Ealing Liberal Democrats critique Labour-led council’s handling of social housing, highlighting outdated systems and ongoing regulatory scrutiny despite recent reforms and marginal tenant satisfaction improvements.
Ealing Liberal Democrats have launched a sharp critique of Labour-run Ealing Council’s management of social housing, spotlighting what they describe as “poor judgement and decision-making capabilities” that have led to “appalling service delivery for residents and social housing tenants.” At a recent cabinet meeting, Liberal Democrat leader Councillor Gary Malcolm pressed Labour councillors on the lack of tangible progress for tenants three years after the council’s voluntary self-referral to the Regulator of Social Housing (RoSH), a move made following internal concerns over housing management.
The issues, the Liberal Democrats argue, are exacerbated by an outdated core housing management system, Capita Housing. According to a council budget paper on the Housing Improvement Digital Programme, this system is not only two versions behind but also riddled with problems, forcing staff to revert to manual spreadsheet tracking and patching together several unconnected systems. The report also acknowledged that Ealing Council “cannot accurately report on regulatory positions” and remains under a voluntary undertaking from 2022, relying on manual data reporting due to hierarchical and system challenges. Despite these difficulties, the council is advancing with a £3 million upgrade of this problematic software rather than exploring alternative solutions.
Councillor Jon Ball, deputy leader and housing spokesperson for the Lib Dems, criticised Labour’s approach as perpetuating failure through continued contracts with the same IT system providers. “It highlights their poor judgement and decision-making capabilities both in terms of contract partner selection, management to achieve delivery and an inability to prioritise residents properly,” he said, underscoring the urgent need for effective social housing amid growing demand.
Ealing Council, however, defends its actions by affirming transparency and ongoing efforts to rectify the highlighted deficiencies. The council spokesperson reminded that the 2022 self-referral to RoSH followed an internal audit revealing areas needing improvement. “By voluntarily contacting the regulator we took the lead in instigating change and were transparent about the need for immediate action,” they stated. The council has instituted renewed leadership, restructured housing teams, staff training enhancements, and new digital and housing improvement programmes. They expressed confidence that these steps will enable them to achieve full regulatory compliance by the end of the year.
The council’s struggles stem from deeper compliance challenges. In February 2022, a self-referral to the Regulator of Social Housing followed an internal audit which identified significant shortcomings, particularly in fire safety measures, including outdated Fire Risk Assessments and poor tracking of remedial actions. This led to prolonged monitoring by the regulator due to lingering concerns over data accuracy related to health and safety compliance. Further scrutiny in May 2022 saw Ealing Council publicly named by the regulator for failing to consistently meet statutory health and safety standards in gas, electricity, and water safety—an outcome the council partly attributed to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which delayed vital safety checks and created backlogs.
Despite these difficulties, some tenant satisfaction metrics show mild improvement. The council’s 2024-2025 Tenant Satisfaction Measures survey, which included feedback from over a thousand tenants, indicated better results in overall satisfaction and repairs compared with the previous year. However, tenant engagement and complaint handling remain problematic areas, suggesting ongoing challenges in service delivery.
The pressure on social housing provision is mounting. In January 2023, Ealing Council proposed changes to its housing allocation policy aiming to prioritise the most urgent cases, including those in temporary accommodation and experiencing long-term homelessness. This policy adjustment reduced the number of priority bands, potentially affecting over 5,500 households by tightening eligibility criteria. Meanwhile, in the private rented sector, the council secured government approval in late 2022 for a selective licensing scheme designed to tackle poor property conditions and serious housing hazards across several borough wards, reinforcing its commitment to improving housing quality.
Yet, complaints continue to mount. In the 2023/2024 period, Ealing Council received over 2,200 housing complaints—the highest in London. Tenant surveys reveal widespread dissatisfaction, particularly with the speed and quality of repair services, fueling criticism from opposition parties about the council’s capacity to manage its housing responsibilities effectively.
The situation presents a complex picture: a council grappling with historic weaknesses and regulatory scrutiny while attempting reforms amid intense demand for social housing. The Liberal Democrats highlight systemic failings and what they perceive as Labour’s inadequate response, while the council insists on ongoing progress and future compliance. As improvements are pursued, residents and tenants await tangible results amid what remains a critical test of local government performance in Ealing.
📌 Reference Map:
- Paragraph 1 – [1], [4]
- Paragraph 2 – [1]
- Paragraph 3 – [1]
- Paragraph 4 – [1]
- Paragraph 5 – [2], [3]
- Paragraph 6 – [4]
- Paragraph 7 – [5], [6]
- Paragraph 8 – [7]
- Paragraph 9 – [1], [7]
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The narrative presents recent critiques by the Liberal Democrats regarding Ealing Council’s management of social housing, with specific references to events in 2025. The earliest known publication date of similar content is 13 May 2022, when the Regulator of Social Housing named Ealing Council for failing to meet statutory health and safety requirements. ([landlordtoday.co.uk](https://www.landlordtoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2022/05/council-named-and-shamed-by-government-housing-regulator/?utm_source=openai)) The report includes updated data but recycles older material, which may justify a higher freshness score but should still be flagged. The narrative is based on a press release, which typically warrants a high freshness score. However, if earlier versions show different figures, dates, or quotes, these discrepancies should be flagged. If anything similar has appeared more than 7 days earlier, this should be highlighted explicitly.
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The narrative includes direct quotes from Councillor Jon Ball, deputy leader and housing spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, and an Ealing Council spokesperson. A search for the earliest known usage of these quotes indicates that they have been used in previous reports, suggesting potential reuse of content. If identical quotes appear in earlier material, this should be flagged as potentially reused content. If quote wording varies, note the differences. If no online matches are found, raise the score but flag as potentially original or exclusive content.
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The narrative originates from Ealing News, a local news outlet. While it provides detailed coverage of local issues, its reputation and verification processes are not widely known, which introduces some uncertainty. If the narrative originates from an obscure, unverifiable, or single-outlet narrative, this should be flagged. If a person, organisation, or company mentioned in the report cannot be verified online (e.g., no public presence, records, or legitimate website), flag as potentially fabricated.
Plausability check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims made in the narrative align with known issues regarding Ealing Council’s housing management, including previous criticisms and regulatory notices. The narrative includes specific factual anchors, such as dates, names, and institutions, which supports its plausibility. However, if the report lacks specific factual anchors (e.g., names, institutions, dates), reduce the score and flag as potentially synthetic. If language or tone feels inconsistent with the region or topic—e.g., strange phrasing, wrong spelling variant—flag as suspicious. If the structure includes excessive or off-topic detail unrelated to the claim, note this as a possible distraction tactic. If the tone is unusually dramatic, vague, or doesn’t resemble typical corporate or official language, flag for further scrutiny.
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): OPEN
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The narrative presents recent critiques of Ealing Council’s social housing management, with references to events in 2025. While the content is timely, the reliance on a press release and the use of previously published quotes from a local news outlet with an uncertain reputation introduce potential concerns. The claims align with known issues regarding Ealing Council’s housing management, but the source’s reliability and the potential reuse of content warrant further verification.
Supercharge Your Content Strategy
Feel free to test this content on your social media sites to see whether it works for your community.
