Luxury liner lifeboats not needed for canoes
Veterans Aid’s residential facility, New Belvedere House © Glyn Strong/Veterans Aid
The Ombudsman's Complaint Handling Code is aimed at protecting tenants, a move that is both highly commendable and overdue. Part of the statutory nature of the Code means that landlords - among whose number are specialist charities such as Veterans Aid - are required to submit a lengthy annual report against tenant satisfaction measures. In some respects, this is a good thing - writes CEO Professor Hugh Milroy, who points out that what might be desirable for large social housing providers, threatens to be an oppressive administrative burden for small, specialist organisations.
One size rarely fits all in terms of legislation, and the damaging effect of introducing a blunt instrument approach to a diverse and complex activity can be significant. Nowhere is that better demonstrated than in the case of the Ombudsman's Complaint Handling Code (i.e. the Code) that became statutory on 1st April 2024.
Our lodging as a Registered Social Landlord with the Housing Ombudsman is a historical quirk of fate and to this day, is largely a bureaucratic burden rather than direct means of support. The Code treats small and/or specialist organisations in exactly the same way as giant housing providers, which is disproportionately onerous for them. Conformity with the Code’s requirements will cost them dearly, in time and money that they can ill afford, and have an inevitable impact on service delivery. Surely a more nuanced and realistic approach, that is both relevant and practicable, would make more sense?
A more strategic approach might be to establish a Department of Poverty which, as part of its remit, could offer relevant support to frontline homeless providers? As we all want to end homelessness, I was hoping that under the new Government we would see encouragement towards innovation, rather than the imposition of a blind orthodoxy.
The Code fails to appreciate the context in which its draconian reporting requirements are applied, or the impact on service that the process will have on non-standard social care providers such as us.
Not long ago we invested £8.4m - much of which was Government money - in our already much-admired residential facility. It is now state of the art - meeting and exceeding the expectations of all who visit it, from the UK and overseas. Its raison d'etre is to transform the lives of homeless veterans, with complex and entrenched problems, in a safe and nurturing environment, until they are able to sustain independent living. It delivers bespoke, therapeutic care to short-stay residents - but the difficulty of trying to provide daily services to sometimes chaotic people, on a small scale, is something the architects of the Code seem to have taken no account of.
I am not naïve and do know that areas in the sector need to be improved - in some cases significantly - but for a small organisation like ourselves, taking on the administrative and financial burden of trying to comply with the requirements of the Code is about as sensible as trying to fit luxury liner lifeboats to a canoe.
Although there are two categories (up to 1,000 units and above) the requirements of the Code apply as much to us as to the UK's largest social landlord, an organisation that owns and manages around 125,000 homes, houses 360,000 people, and employs around 4,000 staff. We are not a housing association, and property management is not our core business, but by virtue of providing safe, secure temporary accommodation for up to 66 vulnerable adults, Veterans Aid is, de facto, a social landlord. We employ just 25 people, only seven of whom are directly involved in the daily management of our flagship residential facility, New Belvedere House (NBH).
Veterans Aid has been operating since 1932, and its staff is highly experienced in dealing with troubled clients. Effective formal complaint systems have been in place for years but the chaotic nature of the individuals we deal with can make dissatisfaction commonplace.
For example, our staff have received complaints about the colour of the facility's curtains, the fact that we provide a training kitchen rather than a restaurant, that alcohol is banned, that basic housekeeping rules must be complied with, and that violence is not tolerated.
NBH residents include veterans who have behavioural disorders, addictions, mental/physical health problems and anger management issues. Some have criminal records; some are needy and emotionally unstable; some have been long-term rough sleepers, unused to observing the simple conventions of communal living that ensure general hygiene, respect for property and fellow residents. Typically, they stay for around nine months - a transformational period that gives them stability and the bespoke support they need to reclaim and rebuild their lives. Some stay much longer, others for just a few weeks.
And yet - under the terms of the Code they must be treated in exactly the same way as every other social housing tenant.
And 'why not? - you might ask. Indeed, in terms of building maintenance, health and safety issues, cleanliness, and security, 'why not?' indeed!
The devil lies in the detail - of which there is an onerous amount. For example:
- The Code's performance submission process is lengthy. It makes no allowance for the fact that while charities like ourselves have had a staff training and effective formal complaints programme in place from the outset, we don't have an officer dedicated to logging, investigating, and reporting on incidents. I say 'incidents' because it is not unusual for volatile, and often damaged, individuals to make spurious/vexatious complaints, seek to manipulate staff and generally 'test the boundaries' of those committed to helping them.
- The Code appears to be weighted on presumption that all tenant complaints are valid - indeed the metric is of TSMs (Tenant Satisfaction Measures) and assumes that even small landlords offering single room accommodation to vulnerable adults, on a temporary basis, need the imposition of an external framework in order to fulfil their obligations.
- We are told that the Code was crafted 'after consultation' - yet we were neither involved, nor made aware that it was being developed. Had we been consulted we would have pointed out the many ways in which, for organisations like our own, it is simply not a good fit.
- The self-reporting of tenant-led complaints is open to abuse insofar as landlords who conduct and publish results of the Code's TSMs are effectively 'marking their own homework'.
- Already organisations larger than ourselves (and with more static/stable tenant populations) have had to resort to buying-in help from professional research organisations. This is not an option for those with small operating budgets, particularly with the upcoming national insurance hike.
- TSMs rely on input from tenants. Many NBH residents are hugely protective of their data privacy and loath to commit information formally even when anonymity is promised. How does this sit with GDPR requirements?
- The urge to standardise legislation is understandable; but when non-standard landlord/tenant organisations are involved, this is akin to bashing a square peg into a round hole.
I could go on.
The property of which we are 'the landlord' is a world class facility that has consistently met - and superseded where possible - environmental, health, fire safety and other requirements. It has an externally validated success rate of around 90% in terms of turning around the lives of those in adversity who have the good fortune to spend time there. It is staffed by a small group of dedicated individuals who are focused exclusively on the wellbeing of its residents - many of whom are emotionally needy and unstable.
Under the terms of the new Code one of these staff members (on behalf of 'the landlord') is required to draft a Complaints Performance and Service Improvement Report, collect feedback relating to tenant satisfaction, then measure and analyse the results. Diverting the energies of a key worker, in a specialist facility, to complete a 23-page annual submissions form that invites answers such as Not Applicable, Not Relevant and Not Fair makes no sense to me.
I urge anyone reading this piece to look at the 23-page annual submissions form via this link.
The form:
"Is to be completed by the complaints officer and it must be reviewed and approved by the landlord’s governing body (in our case the Charity’s trustees) at least annually. Once approved, landlords must publish the self-assessment as part of the annual complaints’ performance and service improvement report on their website. The governing body’s response to the report must be published alongside this. Landlords are required to complete the self-assessment in full and support all statements with evidence, with additional commentary, as necessary. We recognise that there may be a small number of circumstances where landlords are unable to meet the requirements, for example, if they do not have a website. In these circumstances, we expect landlords to deliver the intentions of the Code in an alternative way, for example by publishing information in a public area so that it is easily accessible."
I challenge anyone operating a facility such as ours to justify the diversion of key workers from the core task of helping veterans in extreme adversity (who have sought the charity’s help because they have life-changing problems) so that they can engage in such an unwieldy 'complaints investigation' procedure.
We have a website, and of course we can publish our TSM 'results', but frankly the exercise will come at an excessive cost and prove nothing. The veterans who spend time in our residential facility are often volatile and emotional. Their response to what is provided after one week rarely matches what they feel after one month and invariably changes again after nine.
Raising funds for charity work has never, in my 30 years' experience, been more difficult. The thought of trying to raise yet more funds to cover the costs associated with compliance with the Code is, frankly, disheartening. Large Housing Associations will have to raise even more. (From whom? Tenants?).
I have no doubt that this process is well intentioned; it will address some wrongs in the wider social housing sector and generate a lot of data. But it will not replace the need for random inspections and not drive change in areas where box ticking disguises endemic dereliction of duty. Indeed, for those like us whose systems 'aren't broke', the onerous mechanisms designed to 'fix' them will cause only frustration; not to mention the diversion of care staff and funds from more critical activities. I know it’s difficult to stop the ball rolling, but this big-bang approach will undoubtedly end up harming those whose lives it is meant to enhance.
On October 17th last year, the Government announced the beginning of a ‘new relationship’ with Civil Society, in the form of a Covenant. Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy told us that it would recognise the critical role the sector plays as a trusted partner in achieving shared goals for the benefit of communities across the UK. And the Prime Minister explained how this would work - “by harnessing the dynamism, innovation, and trusted reach of civil society organisations.”
I can’t help but wonder how the introduction of this impractical, one-size-fits-all Complaint Handling Code aligns with this new ‘special relationship’? We understand the need for regulation: we worked within the Supporting People guidelines for many years without a problem. But as far as this new Code is concerned, to be workable for smaller organisations, I believe that a radical rethink is needed, and a more relevant framework produced.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
