Letters to the Editor From Mr. Rafael Runco, Deputy Independent Housing Ombudsman   Dear Editor, Peter Rutherford, (letters, Property People, issue 419) makes two claims which need correction First, he says that the ombudsman "depends upon the landlords for his income to the extent of 91%", implying, one presumes, that he cannot be impartial - or worse. As many of your readers will know, the fact is that the Housing Ombudsman Service is 100% funded by a mandatory contribution levied on each tenancy in its jurisdiction, collected through the landlords who cannot withhold it. Arguably, it is the tenants who pay for the ombudsman through their rent and service charges. Other ombudsmen are funded by a grant from government, and have been accused of lack of independence for that reason. One suspects that whichever arrangement was in place there would always be objectors. The trite indictment that an ombudsman's decisions can be affected by financial self preservation could be equally made against other adjudicators, referees, judges or arbitrators: on the obvious basis that someone, somewhere, has to pay for their services. A key fact, at least in our case, is that the ombudsman's remit comes from statutory provisions which give him unfettered and fearless discretion to discharge his duties. Parliament would take a dim view if there were evidence to the contrary. Second, Mr. Rutherford says that the ombudsman "has never accomplished any significant change". Again, a key fact is that the ombudsman's role is to deal with individual complaints to establish whether or not a landlord has been responsible for a wrongdoing. He is not a regulator, or a watchdog, or a tenants advocate. He must make decisions in a non partisan and dispassionate way, based on the facts in each case. This painstaking approach may not always result in headline grabbing 'significant change' , but it has the effect of making subtle and incremental improvements to housing management and the tenants' quality of life. What is more meaningful for tenants and landlords, enduring change or megaphone diplomacy? Rafael Runco Deputy Ombudsman, Housing Ombudsman Service• Back to the web site   An initial brief response from Peter Rutherford. 1. The figure of 91% is about right. Last year, IHOS received £2m from landlords and £250k from grants and other operating income. 2. If you have achieved "significant change", then why have you not given examples? 3. I did not say that landlord funding precludes the possibility of impartiality, but if a tenant receives a letter from the ombudsman, Dr. Michael Biles, saying that the evidence forwarded to him is conclusive but it "does not change my determination", then what is to be deduced from this? 4. Is it true that on two occasions, a move has been made to the ODPM by landlords to set up a new ombudsman scheme? Where would that have left Dr. Biles' office?  5. You speak of "enduring change" and "megaphone diplomacy". I can't see any sign of either. There is a lot more to be said about Mr. Runco's letter.