombudsman had determined were serious maladministration on the part of this Council.

It was reported that, on 14 December 2021, the Housing Ombudsman had determined a complaint submitted to it in relation to the handling of repairs by the Council at one of its tenanted properties.  The Housing Ombudsman had also considered the Council’s handling of the resident’s complaint about those repairs and its record keeping about the repairs.  The conclusion of the Housing Ombudsman in respect of the complaint had been as follows:

1.    Severe maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.

2.    Maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint about those repairs.

3.    Service failure by the landlord regarding its record keeping about those repairs.

Cabinet was informed that the property concerned was a Grade II listed building and had been suffering a long-standing issue of water penetration through the roof.  In part, the complaint related to work undertaken by those contracted to undertake the repairs and that the repairs had not fully addressed the water penetration into the property.  The complainant had advised the Ombudsman that issues with the roof, and resultant damage inside the property, had been going on for over a year.  Finding mutually convenient times for inspections to be undertaken had, again in part, added to the length of time taken by the Council to address those issues.  Apologies had been issued for those matters and the sum of £100 had been offered in recognition of the complainant’s time and trouble in pursuing the matter.  This had been declined before the complainant had then taken the matter to the Housing Ombudsman.

Members were made aware that from the information provided to the Housing Ombudsman, it had been apparent to them that the Council had attended the property on various occasions since the resident’s initial repair reports.  The Ombudsman did though state that the records had not provided a precise chronology regarding how it had handled the repairs and whether it had, at the time of the complaint, fully established the root cause of the issue.  The records presented had shown, in this specific case, considerable and unacceptable delays between the investigative work being undertaken and repair works being commissioned and then the outcome of checks of the works undertaken.

Cabinet was further informed that, in respect of the handling of the complaint, the Housing Ombudsman had criticised the Service for not properly addressing the delays in the handling of the particular repairs, not acknowledging the impact the delay in the repairs was having on the tenant, not demonstrating a timeline to ‘put the matter right’ and failing to reference the requirements of the Council’s own complaints process.  The Council’s subsequent and further corporate response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 140