The Renters' Rights Act has extended the LGSCO's jurisdiction to cover non-tenant social housing complaints. The Ombudsman explains what councils need to know.
For years, there was a significant gap in the complaints landscape. If you were a tenant in council-managed social housing and had a problem, you could complain to the Housing Ombudsman. But if you were a neighbour affected by how that housing was managed, dealing with anti-social behaviour from a nearby property, for example, there was no Ombudsman you could turn to. The Housing Ombudsman's scheme only covers specific groups, primarily tenants and leaseholders, and the Local Government Act 1974 prevented the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) from stepping in to fill that gap.
Amendments to the 1974 Act, introduced through the Renters' Rights Act, changed that from 1 May 2026. Here, Amerdeep Clarke, the LGSCO, explains what the new powers mean in practice.
What types of complaints from non-tenants now fall within the LGSCO's jurisdiction, and are there any specific exclusions complaint managers should be aware of?
The LGSCO is now able to consider complaints about how a council manages social housing or housing let on a long lease, where the person complaining cannot complain to the Housing Ombudsman. In practice, this will typically mean people living next to or close to council-managed properties. Some of the most common complaints we were receiving but were previously unable to consider included issues such as anti-social behaviour and the management of Japanese Knotweed, the kinds of problems that can have a real impact on people's lives even though they are not themselves tenants.
What signposting obligations do councils now have, and at what point in the complaints process should they direct non-tenants to the LGSCO?
Councils should always signpost to the LGSCO at the end of their complaints process where the complainant is not a social housing tenant. That said, there are some circumstances where social housing tenants should also be directed to us, for example, where a complaint relates to an award of reasonable preference on a housing application, or to a homeless application.
Councils should also be mindful of which powers they are exercising in a given situation. For instance, a council may use anti-social behaviour or environmental health powers in connection with a social housing tenant. Those powers fall under the LGSCO's jurisdiction, which means we could consider complaints from both tenants and non-tenants about how those powers have been used.
We have worked together with the Housing Ombudsman to provide guidance to help councils and the public understand the jurisdiction of each Ombudsman, including a new signposting tool on both our websites. Where councils are unsure which Ombudsman to direct someone to, they are always welcome to ask us for advice. And where a mix of social housing and other powers have been used, councils can signpost the complainant to both Ombudsmen.
Will the LGSCO expect councils to have a distinct complaints pathway for non-tenants, or can existing processes be adapted?
Councils should not need to overhaul their complaints handling to comply with these changes. The LGSCO and the Housing Ombudsman have both issued Complaint Handling Codes, and these are deliberately aligned so that councils with housing powers can comply with both under a single corporate complaints policy. The change in legislation does not alter how complaints should be handled or how the Codes are applied. The main practical step for councils is to review any template letters or signposting language used at the end of the internal process, and to make sure that non-tenants with social housing management complaints are now being directed to the LGSCO.
How will the LGSCO and the Housing Ombudsman coordinate to avoid duplication or conflicting outcomes where a complaint involves both a tenant and a non-tenant with overlapping concerns?
We have a memorandum of understanding with the Housing Ombudsman which sets out how we will work together on cases and share information and intelligence. Each Ombudsman has different roles and powers, so there may be occasions where we reach different conclusions on different cases, and that can be entirely appropriate given those differences. Where it matters is that we are working collaboratively to ensure nothing falls through the gaps.
Because it is not possible for us to check every case that comes to us, we would encourage councils to alert us when they become aware of related cases being considered by the other Ombudsman.
What are the most common pitfalls in handling social housing management complaints, and what can complaint managers do now to reduce the risk of referrals to the LGSCO?
We have produced a range of good practice guides for local councils on complaint management, covering complaint handlers, complaint managers, senior leaders and elected members. The fundamental advice, though, is straightforward: look for early opportunities to resolve complaints and make sure you have provided a proportionate response before signposting to any Ombudsman.
Good oversight and scrutiny of complaints is essential to building a healthy culture of learning. If that culture is in place, it is far more likely that we will agree with the action a council has already taken by the time a complaint reaches us. We already acknowledge in our annual data those cases where councils have provided a suitable outcome locally, we see that as a positive indicator of good complaint handling, not a failure to escalate.
A gap that has now been closed
These changes are straightforward in principle but important in practice. For years, people who were genuinely affected by the way council housing was managed had nowhere to turn if they fell outside the Housing Ombudsman's scheme. That gap has now been closed.
For councils, the message is equally clear: review your signposting, make sure your teams understand the new landscape, and make use of the tools both Ombudsmen have put in place to help you navigate it. The changes are not intended to create additional burdens – they are intended to ensure that everyone who has a legitimate complaint has a route to pursue it.
Further reading:
Which ombudsman for social housing complaints?
What is the Complaint Handling Code?
