Ombudsman orders Croydon CEO Katherine Kerswell to make apology to resident, as housing complaints allowed to drag on in some cases for five years. By STEVEN DOWNES
All suggestions that Croydon Council’s failing housing department is being drastically improved under the borough’s Tory Mayor Jason Perry will be dismissed after review of four adverse case reports and withering criticism from the Housing Ombudsman, published this morning.
Four-star performance… but not in a good way: Fisher’s Folly, next to the Town Hall, has attracted upheld complaints from the Housing Ombudsman
The Housing Ombudsman’s office found “severe maladministration” in all four cases, some of which involved long-suffering tenants who had mental health or physical disabilities, or both.
One tenant was found to have been subjected to racial harassment, while in another case, the Ombudsman criticised the council for its delays in processing applications and arranging an inspection and repairs.
Croydon Council has been ordered to pay thousands of pounds in compensation to the ill-served residents, and has also been told to provide personal apologies. In once instance, the Ombudsman has ordered the council’s chief executive, Katherine Kerswell, to make the apology. Which is nice.
Two of the cases involved complaints that remained unresolved over five years (and only then were sorted after the Ombudsman stepped in). In one of the cases, it took Croydon Council three years before they organised a multi-agency meeting – that is, called in the Boys (and girls) in Blue – to try to fix the issue.
Richard Blakeway, the Housing Ombudsman, said Croydon’s handling of the cases “fell far below what residents would expect of their landlord”.
Blakeway said: “These cases cover a wide range of landlord responsibilities. Throughout there were opportunities for the landlord to put things right or repair the relationship with the resident, whether that be through communication or action in the form of an inspection or repair.
“And most of the residents involved had physical or mental health needs that were not fully accounted for by the landlord.”
Hard lives: three years after the Regina Road scandal highlighted shortcomings of Croydon housing, adverse reports are still emerging elsewhere in the borough
Croydon’s mismanagement of its housing stock was highlighted in 2021 with shocking television footage of “dangerous squalor” from within some council flats in blocks on Regina Road, but it has been since been subject to official investigations which found systemic failure and incompetence.
New structures have been put in place, both within the council and in managing maintenance of its housing stock, with Axis, the repairs contractor, sacked and the housing call centre brought back in-house within the past six months. Meanwhile, the cash-strapped council has continued to cut the number of employees in its housing department.
The cases brought to the attention of the Housing Ombudsman pre-date most of those changes.
Releasing the reports this morning, the office of the Housing Ombudsman said, “With the important role that social housing has to play in giving safe and secure housing to millions, the learning in these reports should help landlords provide effective services that protect this aspiration.”
CASE A – “202127675”
This report is dated September 2023 and follows a complaint “about the landlord’s handling of proposed adaptations and planned upgrades to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom”. The Ombudsman “also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling and record keeping in respect of this case”.
You can read the report in full here.
The Ombudsman found severe maladministration after the landlord mishandled an upgrade and adaption to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
It led the resident to believe it would carry out extra works that did not form part of an occupational therapist’s recommendations as long as she paid for these, which she agreed to do.
Given that it was aware that she had physical and mental conditions, the council failed to take these circumstances into consideration and missed several opportunities to put things right.
The landlord’s failure to follow its procedures, its lack of knowledge and its delays in investigating the case effectively negatively affected her day-to-day living.
On top of this, the landlord at one point incorrectly told the resident it would not undertake her adaptations at all. It is clear that the landlord’s lack of knowledge and procedure significantly contributed to these miscommunications.
Miscommunication between the landlord and the occupational therapy department was also concerning, especially as both are part of the same local authority.
The landlord also failed to provide important evidence by way of emails or call logs and notes of outcome of visits with key people involved, and therefore failed to demonstrate that it handled the upgrade and adaptations requests to the resident’s kitchen and bathroom appropriately.
The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay £3,875 in compensation and organise an occupational therapist assessment of the entire property, following up on this with any adaptations that need to be made.
CASE B – “202118843”
You can read this report in full by clicking here.
The Ombudsman found severe maladministration after the council failed to adopt a victim-centred approach or respond to the resident’s allegations of anti-social behaviour, including indirect racial harassment.
It failed to support the resident through regular communication and there was no evidence it liaised closely with partner agencies at the earliest opportunity.
Despite numerous reports and the resident stating the impact it was having on her mental health, the council failed to undertake a risk assessment and was unsympathetic to her concerns about attending court as a witness.
Although there is evidence of the landlord asking for timesheets from an early point, two years’ worth of these could not be found. It also took nearly three years, in which multiple neighbours had also experienced this ASB, for the landlord to hold a multi-agency meeting.
These delays and failings led to severe distress for the resident who, by the end of this investigation, had been complaining of this for nearly five years.
The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay the resident £2,900 in compensation, for the housing director to apologise to the resident and for it to conduct a full review of its ASB policy and procedure, with particular focus on the use of the risk assessment matrix and action plans.
CASE C – “202204778”
Click here for the full Ombudsman’s report in this case.
This report is dated July 2023.
The Ombudsman found severe maladministration for how the council handled noise nuisance. The resident reported that this impacted her mental health.
The landlord did not follow its own anti-social behaviour policy during this case, and in particular did not keep the resident informed about the progress of the case until she complained again. This caused unreasonable delay and distress to the resident.
It also took five years to supply any sound recording equipment, and the Ombudsman made an order to ensure this happened.
Although equipment was in high demand, this was not a reason for it to be unavailable for this length of time. During this time, it also took years for alternatives to be arranged and used.
The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident, provide her with a device such as sound recording equipment so she can make accurate reports moving forwards and pay £900 in compensation.
CASE D – “202215975”
The Housing Ombudsman’s full report can be accessed by clicking here.
The Ombudsman found severe maladministration for how delays in processing a mutual exchange application and arranging the inspection and repairs caused for the exchanged to be cancelled.
Ordered to apologise: Katherine Kerswell, the council chief executive
This was despite a large amount of chasing by the resident over a period of months. It also meant that the resident was left sleeping on the sofa as her son was using the only bedroom.
The council accepted this was a failing on its behalf and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of it ever giving urgency to these works despite a 42-day deadline needing to be met. Instead, some of the works were completed two months after the exchange had already been cancelled.
Although the council accepted its failings, the Ombudsman notes that “it did not offer any compensation for the upset, disappointment and distress it caused. It also offered no further practical support after this period”.
The Ombudsman ordered the council to provide a written apology from the chief executive, pay £700 in compensation and review its mutual exchange process.
“The landlord should reflect on these four cases and continue to make significant improvements to its services, building on the orders we made. Complaints act as a mirror to services and its handling fell far below what residents would expect of their landlord,” said Ombudsman Richard Blakeway.
“The landlord should use this as a springboard to deliver better services for its residents.
“Most of the residents involved had physical or mental health needs that were not fully accounted for by the landlord.”
Blakeway added that councils “should not give up on a case just because a complaint has been made, instead using it as an opportunity to resolve the situation for the resident”.
Read more: Housing board’s report warns of ‘years of hard work’ ahead
Read more: Investigation finds systemic failure and incompetence in council
Read more: ‘None of the tenants in Croydon trust anybody in the council’
Read more: Croydon shamed over ‘dangerous squalor’ in council flats
- If you have a news story about life in or around Croydon, or want to publicise your residents’ association or business, or if you have a local event to promote, please email us with full details at inside.croydon@btinternet.com
As featured on Google News Showcase
- Our comments section on every report provides all readers with an immediate “right of reply” on all our content. Our comments policy can be read by clicking here
Inside Croydon is a member of the Independent Community News Network
- Inside Croydon works together with the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, as well as BBC London News and ITV London
ROTTEN BOROUGH AWARDS: In January 2024, Croydon was named among the country’s rottenest boroughs for a SEVENTH successive year in the annual round-up of civic cock-ups in Private Eye magazine
We all know there are some really hard-working people at the Council who are desperately trying to do a good job despite all the mismanagement from above.
Sadly we also know that at the top of the Council we have leaders who don’t lead and civil servants who have forgotten who they are supposed to serve, and this culture infects the whole system.
The change from Labour to Conservative hasn’t achieved anything. If you keep voting for those same old parties you’ll just get the same old useless politicians.
Do you honestly think Kerswell has listened to either party locally? Do you actually think any of them will listen to any political party including the Greens?
All parties are bound in law to set a budget. All parties are unable to change legislation set by Parliament.
All parties have to abide by the law in Great Britain.
The issues with Croydon are not just political matters they are funding also. But most importantly even if funding and political issues were focused on delivery Croydon has structural and cultural within the organisation that makes administration abysmal and appear incompetent not to mention damaging reputationaly.
They are also bunkered and hunkered down. They are attacked from all sides.
Is it not better to seek out the root causes of the issues and rectify those so that everyone is pulling together in the public’s interest?
Doubt if she could spell let alone say the word sorry.
Once upon a time there was a clear distinction between the political side of an authority and the civic side. Both sides knew their place and responsibilities. In those days integrity and accountability existed among many on both sides.
Sadly both sides now mistake and mix their views, obligations and duties, and the civic side has become institutionally political and the political side ideologically and economically incompetent.
Absolutely spot on, that’s exactly the case. Very well said.
Well said!
Don’t disagree, but even competent leadership would struggle to cut out the rot when there simply isn’t the resource to do so. Central Govt has manufactured a situation where the cost of delivering on statutory obligations exceeds budgets – those councils which _haven’t_ gone bust have largely done so through property gambles (Inner London’s went well from the councils’ point of view, even if some parts of the community, current or former, might not agree; Croydon’s gambles went.. about as well as an alcoholic blowing their weeks’ food money on scratch cards) or through running down or selling off all the little things that make people feel like they’re actually getting something for their council tax. Parks, libraries, leisure centres.
Case in point – Lambeth financing their Parks budget by renting out huge chunks of Brockwell to private festival operators for a big chunk of the summer.. you know, the season where people actually want to go and sit in the park.