Only around 11 % of complaints resolved satisfactorily before they reach the Ombudsman

One of the most telling statistics circulating about Ealing Council’s performance is the proportion of complaints that are resolved to the resident’s satisfaction before they escalate to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman or the Housing Ombudsman.

According to figures repeatedly cited by opposition groups and local reporting, only around 11 per cent of cases receive a satisfactory remedy at the council’s own internal stages. The rest progress to the independent Ombudsman services.

This is not a minor procedural failing. It is evidence of a systemic inability – or unwillingness – to resolve problems at the earliest opportunity. Residents who report a leaking roof, an unsafe staircase, an outstanding repair or an error in benefit calculations are required to navigate the council’s two-stage complaints process. When that process fails to deliver a satisfactory outcome, the matter is escalated. At that point the Ombudsman’s uphold and maladministration rates for Ealing have remained high – in one recent period the Housing Ombudsman’s maladministration rate stood at 82 per cent.

The practical consequences are clear. Residents lose months, sometimes years. The council incurs compensation payments, staff time and reputational damage. The Ombudsman is forced to investigate cases that competent early intervention could have closed. Opposition parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party, have consistently argued that the council allows complaints to escalate rather than treating them as early warning signals.

Internal performance data reinforce the picture: a high proportion of stage-1 complaints (especially those relating to repairs) escalate to stage 2, and there have been documented delays in the council’s responses to the Ombudsman’s own enquiries. The authority maintains that its complaints handling is improving. Residents who have spent many months waiting for straightforward resolutions experience a different reality.

The 11 per cent figure is therefore more than a statistic. It is a measurable indicator of how seriously the council treats the time, dignity and legitimate concerns of the people who depend on its services.