Information contained within the dataset
In the realm of social housing, two key metrics are used to evaluate landlord performance: the Housing Ombudsman Service's Maladministration Rate and Campbell Tickell's CT Incidence Rate.
The Housing Ombudsman Maladministration Rate, often abbreviated as MalRate, is a measure of the proportion of cases where social housing landlords or providers have been formally found to have mishandled complaints or management issues. These findings are often documented in severe maladministration reports, which detail specific failures in areas such as repairs, disability adaptations, leaseholder management, and critical safety issues like window disrepair[1][5]. For instance, several landlords have been named for serious delays, poor communication, and neglect of health and safety risks, contributing to the maladministration rates reported.
On the other hand, the CT Incidence Rate, a metric developed by housing consultancy Campbell Tickell, measures the frequency of tenant complaints or incidents related to landlord performance. It serves as an internal or comparative benchmarking tool, evaluating landlord responsiveness and service quality by capturing how often issues arise that require resolution or complaint handling[1][5]. Although exact numerical breakdowns of the CT Incidence Rate are not publicly available, it generally provides insight into operational effectiveness from a landlord's perspective.
Key differences between these two metrics are outlined below:
| Aspect | Housing Ombudsman Maladministration Rate | Campbell Tickell CT Incidence Rate | |--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | Source of measurement | Formal investigations and judgments by the Housing Ombudsman | Internal or consultancy-assessed complaint/incident frequency | | Nature of metric | Rate of maladministration findings (failure or fault in management, repairs, etc.) | Incidence of tenant-reported issues or operational faults | | Use case | Public accountability; highlights landlord failures requiring corrective action | Performance management and operational improvement within landlord organizations | | Scope | Focus on legally and formally upheld complaints with consequences | Broader incidence capturing operational concerns and tenant feedback | | Examples | Reports citing failure to address leaks, disrepair, disability adaptations, with named landlords like Lambeth Council | Though not specified in search, typically used to benchmark landlord complaint handling effectiveness |
The Housing Ombudsman Maladministration Rate primarily reflects confirmed and often severe failures, with implications for enforcement or public scrutiny, while the CT Incidence Rate offers a more proactive monitoring of ongoing tenant incident frequency to aid service improvement.
The CT Incidence Rate distribution chart reveals a long tail of more than 1,300 landlords with zero HOS findings on the right side. This could indicate weaker awareness of and poorer signposting to the Housing Ombudsman by these landlords, rather than lower overall service quality[1][5].
Interestingly, the worst-performing landlord by the CT Incidence Rate had over eight times the average incidence, with 55 negative findings per 10,000 homes[1][5]. In contrast, fewer than seven negative findings per 10,000 homes per annum suggest that landlord maladministration, as defined by the Housing Ombudsman, is relatively rare[1][5].
It's worth noting that the HOS landlord data provides a rich source of insights into the quality of both service provision and complaints handling[1][5]. However, the poorest landlord by the HOS MalRate measure is in the top 30% of landlords by the CT Incidence metric[1][5]. Conversely, the worst-performing landlord by the CT Incidence Rate has a HOS MalRate of 35%, and does not appear on the HOS's worst performers list[1][5].
In summary, both the Housing Ombudsman Maladministration Rate and Campbell Tickell's CT Incidence Rate offer unique perspectives on housing landlord performance. The MalRate represents a stricter, outcome-based evaluation of landlord fault confirmed through formal complaints, while the CT Rate is an operational metric intended to track the frequency of tenant-incident issues that may lead to complaints. Used together, these metrics can provide a comprehensive view of housing landlord performance, with the MalRate showing where failures have been found, and the CT Rate providing insight into ongoing service challenges before reaching formal maladministration findings[1][5].
[1]: Source 1 [5]: Source 5
Investing in real-estate, particularly commercial properties, could involve analysing the performance of landlords using metrics such as the Housing Ombudsman Maladministration Rate (MalRate) and Campbell Tickell's CT Incidence Rate. The MalRate, a stricter evaluation of landlord fault confirmed through formal complaints, highlights where failures have been found, while the CT Rate tracks the frequency of tenant-incident issues that may lead to complaints, serving as an operational metric for performance management and service improvement within landlord organizations.
