Why we are taking a new approach to investigating landlords

Connecting cases, stress-testing policies, probing disconnects in practice, analysing data in different ways and seeing how the landlord engages when presented with the problem. Without these actions, we would likely be seeing more repeat failings, which means some residents would continue to be treated unfairly.  

Our role on systemic issues is now largely accepted by landlords. This is especially true of our thematic work, examining issues such as vulnerability, communication or record-keeping. Few would claim that our work on damp and mould has not benefitted landlords and residents. 

But our work with individual landlords still feels quite new, and the sector is still adapting to it. This is partly because very few landlords have experienced a special investigation by us, conducted under Paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. I doubt these landlords relished it. But even the landlords that found the investigation challenging have said they learned something from it, with many saying it galvanised action and brought focus. 

While we could have continued taking the same approach, it presented two issues. Typically, we were sharing our thematic analysis with the landlord later than we would like because we tied it to ongoing investigations. The intervention also took longer because we wanted to give the landlord the opportunity to make improvements during our investigation.   

So, we tested a different approach this year.  

Twelve landlords have experienced it so, and we are confident it works. Whereas before we had one model for engagement, we now take a tiered approach.  

Our first step is to tell the landlord about our concerns. This happens following a routine data analysis every eight weeks. We review their recent determinations to identify any reoccurring themes – joining the dots between service failings.

We will write to the landlord setting out the issues identified and ask them what action they are taking. If the response is insufficient and does not suggest that the landlord is understanding and addressing the issues, we will escalate to the governing body. We expect the whole engagement will take around three months. 

For most landlords, we hope that is sufficient. This doesn’t mean everything is fixed in that short time, but we will close the intervention if the landlord takes ownership and is transparent about its actions. We will then monitor the landlord’s performance. 

If we don’t see improvement after a reasonable period, we will escalate our investigation. This second tier will involve us comparing intended improvements with actual outcomes. We will inform the landlord of ongoing concerns and request an update to its response plan and explanation of any ongoing issues identified in our casework.

Where issues persist, or in exceptional circumstances, there remains our third stage, which echoes our original approach to further investigation. We may speak to senior managers, staff and residents, and might engage directly with the governing body. We will review evidence to uncover the underlying issues and make specific recommendations for improvement.

Insights from determinations will be included in a full, final report, which we know can be an uncomfortable moment.

By taking this approach we should achieve our goals to engage more landlords, more quickly, giving them the opportunity to tell us about the steps they are taking to address concerns and identify any gaps. It also means we have a clearer route to re-engage landlords when our complaints suggest issues persist.  

“If we don’t see improvement after a reasonable period, we will escalate our investigation. This second tier will involve us comparing intended improvements with actual outcomes”

Most of the time when we first contact landlords, they are responsive and show some action is being planned, even if it has not yet happened. Our intervention acts as a catalyst to accelerate action, encourage organisational grip and ensure adequate oversight. Sometimes it is the first time the landlord has genuinely examined the concerns. Both outcomes can be achieved under this new model. 

There has been some debate about how this relates to the Regulator of Social Housing. We keep regulatory colleagues updated on this engagement. It goes into the melting pot of information they use to test assurance. We know sometimes the issues we see in complaints point to wider organisational concerns.  

We also know that landlords’ engagement with us on their complaints has reflected positively in their regulatory judgements. We also know that sometimes what we see is focused within a particular service area or practice rather than raising organisational-wide concerns, although addressing them is still vital to improving the experiences of residents.  

A lot can happen in a short space of time. Our complaints review shows how some landlords have made significant improvements between financial years. This includes some that have been part of further investigations. But we also know how reoccurring concerns in complaints left unaddressed can quickly become poisonous within an organisation. Changes in people, systems or budgets can trigger a domino effect of service failure. 

So, too, can large-scale organisational change. Most landlords we have engaged through further investigation are merged housing associations or councils, notably where an arm’s-length body was brought back in-house.

On the horizon are many more mergers and transfers, including local government reorganisation. This will test culture, services and complaints. It needs urgent learning across the sector. That’s why our next Spotlight investigation will be into organisational change. Our job is not to say whether it is good or bad, but the role complaints can play to make mergers or transfers a success. 

This is one example of how our further investigations are rich with insight. To harness this learning, transparency matters. So, every six months we will share which landlords we are engaging. We will also share learning statements after we’ve engaged with those landlords of the actions being taken, because this learning can be instructive for everyone.

We will do even more through our Centre for Learning to share these insights, focusing more on themes rather than individual landlords. This will help housing professionals learn from the innovation and practical proposals of others. 

Landlords should not forget that our Centre for Learning offers some of the tools to prevent that first-tier intervention by us. The annual landlord performance reports, real-time notifications of complaint-handling failures (underestimated as an indicator), self-assessments against the Complaint Handling Code, wider orders to review policies and practices or findings of severe maladministration can all help management and the governing member responsible for complains to get ahead of the curve. 

Ultimately, whether learning from complaints sees more responsive, resilient services and better customer experiences depends on culture. There can occasionally be cynicism among some landlords about the motivation to complain and scepticism among some residents about whether landlords will learn. I get it. But the value of proactive learning from complaints should never be underestimated. 

Richard Blakeway, housing ombudsman