How many of the issues raised in the Housing Ombudsman’s latest report would stand up to scrutiny in your own organisation?
That is the uncomfortable question behind ‘Learning from Severe Maladministration’ (May 2026). While the report focuses on windows, the real story is about something much broader, how well organisations are managing risk, prioritising action, and delivering on the basics.
Because when you look beyond the individual cases, what stands out is not complexity. It is inconsistency.
The report is a timely reminder that some of the most serious failings in housing management are not caused by unusual or high-risk situations, but by the fundamentals not being delivered consistently. It highlights ongoing weaknesses in how organisations assess risk, manage repairs, and ultimately ensure homes are safe to live in.
What comes through clearly is a pattern of delay, poor decision-making, and communication that falls short of what residents should reasonably expect.
One of the most striking findings is the level of severe maladministration linked to what might be seen as routine repairs. In 2025–26, 9% of window-related cases investigated by the Ombudsman resulted in severe maladministration findings, compared to a typical rate of around 2%.
That gap is significant. It tells us this is not a marginal issue, it cuts across how organisations are operating more broadly.
Across both local authority and housing association cases, the themes are similar. Residents are left dealing with issues for extended periods, sometimes for years. Windows are boarded up for long stretches, repairs are postponed without clear justification, and known problems are allowed to continue despite the impact on residents’ health, comfort, and safety. In many cases, action only follows once the situation has escalated to the Ombudsman.
These are not isolated incidents. They point to something more systemic.
One of the key themes running through the report is how often landlords fail to take a joined-up view of risk. A defective window is rarely just a single issue. It can lead to damp and mould, poor thermal performance, ventilation problems, and in some cases, safety risks such as falls or fire concerns.
Yet these issues are still often treated separately, rather than as part of a wider risk picture. In practice, this means opportunities to intervene early are missed and problems are allowed to escalate.
Closely linked to this is the role of risk assessments. The Ombudsman highlights repeated examples where they were either not carried out or were not strong enough to inform decision-making. In some cases, this is despite clear vulnerabilities within the household.
From both a compliance and operational perspective, this is a critical issue. Without a clear, evidence-based understanding of risk, organisations will struggle to demonstrate that their decisions are proportionate, timely, and aligned with their legal duties.
Another recurring theme is the tendency to defer repairs into planned or cyclical works programmes. While this can be a sensible approach in some cases, the report shows how it is often used inappropriately, leading to unnecessary delays.
In several cases, works were pushed into future programmes despite the immediate impact on residents. The Ombudsman is clear that this can leave residents exposed to risk for longer than necessary.
There is also a very real human impact here. Residents report living in cold homes, struggling with poor ventilation, and feeling anxious about safety. Many describe the frustration of having to repeatedly chase for updates or simply to be heard. These are not abstract service issues, they affect people’s day-to-day lives.
If there is one thread that runs through almost every case in the report, it is the quality of information and communication.
Poor record keeping, unclear ownership of repairs, and inconsistent communication with residents all feature heavily. In some cases, landlords were unable to demonstrate what actions had been taken, or even whether they had taken place at all.
This goes beyond administration. It is fundamental to compliance. If organisations cannot clearly evidence what they have done, why they have done it, and when, they are exposed to both regulatory scrutiny and reputational risk.
For both housing associations and local authorities, this is particularly important as expectations around transparency and accountability continue to rise.
All of this is happening against a backdrop of significant change. The report reinforces the need for organisations to prepare for the expected expansion of Awaab’s Law beyond damp and mould to cover a wider range of hazards. This will bring greater clarity around response times and increase accountability where risks are not addressed quickly.
To find out more about your requirements under Awaab's Law, head over to our dedicated blog, 'Awaab's Law: What to expect', here.
At the same time, existing requirements under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 and the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) remain firmly in place. These already require landlords to ensure homes are safe and free from serious hazards.
For local authorities, this aligns with wider responsibilities around enforcement and public health. For housing associations, it reinforces expectations around governance, assurance, and tenant safety.
What is changing is the level of scrutiny. Organisations are increasingly expected not just to meet these obligations, but to evidence clearly how they are meeting them in practice.
This report provides an opportunity to step back and reflect. The key question is not whether these issues exist, but whether they could exist within your own organisation.
In practical terms, this means looking closely at how risk assessments are embedded in day-to-day repairs processes and whether they genuinely inform decision-making. It means ensuring that repairs, asset management, and compliance teams are connected, so issues are not handled in isolation.
It also means reviewing how decisions are made between planned and responsive works, making sure these are driven by risk and resident impact, rather than process or convenience.
Finally, it requires confidence in the quality of data and communication. Without that, it is difficult to deliver effective services or demonstrate compliance.
At Pennington Choices, we work with both housing associations and local authorities to help strengthen these foundations.
We support organisations through independent Compliance Audits and Health Checks, Housing Condition Surveys, and HHSRS Assessments, helping to build a clear and evidence-based understanding of risk. We also review policies and procedures to ensure they align with current and emerging legislative requirements.
Alongside this, we work with clients to improve asset management and repairs strategies, ensuring that decisions around planned and responsive works are balanced, practical, and risk-led. Our training programmes cover key areas such as Awaab’s Law, Ombudsman learning, and knowledge and information management, helping teams apply best practice consistently in their day-to-day roles.
Get in touch with our team of experts who will help you navigate your latest legislative requirements and ensure ongoing safety and compliance.
The message from the Ombudsman is clear. The difference between compliance and maladministration often comes down to how well the basics are delivered.
With further legislative changes on the horizon and expectations continuing to rise, now is the time for organisations to take stock.
Are your systems, processes, and teams set up to get the basics right, every time?
If you are reviewing your approach or want an honest view of where your risks may lie, we would welcome the conversation.