IN February 2025 I wrote concerning the historic errors found within the rents of social rented housing stock of Mid Devon District Council (MDDC).

I questioned the morality of the Council saying they would only refund overcharged tenants the money for six years rather than for all the years the Council had overcharged - for some that could be as much as 22 years.

It may be recalled that the Deputy Chief Executive had said “If we had to go back further then we would have to let residents know that the money would be coming out of pots for future maintenance and enhancement work.”

It may be recalled that Mr Andrew Jarrett, the Deputy Chief Executive of the Council had said “I don’t think we should be judged on the mistakes, but rather how we deal with them”.

On March 11, 2025 a double paged advert appeared in the Tiverton Gazette which was headed “Council Housing is a Top Priority”. I asked the council about this and the Communications Team revealed that the “article” was commissioned by the Head of Housing and Health and approved by the Leadership Team.

The cost to the Council was £1,266 and was met from the Housing Revenue Account Tenant Involvement and Engagement budget. It may be coincidental that the border was coloured similarly to that of the colours of the ruling party in the lead up to elections.

On April 30, 2025 MDDC issued a press release entitled “Mid Devon District Council has received a judgement from the Regulator for Social Housing, following its housing rent calculation error.”

In a quote from the Head of Housing and Health it says “This judgement highlights the error, which the Council raised following an independent audit commissioned by the Council.”

This could be construed as economical with the truth as the auditors who found the error were newly appointed external auditors as required by Government.

The auditors had reported to Councillors that they had looked and found the error as the result of their experience with other councils.

When one examines the report and findings of the Regulator for Social Housing it states “Our judgement is that there are serious failings in the landlord delivering the outcomes of the Rent Standard and significant improvement is needed.”

The judgement does recognise that the Council has been transparent in its approach with tenants but the fact remains that MDDC “has overcharged around 40 per cent (1,243) of its tenants and undercharged around 60% (1,622) of its tenants as a result of errors that it has made in setting rents over a prolonged period.”

The loss to the Council of the 60 per cent (1,622) tenancies undercharge is estimated to be £8 million and this amount will continue to grow proportionately until all those tenancies change hands. Presumably this will be lost to the “pot for future maintenance and enhancement work”? There is no intention to recover any of these losses from the tenants.

The gain to the Council from the 40 per cent (1,243) overcharge is estimated at £7.5 million. Reports to Councillors show that by only refunding six years of overcharges the Council will only have to pay back an amount estimated at just over £1.5 million. That means that those tenants are collectively to be deprived of an estimated just under £6 million to cover for the failings of the Council.

The Regulator for Social Housing also stated that “Our priority will be that any relevant risks to tenants are adequately managed and mitigated, and that affected tenants have appropriate redress”.

The tenants who have not been paying enough will continue to ‘profit’ from their lower rents until they move out (which could be many more years), while those who may have been overpaying for 22 years (who have had their rent payments corrected now) will only get six years of their money back. How can this be morally correct or appropriate redress?

The decision to support the officer recommendation, and cap any refund of overcharges to only six years, was taken by the nine Cabinet members.

Do all the rest of the 42 councillors agree with what appears to be a one sided position that goes against the priorities of the Regulator?

I wonder what would be the view of councillors if the Council was faced with even one claim in the courts from overcharged tenants trying to recover their total overpayments?

Barry G.J. Warren.

Willand Old Village