As seen on Inside Housing; Inside Housing – Comment – Can the Housing Ombudsman and private solicitors co-exist?
Given our shared goal of remedying disrepair, should there be a better working relationship between solicitors and the Ombudsman, asks Jacob Poole of Pabla + Pabla Solicitors
There is no doubt that the Housing Ombudsman has played an increased role in addressing tenant complaints. In 2023/24, there was a 329% increase in interventions made against social housing landlords after tenants made escalated complaints.
As someone who works in a housing disrepair department for a private solicitor’s firm, this got me thinking. Is there a future where private solicitors and the Housing Ombudsman can work together?
I am hopeful, given the shared goal of securing long-term solutions for the most important stakeholder of all: the tenant living in disrepair.
Social housing landlords would no doubt argue that the Housing Ombudsman is a much more cost-effective method of seeking redress for them. Without paying legal costs, theoretically it means that they can reinvest more in their current homes.
The Housing Ombudsman also doesn’t seek redress through a currently crippled court system. Between 2019 and 2024, fast-track claims took almost four times longer (20.2 weeks to 79.3 weeks) to go to trial – a worrying statistic that questions the very principles that the court is built on.
However, in 2023/24, of the 21,740 interventions made by the Housing Ombudsman, only 1,115 of them were orders for repairs (5% of total interventions). Despite this, in the same period, 43% of total complaints made to the Housing Ombudsman were made about property condition.
“Social housing landlords would no doubt argue that the Housing Ombudsman is a much more cost-effective method of seeking redress for them”
Perhaps there is a lack of awareness about who the Housing Ombudsman is, and what role it plays? Perhaps the Housing Ombudsman is more concerned about malpractice concerning service delivery?
Whatever the case, there is no doubt that the 1,115 repair orders would be a miniscule amount compared to the amount of successful housing disrepair claims brought within the same period.
It is widely acknowledged that private solicitors have taken on a significant amount of housing disrepair claims in recent years. This could be because of the cost recovery basis of housing related legal disputes, which are presently on a standard hourly rate. Other civil litigation departments, like personal injury, are already restricted to fixed recoverable costs, and have been further hindered by a small claims track increase in 2023.
Thusly, many claimant solicitors have diversified into housing disrepair to seek profitability. Further, given the demand for profitable work, CMCs (claims management companies) have entered the market to advertise more and more private solicitor services to social housing tenants living in disrepair.
This increase in practice is potentially the reason why housing disrepair claims have increased across the board. A key difference between the Housing Ombudsman and private solicitors, is that the latter secure legally binding agreements which can be enforced by the court.
It is also widely accepted that disrepair claims in the court settle for a greater compensation amount than compensation orders issued by the Housing Ombudsman. Although there are no direct statistics to support this, court judgments and judgements made by the Housing Ombudsman do not operate on the same metric. I am uncertain as to why.
“But can the Housing Ombudsman and private housing disrepair solicitors work together? Currently, it seems as though…they do not even acknowledge each other”
But can the Housing Ombudsman and private housing disrepair solicitors work together? Currently, it seems as though, despite the two methods of seeking redress having the same goals, they do not even acknowledge each other.
There is no doubt this can be confusing for tenants. It almost seems random whether a tenant in disrepair will be directed to the Housing Ombudsman or find a private solicitor through an advert.
To a bystander, it might seem that the Housing Ombudsman takes away claims which private solicitors want to make money on. Conversely, it might seem that private solicitors undermine the Housing Ombudsman’s work in disrepair issues by achieving better, legally binding settlements through the courts.
The competition that exists at the minute has led to a fragmented system, which surely needs to be addressed?
Perhaps the Housing Ombudsman and private solicitors could work together if there was updated guidance issued from central government. The guidance could cover what claims should be taken on by the Housing Ombudsman, and which should be taken on by private solicitors, creating separation rather than overlap.
The overarching goal of remedying disrepair is what binds us – it will prove vital in creating an environment where both the Housing Ombudsman and private solicitors might just be able to work together.
Jacob Poole, Housing Operations Co-ordinator, Pabla + Pabla Solicitors