Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which consultancies were involved in the recruitment of the new Chair of the Regulator of Social Housing; and how were those companies chosen to undertake that work.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
No consultancies were involved in the recruitment of the new Chair of the Regulator of Social Housing.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, where the post of Chair of the Regulator of Social Housing was advertised.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
Along with all other public appointments, the role of Chair of the Regulator of the Social Housing was advertised on the Cabinet Office’s Government Public Appointment website. The post was also advertised on websites associated with the appointment of non-executive directors – specifically the Public Chairs Forum, NEDonBoard, Women on Boards and ConnectOnBoard – as well as the website of the Tenants and Residents of England Trust. The department, the Regulator of Social Housing and the Cabinet Office all published links to the advert on the Government Public Appointment website on their social media.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, whether, in the forthcoming social housing Green Paper, he will revise the definition of the serious detriment test used to determine compliance with the Homes Standard by the Regulator of Social Housing.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
The Social Housing Green Paper announced that the Government would conduct a review of social housing regulation, looking at how it can support a new, fairer deal for social housing residents. The green paper said that “we want to ensure the serious detriment bar does not prevent the Regulator from taking a more proactive approach, and if it does, then we will consider removing it.” The Government will publish its response to the Green Paper in due course.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 28 November 2018 to Question 193589, on complaints about Clarion Housing Group, whether the Regulator of Social Housing is monitoring all complaints received and dealt with by that housing association or only those made to the Housing Ombudsman and directly to the regulator.
Answered by Kit Malthouse
The Regulator of Social Housing continues to monitor the level of complaints and referrals from Clarion tenants made to the Regulator and to take any follow up engagement as appropriate. The Regulator also liaises closely with the Housing Ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman will notify the Regulator if they receive any complaints that present evidence of potential systemic issues relating to any registered providers.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2019 to Question 234648 on Housing Ombudsman Service, what effect the 35 per cent reduction in the subscription fee for the Housing Ombudsman Service has had on the length of time taken by that service to determine cases entering its formal remit.
Answered by Heather Wheeler
The Housing Ombudsman Service is funded by subscription fees from its members on a per housing unit per year basis. Unit costs were £1.47 in 2013-14, £1.02 in 2014-15 and £0.96 in 2015-16 and 2016-17. In accordance with paragraph 3 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme approved by the Secretary of State, the Ombudsman sets the level of subscriptions by reference to budgeted cash requirements, including a prudent provision for relevant contingencies.
We are working with the Housing Ombudsman to reduce the time it takes to determine their cases. From 2017-18, the Department approved a fee increase to £1.25 for three years that is helping deliver reductions in average complaint determination times and business improvements. The proposed fee for 2019-20 was set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s draft Business Plan 2019/20 for consultation. Together with the Corporate plan 2019-22, it sets out a series of strategic priorities and measures of success for the coming year and includes its plans for subscription levels.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2019 to Question 234648 on Housing Ombudsman Service, how many complaints the Housing Ombudsman Service received against (a) A2Dominion, (b) Clarion Housing Group, (c) London & Quadrant, (d) Notting Hill Genesis, (e) One Housing Group, (f) Peabody and (g) Southern Housing Group in 2018-19; and how many of those complaints were upheld.
Answered by Heather Wheeler
Between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019, the Housing Ombudsman received 1,452 complaints about (a) A2Dominion, (b) Clarion Housing Group, (c) London & Quadrant, (d) Notting Hill Genesis, (e) One Housing Group, (f) Peabody and (g) Southern Housing Group. The breakdown was as follows:
|
|
A2Dominion | 121 |
Clarion Housing Group Limited | 430 |
London & Quadrant | 261 |
Notting Hill Genesis | 287 |
One Housing Group Limited | 62 |
Peabody Trust | 216 |
Southern Housing Group Limited | 75 |
|
|
A breakdown of the 377 complaints determined by the Housing Ombudsman between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019 for (a) A2Dominion, (b) Clarion Housing Group, (c) London & Quadrant, (d) Notting Hill Genesis, (e) One Housing Group, (f) Peabody and (g) Southern
Housing Group is below. Of these, a total of 171 cases were upheld by
the Housing Ombudsman.
|
|
|
|
A2Dominion Housing Group Limited | 16 | 20 | 36 |
Clarion Housing Group Limited | 45 | 37 | 82 |
London & Quadrant Housing Trust | 33 | 40 | 73 |
Notting Hill Genesis | 29 | 39 | 68 |
One | 19 | 18 | 37 |
Peabody | 23 | 43 | 66 |
Southern Housing Group | 6 | 9 | 15 |
|
|
|
|
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2019 to Question 234648 on the finding that the average time taken in 2018-19 to determine cases entering the Housing Ombudsman Service’s formal remit is expected to be less than seven months as of the end of March 2019, for what reason the Housing Ombudsman Service is advising people referring complaints to it that there is an eight to ten months wait for a determination on those complaints to be made.
Answered by Heather Wheeler
The Housing Ombudsman Service started the year with an average case determination time of 8 months and has used this as an indicator to customers throughout the year. On 4 April 2019, The Housing Ombudsman advised all staff of performance for 2018-19 and advised an update to their advice to customers, that determinations will take between 6 and 8 months. The Ombudsman's advice is that the expected timescales - using a range as the average - will not be experienced by all customers.This will vary dependent on the level of complexity of cases entering the Housing Ombudsman Service’s formal remit.
Asked by: Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour - Poplar and Limehouse)
Question to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government:
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, pursuant to the Answer of 28 March 2019 to Question 234648 on Housing Ombudsman Service, if he will instruct the Housing Ombudsman Service to set its subscription fee at the level required to deliver the resources to reduce the average waiting time for determination of a complaint to four months.
Answered by Heather Wheeler
The proposed fee for the next year was set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s draft Business Plan 2019/20 for consultation. Together with the Corporate plan 2019-22, it sets out a series of strategic priorities and measures of success for the coming year and includes its plans for subscription levels. The final level remains subject to Secretary of State approval.