Social housing complaints soar as watchdog warns of 'simmering anger'
Housing Ombudsman Richard Blakeway said there was an "imbalance of power" in the tenant-landlord relationship and "simmering anger at poor housing conditions risked becoming social disquiet".
He warned without change England risked the "managed decline" of social housing.
Asbestos, electrical and fire safety issues, pest control and leaks, damp and mould are among the complaints, the watchdog receives.
In its latest report, the Housing Ombudsman, which deals with disputes between residents and social housing landlords in England, said that the general condition of social housing - combined with the length of time it takes for repairs to be done - is leading to a breakdown in trust.
"You've got ageing homes and social housing, you've got rising costs around materials, for example, and you've got skills shortages," said Mr Blakeway, who spoke to the BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"You put all that together and you end up with a perfect storm and that's what's presenting in our case work. That is not sustainable."
He said tenants have "little say in the services they receive, however poor they are" and that this is leading to "growing frustration".
While he acknowledged that social landlords are putting in "record amounts" for repairs and maintenance - £9bn between 2023 and 2024 - there had been historic underfunding in social housing.
He also said that while landlords have faced "funding uncertainties", they needed to address their communication with tenants that sometimes "lacks dignity and respect".
According to the ombudsman's report, there were 6,380 complaints investigated in the year to March 2025 - up from 1,111 in the year to March 2020.
Referring to English Housing Survey estimates, it also found that an estimated 1.5 million children in England live in a non-decent home in 2023, and 19% of those live in social housing.
The Housing Ombudsman is calling for a "transformative overhaul" of the current system, including an independent review of funding practices and the establishment of a "national tenant body" to "strengthen tenant voice and landlord accountability".
That would be separate to the ombudsman, which has the power to order a landlord to apologise, carry out works or pay financial compensation.
"The human cost of poor living conditions is evident, with long-term impacts on community cohesion, educational attainment, public health, and economic productivity," said Mr Blakeway.
"Without change we effectively risk the managed decline of one of the largest provisions of social housing in Europe, especially in areas of lowest affordability.
"It also risks the simmering anger at poor housing conditions becoming social disquiet."
This is "neither fanciful nor alarmist", he said, adding that tenant activism formed its roots decades ago in the 1960s, and referencing the ongoing "shock" over the Grenfell Tower fire and the death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in recent years.
The 2017 tower block blaze which killed 72 people, and the death of Awaab in 2020, caused by prolonged exposure to mould in his home, have put the spotlight on housing standards and safety.
Housing campaigner Kwajo Tweneboa told the BBC that he was "shocked but not surprised" by the ombudsman's report.
He pointed out that for complaints to reach the ombudsman, tenants will have to formally raised the issue with the landlord.
Mr Tweneboa said social housing residents he has spoken to say they feel they are not listened to and that the culture within housing organisations "just isn't right".
"They feel they are just a rental figure at the end of each month."
"In some cases, residents are left to suffer for years," Mr Tweneboa says, adding that he knows of instances in which families with children have to "defecate in bin bags, urinate in bottles because they've been without a toilet for months".
The National Housing Federation, which represents England's housing associations, said quality and safety of homes was their "top priority", and the sector was spending record sums on repairs and maintenance.
Chief executive Kate Henderson said: "Crippling cuts to social housing over many years have exacerbated quality issues, as the ombudsman recognises, and only an increase in funding can address this over the long-term."
Overcrowding is a "significant contributor" to issues such as damp and mould, she added.
In a statement, a Ministry of Housing spokesperson said: "Everyone deserves to live in a safe, secure home and despite the situation we have inherited, we are taking decisive action to make this a reality."
"We will clamp down on damp, mould and other hazards in social homes by bringing in Awaab's Law for the social rented sector from October, while we will also introduce a competence and conduct standard for the social rented sector to ensure staff have the right skills, knowledge and experience to do their jobs effectively."
Plans to tackle IOM's key housing issues unveiled
Rat infestation is blighting area, say residents
We're treated like peasants, say tenants in fight over mouldy homes
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
The Best Strength-Training Move to Combat Weight Gain in Menopause
Many people in perimenopause notice that they gain weight, especially around their mid-section. As estrogen levels dip, there's a cascade effect in the body that makes it harder for women to keep weight off. 'Declining estrogen levels during menopause contribute to muscle loss, which in turn affects metabolism, increases fat storage and weakens bones,' Maria Luque, Ph.D., said on TODAY in early June. Luque, a personal trainer who works with actor Halle Berry, shared how building muscle remains essential for women hoping to maintain a healthy weight in perimenopause and menopause. 'The best thing we can do is build muscle. That's the one thing we are in control of. The more muscle we have, the more calories we burn. I call it muscle magic,' she said. 'Muscle is the key to a long, happy life, and we have the power to build it. We know that starting at around mid-30s, we are losing muscle, and we have to combat that, and the only way to do that is strength training.' That's why in the Start TODAY app we built a 30-day program dedicated to helping women 50+ build muscle, which takes the guesswork out of implementing a strength training routine in menopause. Trainer Tip of the Day: A Reverse Lunge and Twist Can Help Combat Menopause Weight Gain A reverse lunge twist is a lunge with an upper body rotation. 'Using a dumbbell, reaching out, lunge back,' Luque explained. She added that people can do it with a partner and pass the weight from person to person as they twist. This adds to the intensity of it. This simple reverse lunge engages the whole body in an exercise and strengthens the legs and the core muscles. Download the Start TODAY app for video demonstrations of strength exercises like this that can help combat muscle loss and boost metabolism post-menopause. Why It Matters Muscle mass helps burn calories more efficiently, making it easier for menopausal women to maintain a healthy weight. Plus, having more muscle mass contributes to better mobility and fewer accidental falls that could lead to broken bones. How to Get Started Luque says people can start building muscle with as little as a 10-pound dumbbell. After incorporating that weight into the reverse lunge with the twist, you can use it in other exercises, including: Plank pull-throughs Flamingo shoulder presses Luque also encourages using a weighted hula hoop as a way to build muscle. 'This is a great thing to do every day to get your heart rate up,' she said. 'Because it's weighted, you have to really work at keeping it up. And it's fun!' You can also try adding weights to your daily walk with the Start TODAY app's Upper-Body Indoor Walking Routine. TODAY's Expert Tip of the Day series is all about simple strategies to make life a little easier. Every Monday through Friday, different qualified experts share their best advice on diet, fitness, heart health, mental wellness and more. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Trump withdraws US from UNESCO, again. Are any World Heritage sites in Ohio? What to know
President Donald Trump is removing the United States from UNESCO, again, as his administration labels the international agency "woke," USA TODAY reports. So what does UNESCO do? And is Ohio home to any of its World Heritage sites? Here's what to know. What is UNESCO? What does it do? UNESCO's mission is "to encourage the identification, protection and preservation of cultural and natural heritage around the world considered to be of outstanding value to humanity." Based in Paris, UNESCO was founded after World War II to promote peace through international cooperation in education, science and culture. One of its core missions is the World Heritage program, which protects historic and cultural sites. Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks in Ohio is a UNESCO World Heritage Site In 2023, the Hopewell Ceremonial Earthworks became a UNESCO World Heritage Site, the first for Ohio and the 25th in the United States. The site includes the Octagon Earthworks in Newark and the Great Circle in Newark and Heath as part of eight large earthen enclosures built by ancient American Indian peoples in central and southern Ohio between about AD 1 and 400, the Dispatch reported at the time. The Octagon Earthworks includes remnants of a 2,000-year-old complex that is the largest set of geometric earthworks ever known. The other sites are the Fort Ancient Earthworks in Warren County and five sites that are part of Hopewell Culture National Historical Park in Ross County. There are 1,248 UNESCO World Heritage sites in 170 countries, including the pyramids in Egypt, Notre-Dame Cathedral in France and the Statue of Liberty in America. Why did Donald Trump pull the U.S. out of UNESCO? Second time president cuts ties with organization White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said UNESCO, which stands for U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, "supports woke, divisive cultural and social causes that are totally out-of-step with the commonsense policies that Americans voted for in November." Trump withdrew the U.S. from the organization during his first term, only to have the move reversed by President Joe Biden. The move, which goes into effect at the end of 2026, is part of an effort to pull the U.S. out of international institutions he has long criticized. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay said in a statement to USA TODAY that Trump's decision to withdraw is 'regrettable' and 'contradicts the fundamental principles of multilateralism.' This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: US to withdraw from UNESCO. Are any World Heritage sites in Ohio?
Vox
a day ago
- Vox
How Trump is making America hungrier
The Congressional Budget Office estimates more than 3 million people in the United States will likely be dropped from the accessing SNAP the next few years, states will have to decide how much of the SNAP costs to absorb, which totaled over $100 billion in 2024. The CBOe predicts that some states will scale back or drop SNAP benefits altogether. Food banks throughout the country are already raising the alarm that they won't be able to meet the food demands created by cuts to the program. In addition to shifting the cost to states, the legislation will change the enrollment requirements for SNAP, such as raising the working age to 64, and requiring able-bodied parents with children over 14 to work in order to receive benefits. Some critics of the bill argue the provision prevents SNAP from serving its purpose of feeding low-income Americans. On the Today, Explained podcast, co-host Sean Rameswaram dove into the history of SNAP, the program's controversies since its inception, and how the legislative bill will prevent the program from being able to deliver on its original goals with Tracy Roof, an associate professor of political science the University of Richmond who focuses on domestic policy who is writing a book about the history of food assistance in the United States. Below is an excerpt of their conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full episode, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify. What's the history of food assistance in the United States of SNAP? Whose idea was this and why did we want to do it? In the 1950s, you got more attention to certain pockets of poverty in the United States. One of the areas that got the most attention was Appalachia with coal miners who were losing their jobs. You were starting to see more mechanization of coal mines, as well as competition from things like oil. And all of these coal miners were losing their jobs in the middle of areas that didn't have other economic opportunities. And because you had able-bodied workers in the household, a lot of these families didn't qualify for cash assistance. John F. Kennedy, when he was running for president in 1960, toured some of these areas and saw how widespread the problem of starvation was. At the same time, members of Congress made the argument that we were spending all of this money to store surplus grain, and we could not find enough places to sell that grain. So we started sending some of it abroad to starving people in other countries, but we had starving people in the United States who were not getting access to that food. And so the idea came about of trying to get some of these surplus commodities to people. When Kennedy came into office, his very first executive order was to create a pilot program. People were given coupons that looked like Monopoly money that they could take into grocery stores and use to buy any food within the grocery store. You couldn't get alcohol, you couldn't get cigarettes, but pretty much any consumable food you were able to purchase with it. Then during the mid- to late 1960s, you started to see more and more attention to the plight of tenant farmers in the South. A documentary from CBS called Hunger in America came out, and it showed starving children. When Nixon came in, there was a very famous speech where he pledged to end hunger. That ultimately led to the creation of a permanent program in 1964 that was expanded over the course of the late 1960s, and ultimately every jurisdiction was required to have it by 1974. It was set up such that the federal government would cover all the cost of the benefits, and the states would still be responsible for administering it, but a lot of the cost would be borne by the federal government. So that's the origins of the program. Epic. Yeah. This isn't the first time that people have wanted to cut or curtail or prevent certain people from accessing this program. That's been a long-established history as well. Pretty much from the beginning, there've been critics of the program. I mean, there were people in Congress that just didn't think it was necessary, or they thought that it should be treated as a welfare program and not as a nutrition or agricultural program because it was always put into the Farm Bill. But as inflation grew in the 1970s, enrollment really started to take off. And you saw people like Ronald Reagan in his run for the presidency become very critical of people becoming overly dependent on it. The argument was very similar to what we've just heard, that we needed to protect the program for the truly needy and get people that can fend for themselves off of it. Is this most recent cut to SNAP the most drastic cut we've ever seen? Yes, it's likely to be the biggest cut we've seen. But it isn't an elimination. It's saying, 'States, you gotta figure this out, your move.' Exactly. Is it going to affect Democrats, Republicans, white people, Black people, Asian people, poor people, tall people? A lot of that is gonna be up to the states. So rather than Congress coming in and saying, 'We're going to eliminate eligibility for these categories of people,' it's telling the states, 'You're going to have to bear a larger share of the benefits. And if you can't cover that, you're going to have to figure out how you reduce enrollment in the program or come up with ways to cover the additional cost.' You know, some of the bluer states are probably going to try to make up those differences and maintain assistance to people. Some of the poorer states are probably going to cut back. People will be hungry. Why let people go hungry? We're the richest country on Earth. Why do people want to cut food aid for the poor? You always have a number of people that could be getting something like SNAP, but they don't apply, either because of the stigma associated with it, or because they don't want to go through all the paperwork, or for whatever reason they don't know they're eligible. Back in the 1990s in the midst of welfare reform, the participation rate fell such that only 57 percent of eligible participants participated in SNAP. And then over the course of the George W. Bush administration, that number came up into the 70s. As they tried to make the program more accessible — and that took off during the Great Recession — what you saw was a steep increase in the percentage of people that were on SNAP. It went up to 15 percent of the population at the peak in 2013. But it remained pretty high, even as the economy started to recover. That was largely because it took a long time for the economic recovery to hit low-income workers, and partly because of the decline in stigma. And so that criticism became really loud in Congress once Republicans took control of Congress during the Obama years, and it carried over into the Trump administration. This isn't the first time that the Trump administration has tried to cut benefits. They tried to do it in the wake of the 2016 election as well, they just weren't successful. How much of a shakeup do you think this is of food aid in the United States ultimately? Most states have to have balanced budgets either because of their constitutions or because of state laws. They can't just sell more Treasury bonds the way the federal government does. That means that when we slip into a recession, states face really tough choices because they need to fund education, they need to fund Medicaid, and they need to fund all the other services that states provide. They're going to face some really tough choices about where they allocate their resources.
