spso housing complaints report 2012 13

SCOTTISH PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMANANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012–2013

HOUSING

Learningfromcomplaints

Supportingpublic serviceimprovement

Improvingcomplaintshandling

This is the SPSO’s first annual complaints reportabout the housing sector. It is one of a series ofreports throughwhichwe aim to put keymessages, information and analysis of complaintsabout individual sectors into the public domain.We anticipate that Parliamentary committees,government departments, scrutiny bodies,regulators and housing providerswill find this aneffectivemeans of enhancing the learning fromourwork and identifying issues arising from thecomplaintswe see. Equally, we hope it will proveuseful tomembers of the public who seekmoreinformation about the kinds of complaints that areescalated to us and howwehandle them.

October 2013

CONTENTS

Ombudsman’s Introduction 4

Casework 6

Sharing the Learning 14

Improving Complaints Standards 16

Case Studies 21

Housing CasesDetermined 2012/2013 26

Our jurisdiction covers all registered sociallandlords (RSLs) and includes houses bothin council ownership and those owned byhousing associations. Overall, housingcomplaints account for 17%of our caseload(9% through councils and 8% fromhousingassociations).

Many of the housing complaints we see areabout repairs andmaintenance (painting ortilingwalls for example, or changing aheating system). From the outside thesemay seemminormatters, so it is worthremembering that what we consider are notthe initial requests for service, but issuesthat have arisen because the repair ormaintenancewas carried out badly or not atall. This has led to the person complainingfirstly to the RSL, still being dissatisfiedand then coming to us, bywhich timemanymonthsmay have passed, and duringwhichwalls will have remained undecorated or theflat will have been cold.Wherewe can,we resolve such issues quickly, whereappropriatemaking recommendations to tryto ensure no repetition of themistake thatled to the poor service.

Housing also covers neighbour disputes andantisocial behaviour, our second highestcategory of complaint. Again, by the timecomplaints reach our office thesemattersmay have become highly emotional andentrenched, requiring sensitive handling.Such issueswith living environment canhave a significant, ongoing and inescapableimpact on tenantswhich emphasises theimportance of effective and quick remedythrough the complaints process.

Key trends in our figuresIn housing in previous years, the rate ofpremature complaints (those that cometo us before completing the complaintsprocedure of the organisation concerned)has been consistently high. In 2011/12 itwas 62%, against an average of 43% acrossall the sectors. This year, it was down to52% against an overall rate across allsectors of 40%.While this is still higherthanmost other sectors, it represents awelcome downwards trend that I hopewill continue.

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

SPSO ANNUAL COMPLAINTS REPORT 2012>2013 HOUSING PAGE 4

Such issueswith livingenvironment can have asignificant, ongoing andinescapable impact ontenantswhich emphasisesthe importance of effectiveand quick remedy throughthe complaints process.


Upheld complaintsDuring the year we investigated a totalof 98 complaints about housing that were‘fit for SPSO’ – i.e. they were aboutsomething that we could look at and hadcompleted the complaints process of theauthority concerned. Of these, we upheldor partly upheld 43% of the complaints weinvestigated. It is notable that in a largenumber of cases where we found problems,the upheld aspects were, or included,failings in complaints handling. Thesefailings should be relatively straightforwardto reduce, and this report highlights thework we are doing to help support trainingin complaints handling in the housing sector.

Improving complaints handlingRSLs were a key focus of our ComplaintsStandards Authority in 2012/13. Throughoutthe previous year we worked in partnershipwith a range of stakeholders to develop astandardisedmodel complaints handlingprocedure (CHP) for the sector. It waspublished in April 2012 with animplementation date of March 2013.I am very grateful to themany people whowere involved, in particular those housingassociations, tenants groups and otherstakeholders and partner organisationswho provided valuable time and expertisethroughout the development andimplementation of the CHP, associatedperformance indicators andmonitoringarrangements.

Our aim has always been for the RSL CHPto be owned by the housing sector and Ibelieve that this is now the case. We lookforward to working in partnership with theRSL complaints handlers network and otherpartners to support ongoing improvementof the CHP’s operation through sharing ofexperience, learning and best practiceacross the sector.

Sharing the learningOne of the benefits of our process is thetransparency of our decisions. In 2012/13,we published 83 complaints about housingon our website. Through this, sociallandlords can analyse trends and identifyimprovements they canmake to reduce anyfailings we find. Similarly, the public cansee the kinds of complaints that aremade tohousing providers, gain insights both wherewe do not uphold complaints and where wedo, and find examples of the kinds ofredress we are able to recommend. I urgehousing providers tomake themost of thesetools and to demonstrate to their customersthe ways in which they value complaints andhow they use them to drive improvement.

JimMartinOmbudsman

OMBUDSMAN’S INTRODUCTION

Oneof the benefitsof our process is thetransparency of ourdecisions. Publishing ourdecisionsmeans sociallandlords can analysetrends and identifyimprovements they canmake and the public cangain insights bothwherewedonot upholdcomplaints andwherewedo.

CASEWORK

Number of complaints receivedanddealtwithIn 2012/13we received 689 complaints aboutsocial housing providers. In linewith the overallincrease in complaints received this year, thiswas a 10% increase on the 628 complaints wereceived in 2011/12.

In the local authority sector, housingwas, onceagain, the subject about whichwe receivedmostcomplaints, with the number received in 2012/13increasing by 6%on 2011/12 (up to 361 from341). These cover a range of issues, fromhousing repairs andmaintenance to neighbourdisputes and antisocial behaviour and accountfor 9%of our total caseload.

It is worth pointing out that not all the complaintswe record as ‘housing’ are directly about houses.Evenwhere a council’s housing stock has beentransferred, we can still receive complaints thatwe currently categorise as aboutmatters relatedto housing, such as antisocial behaviour, localhousing allowance and council tax benefit, andissues raised by peoplewho are homeless.Wehave recently reviewed our categories and havemade changes to the types of complaints werecord as about housing issues, whichwill comeinto effect from the next financial year.

We received 328 complaints about housingassociations in 2012/13 (up 14% from the 287we received in 2011/12) totalling 8%of all thecomplaints SPSO received during the year.

In terms of numbers of housing complaints dealtwith in 2012/13, we handled 669, 11%more thanin 2011/12 (in whichwe dealt with 604 cases).The total number of complaints received anddealt with differs because some cases receivedin 2011/12were completed in 2012/13.

Whatwedowith complaintsAt the end of this report, there are tableswith theoutcomes of all the housing complaints we dealtwith. Here, we identify some of the key pointsandwhat we do at each stage of our process.

AdviceAll complaints and enquiries come first to ouradvice team. Their role is to provide information,signposting and support. Much of this work isconducted by telephone and they provide not onlyadvice about ourwork but also help people findadditional support, which can be particularlyimportant in the housing sector. They can alsomake a decision on a complaint if it is clearly amatter that we are not legally able to consider orit has come to us too early.We are normally onlyable to deal with complaints after they havecompleted the organisation’s complaintsprocess. If a complaint comes to us too early(we call these premature complaints) wewilllet the person knowhowbest tomake thecomplaint to the organisation concerned.We can also give advice about organisations(such as Citizens Advice Scotland or ShelterScotland) who can provide advice or supportpeople through the complaints process.

This year saw a drop in the number of prematurecomplaints about the housing sector, to 52%.This is historically the sector inwhich the rateof premature approaches to us is highest and,comparedwith other sectors, the rate remainshigh (the overall rate across all sectors is 40%).In 2011/12 the ratewas 62%, against an averageof 43%across all the sectorswe deal with,consisting of 67% for housing associations and58% for local authorities. In 2012/13, the rate forhousing associationswas 55%and for localauthorities it was 48%.

All enquiries and the vastmajority of prematurecomplaints are dealt with by our advice team.In 2012/13, the teamhandled 462 complaintsabout housing services, of which 331werepremature. At the next stage in our process,where complaints receive further detailedreview, another 15 such caseswere found tobe premature.



> Wereceived689complaints and dealtwith669

> The rate of complaints coming to us too early dropped from62%

to52%comparedwith last year (the overall rate is 40%)

> The rate of upheld complaintswas 43%, up from38% last year,but lower than the overall rate of 46%

> Peoplewho received advice, support and signposting:462

> Number of cases decided following detailed consideration

pre-investigation:109

> Complaints fully investigated98with 83* publicly reportedtoParliament

> Wemade60recommendations for redress and improvement

* Wepublicly report the decisions aminimumof sixweeks after sending the decision letter.In a small number of caseswedonot put information in the public domain, usually to preventthe possibility of someonebeing identified.

Key figures in housing complaints 2012/13


CASEWORK

Assessing complaintsLast year, 207 complaints passed from theadvice stage to further detailed review. At thisstage, we try wherever possible to talk to thecomplainant tomake surewe understand theircomplaint andwhat outcome theywant.We aim to see if there is a resolution that wouldbe agreeable and acceptable to all parties andin a very small number of caseswewere able todo this (examples include one housing provideragreeing tomove a bath for a tenant, andanother paying for a satellite dish to bemoved).We also have to assesswhether there arereasonswe should not take the complaintfurther. We can only investigatewherewehave the legal power to do so.

We know it is frustrating for complainants if wecan’t resolve a complaint or take it further, sowetry to take this decision as quickly aswe can.Last year, we decided at this stage that we couldnot take 109 cases further. In some cases thiswas because theywere premature, or out of ourjurisdiction. In others, the complainant did notprovide uswith enough information, withdrewthe complaint, or wanted an outcomewe couldnot achieve for them.We provide a breakdownof the decisionswemade at this stage at theend of this report.

In a small number of cases, we can help bygetting in touchwith the landlord and askingwhysomething has not happened orwhen it can beexpected to happen. A phone call fromour officecanmake a difference, andwe aim to do this inall appropriate cases. For example, a personphoned us to ask aboutmaking a complaint.They said that they had reported to the councilthat amember of their family, who had adisability, had fallen in the bathroombut thefacilities had still not been assessed for safety.We phoned the council to find outmore, and theyimmediately arranged for an occupationaltherapist to visit and help find a safeway for theperson to use the bathroom. In this casewe didnot need to take the complaint further, as theproblemwas fixed straight away.

Investigating complaintsAt the investigation stage, we decidewhetherthe complaint should or should not be upheld.In order to do so, wewill consider all theavailable evidence. In housing cases, this islikely to include the housing file and/orcomplaints correspondence, aswell as any otherinformation supplied by the personwho hasmade the complaint, or by the housing provider,such as photographs, or reports by surveyors orspecialists who have inspected properties.Weassesswhetherwhat happenedwas reasonablein the circumstances, andwhether theorganisation followed the correct procedures.

DecisionsWhenwe investigate, we always issue awrittendecision. This is an important record and setsout in detail what we have investigated and how.The organisation and the complainant willreceive copies.We know these decisions aresometimes about difficult experiences andin 2012/13we beganmoving towardssupplementing thewritten recordwith atelephone discussionwith the peoplewho hadmade the complaints. This has proved successfuland is now part of our regular and increased useof direct contact with complainants.

Thewritten recordwill be in one of two formats.Inmost caseswe issue decisions by letter.This letter remains private between ourselvesand the parties. In order to ensure learning isshared, we publicly report a summary of thedecision to Parliament. In 2012/13we issued 98decisions on housing complaints by letter.

38 of thesewere about housing associations and60 about local authorities. Of these, we upheld orpartly upheld a total of 42 (43%). 15 of thesewere about housing associations and 27 aboutlocal authorities, andwas an overall increase onthe 38%of cases that we upheld in 2011/12.Wefound complaints handling to be an issue in over40%of the complaints (17 out of 42) whereweupheld or partly upheld the complaint. Six werehousing association cases and elevenwerecouncil cases.

continued>


CASEWORK

We reported 83 decisions to Parliament but didnot publish any public interest reports abouthousing in 2012/13. For information, our criteriafor this are set out below.

Our public interest criteria can include:

> significant personal injustice

> systemic failure

> significant failures in the localcomplaints procedure

> precedent and test cases

RecommendationsWherewe find that something has gonewrong,wewill uphold the complaint andwe usuallymake recommendations for redress andimprovement. In 2012/13, wemade a total of 60recommendations about the housing sector,of which 21were about housing associationsand 39 about the housing functions of localauthorities.We fully upheld 13 complaints andpartly upheld another 29 in 2012/13. Themainarea inwhich complaints were upheldwas thatof repairs andmaintenance, wherewe fullyupheld 3 and partly upheld 12.

On the opposite page and through the casestudies at the end of this report, there areexamples of the kinds of recommendationswemake. There aremore case summaries on ourwebsite:www.spso.org.uk/our-findings

Housing recommendationsWe recommended that a housing provider:

> review their decision to invoice a tenantfor damage, taking account of theinformation available including herversion of events

> reviewprocedures for completingdocumentswhen inspecting property

> give further consideration to aman’srequest for housing points if his propertyshows further signs of dampness

> consider putting in place a policy onplacing fences betweenproperties

> keep anote of the accompanied viewingof property

> apologise for delay and for notcommunicating properlywith a tenant

> apologise for delay in offering ahomeless applicant a permanent house

> apologise for delay inmaking acompensation payment

> emphasise to staff the importance ofresponding to complaints in a timelymanner and,where necessary, providingappropriate updates

> remind staff that complaints responsesshould include information about how totake thematter further if the complainantis still unhappy.


CASEWORK

What do people complain about?

Top subjects of housing complaints received 2012/13

The complaints received cover both local authorities and housing associations, and the tableshows details of the numbers of complaints received for each type of social landlord. Takenas a whole, the top categories of complaint shown below remain the same as last year, withslight changes in the order.

Subject Housing LocalAssociations Authority Total

Repairs andmaintenance 95 130 225

Neighbour disputes and antisocial behaviour 40 63 103

Applications, allocations, transfers & exchanges 15 42 57

Policy/administration 25 31 56

Complaints handling 26 11 37

Local housing allowance and council tax benefit n/a 34 34

Improvements and renovation 14 15 29

Estatemanagement, open space & environment work 13 7 20

Rent and/or service charges 10 9 19

Homeless person issues 2 8 10

Repairs andmaintenance remains the topcategory of complaint, and shows an increase of32% on the number received in 2011/12, whenwe received 171. Neighbour disputes andantisocial behaviour complaints are still insecond place, again in increased numbers (16%more than last year, when we received 89).

There was amarked rise (118%) in thenumber of complaints that were directly aboutcomplaints handling. However, this increasewas on relatively small numbers of complaints(from 17 in 2011/12 to 37 in 2012/13).Complaints about local housing allowance(formerly housing benefit) and council taxbenefit, which are only relevant to localauthorities, dropped by 29%, from 48 to 34.


CASEWORK

Issues in housing complaintsRepairsandmaintenanceThis is the area about whichwe have alwaysreceivedmost complaints. People bring us awiderange of issues that we categorise under thisheading. These are the kinds ofmatters that willbe familiar to all housing officers such ascomplaints that a homewas in a poor state ofrepair when tenantsmoved in, concerns aboutasbestos in a property, issues relating torefurbishment programmes and complaints that aflat is damp or that tenants havewaited too longfor a leak to be fixed.We can occasionally get acomplaint dealt with quickly bymaking a phonecall, or a housing providermay take action afterwe get in touchwith themwhenwe ask forinformation about the complaint.

Sometimeswe find that a providermay have haddifficulty in arranging for work to be done, becausethey are a co-owner in a block of flats or atenement, andmay need to get the agreement ofother owners before non-urgent work can becarried out. However, sometimes the housingprovidermay not have acted properly, and this hasadded to the problem. An example of this is wherea couple complained, among other things, that thecouncil took too long to repair the roof and rhonesin their block. They felt that this had resulted indampness in their flat. Our investigation (case201103835) found that therewas a delay of elevenmonths between the council obtaining a quote forrepairs, and the repairs being done. This wasbecause the council sent the quote to the tenant ofthe upstairs flat, rather than the private landlord,then did not follow this upwhen therewas no reply.Wemade recommendations including that thecouncil should discuss internal improvementworkwith the couple, and investigatewhat repairsmightbe necessary to their flat.

Sometimeswe find that, while things have gonewrongwith repairs, the housing provider hastaken steps to correct the problems. For example,after a couple completed a tenancy exchange theynoticed that their living roomfloor slanted steeply

(case 201101699). The housing associationthought that pouring a self-levelling compoundacross the floorwould solve the problem, and toldthe couple that theywould not have access to theroom for four dayswhile this dried out. However,the slant on the floor turned out to be too deep forthis, and after taking some time to assess thesituation, the association decided to break up andrelay the floor. On top of the time the couple hadalreadywaited, this then took eleven days tocomplete. However, the association had kept thecouple informed, paid for the storage of theirfurniture and had offered to pay for other services.The association also paid appropriate allowancesfor disturbance and decorating costs, and the chiefexecutive acknowledged that they should haveinvestigated the problem further at the start.We upheld the complaint, but as the associationhad already identified lessons to be learned fromthis, we recommended only that they apologiseto the couple.

In the area ofmaintenance, an issuewe seerepeated each year is of tenants complaining thata landlord has charged them for returning to gainentry tomake safety checks. In such cases,however, we do often find that the landlord hasacted properly. An example of this is where amancomplained that the council charged him for avisit (case 201203652). His annual home gasmaintenance checkwas due, but he hadmisseda first appointment. He said he received nothingmore from the council until a contractor’s cardwas put through his door. After this, the councilwent there for a third time.When theyweregranted access, they ‘capped’ the gas supply andcharged theman an administrative fee. Themanwas very unhappy about being charged the fee.We found evidence, however, that when theircontractors could not gain access, the council hadsent three letters and left two cards at the house.They had the correct address details, had givenappropriate notice on each occasion, and hadfollowed their policy.We found that in thecircumstances theywere entitled to charge theadministration fee.

continued>


CASEWORK

Neighbourdisputes/antisocialbehaviourFor the second year running, this is the area inwhichwe received the second highest number ofcomplaints in relation to housing. Complaints thatfall into this category are often complex, long-running and emotionally charged,with claims andcounter-claimsmade by both parties to the dispute.Given that the circumstances of these kinds ofcomplaints can be very specific, we do not alwayspublicly report these cases, in order to ensure thatwe protect the identity of the people concerned.

One example thatwe didmake publicwas of a casewhere a couple complained of long-termantisocialbehaviour from their neighbours, including dogbarking and other noise (case 201103201). They saidthat the council had not taken action against theneighbours.We found, however, that the councilhad appropriately investigated the complaints undertheir antisocial behaviour policies and had takenappropriate action. However, we also found thatthey had not followed relevant sections of their‘keeping of pets’ policy about keepingmore thanone pet. Another casewaswhere awomanhad adisputewith her neighbour andwanted a higherfence between the two properties (case 201201082).She said that the housing association had notdiscussed the position of the fencewith her beforestartingwork, and thought the association had paidmore attention to her neighbour than to her. Ourinvestigation foundno evidence that the associationhad treated her neighbourmore favourably.However, the association accepted that they couldhave progressed thismore quickly and, because ofthe delay, had agreed tomeet the full cost of thefence. They also accepted that communicationwiththeir tenant could have been better.

Another example, about noise froma neighbour'shouse, is included inmore detail as a case study atthe end of this report (case 201202244). We did notuphold the complaint aswe found that the housingassociation concerned had tried to resolve theproblem. Among other things, they had offered toarrangemediation between the parties concerned,but the tenant had not wished to take this forwardat the time. Althoughwe did not uphold thecomplaint, we recommended that they shouldoffermediation again, which they did.

ProblemsaftermovinghomeOne of the issues that sometimes comesup iswhen a tenantmoves house, either because theyare allocated a property or through an exchange.Sometimes problems that are not immediatelyapparent becomeclear only after the personmovesin, and it can take time for this to be resolved to theirsatisfaction. One example is of amanwho found,aftermoving in, that his housewas damp (case201100230). He complained that the housingassociation knew this before they let him theproperty, and that they delayed in carrying outrepairs.We found that they had been aware ofminordampness, and had addressed this before it was let,but it had turned out that the problemwasmoresevere and affected thewhole building.When theyfound out, they did their best to try to get otherowners to agree to resolve this. Although they haddone this, wewere concerned at the length of timethe tenant had livedwith the problem, and that therewas nowritten record of the accompanied viewingwith himbefore hemoved in, whichwould havenoted any issues brought to his attention.Wemaderecommendations to address these concerns.

In another case, a tenantmoved fromone councilproperty to another as part of an exchange scheme(case 201104667). It was a condition of the schemethat she accepted her newhouse in its currentcondition and that no non-emergency or non-statutory repairswould be carried out during thefirst sixmonths. The tenant said thatwhen she tookover the house, she reported that the bath tubwaschipped. About 14 years later, she transferredagain. The councilmade a pre-transfer assessmentof her old property, and said the bathwas damaged.They sent her an invoice formore than £600 toreplace it. The tenant said that the damage referredtowas the same chip thatwas therewhen shemoved into the property. Our investigation foundthat the original transfer inspection formswerelargely incomplete, and could not be relied on toshow the condition of the bath at the time. In theabsence of evidence to the contrary, we upheldthe complaint. The council cancelled the invoiceand re-emphasised to staff the importance ofcompleting documents about the inspection ofproperty at the start or end of a tenancy.


CASEWORK

Complaints handlingWedealt with 36 complaints inwhich complaintshandlingwas themain subject.We did notlook further into 22 of these, as they had notcompleted the relevant organisation’s complaintsprocedure. Of the remaining complaints, weupheld or partly upheld only four. However, asin other areas under our jurisdiction, we foundcomplaints handling to be a contributory factorinmanymore complaints. Aswe have saidearlier in this report, we found it to be an issue inover 40%of housing complaints (17 out of 42)wherewe upheld or partly upheld the complaint.In one complaint alreadymentioned (case201202244), althoughwe did not uphold themaincomplaint about noise, we found that the housingassociation had not initially registered theirtenant’s complaint, and did not respond properlyor on time. They also lost sight of the issue of thehandling of the complaint while trying to dealwith the concerns that the tenant had raised.

In other cases, we found that organisations hadnot followed their complaints policy properly,had sent confusing responses or had failed torespondwithin the timescales that theircomplaints policy allows. In one case, themaincomplaint was about an alleged failure to resolveproblemswith sewerage and a septic tank (case201101370).We did not uphold those elementsof the complaint but we did find that when the

tenant complained, the housing association'sreply did not confirm that it was a response tothe complaint or how she could take thematterfurther if shewas unhappywith that response.They also delayed in taking some of the actionthey said theywould take, and failed to keeptheir tenant updated.

Sometimes in such cases, the organisationconcerned recognises that things have gonewrong oncewe get in touchwith themabout thecomplaint. One example of this waswhere acouncillor wrote to a housing provider on behalfof a constituent (case 201200078), but wasunhappywith theway they responded, andcomplained to us. During our investigation, thechief executive of the organisationwrote to thecouncillor with an apology. She explained thatit was shewho had decided that his complaintwould not be handled under their complaintspolicy. She acknowledged that he should havebeen told that, and also that it should in fact havebeen handled in linewith the complaints policy.She apologised for these failings.We upheld thecomplaint but did not need tomake anyrecommendations aswe noted that the housingprovider had already taken appropriate action toremedy this.


SHARING THE LEARNING

Publishing reportsEachmonth, we publish reports of asmanycases aswe can and lay thembefore Parliament.In 2012/13we published 83 decision reportsabout the housing sector,making thempubliclyavailable to raise awareness and to supportlearningwithin and across sectors. In doing this,we are careful to protect the identity of thepersonwho complained and any individualsabout whom the complaint wasmade. Althoughwe publish the vastmajority of our decisions, in avery small number of caseswe take the view thateven publishing anonymouslymight identifysomeone, or that there are other reasons for notpublishing, such as a person’s vulnerability. Inthese circumstanceswewill exclude a case frompublication. In housing cases, asmentionedearlier, this is particularly relevant where thecomplaint relates to problemswith neighbours.

The bulk of the reports we publish aresummary reports of decision letters. Thesedetail the complaint, our decision andwhetherrecommendationsweremade.We also publishsome full investigation reports eachmonth(although therewere none about the housingsector in 2012/13) where the public interestmakes it important that all the detail is in thepublic domain. All the reports are searchableon ourwebsite by organisation, date andoutcome and they provide awealth of informationfor complainants and organisations.Wepromote learning from the reports through theOmbudsman’smonthly e-newsletter whichhighlights themes and issues fromour casework.

It is sent to over 2,000 recipients, includingMSPs,scrutiny bodies, service providers, advocacyagencies and themedia.

Informing providers and the publicAnotherway inwhich learning from complaintsis shared is through a joint initiative fromHouseMark and ombudsman schemes.HouseMark is amember-based organisation,jointly owned by the Chartered Institute ofHousing and theNational Housing Federation,which provides performance improvementservices. A section on its website contains casestudies fromour office and other ombudsmanschemes that deal with housing complaintssuch as theHousing Ombudsman and the LocalGovernment Ombudsman in England, and thePublic Services Ombudsman forWales. To readthe digests visitwww.ombudsmansays.info.

We have developed fact sheets to help the publicunderstandwhat we can do about some of thetop subjects of complaint about housing. Theseare regularly updated and include areas suchas housing benefit, antisocial behaviour orneighbour nuisance and a specific leaflet aboutwhat to do if you are a tenant of a housingassociation or a local authority and have acomplaint about them.We have also produced aleaflet jointly with Shelter Scotland, which aimsto helps people understandwhere to go foradvice and support in the areas of homelessnessapplications and renting or buying theirown home.

To read our decisions or search by subject, organisation or case reference number,visitwww.spso.org.uk/our-findings and to read our information leaflets, visithttp://www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets


SHARING THE LEARNING

Workingwith othersWehave amemorandumof understandingwith the ScottishHousing Regulator to helpus share information about complaints.Throughout the yearwemet regularly with theregulator to discuss complaints handling andassociated issues, particularly the developmentand implementation of themodel complaintshandling procedure (CHP) and the regulator’smonitoring of themodel CHP requirements of theScottish Social Housing Charter.We discuss thisinteraction inmore detail in the next section‘Improving complaints standards’.

Ourmemorandumof understandingwith theScottishHousingRegulator ispublished on ourwebsite athttp://www.spso.org.uk/class-1-about-us

ConsultationsThe complaints that people bring us provide avaluable source of information about the directexperiences of those using housing services.Aswe have said already, we put asmuch ofthis as possible in the public domain and userecommendations to seek to prevent the sameproblemhappening again.We use our knowledgeof the complaints systemand people’s experienceof that systemwhenwe respond to inquiries andconsultations. For example, in August 2012weresponded to the ScottishHousing Regulator’sconsultation on the Scottish Social HousingCharter indicators.Wewere pleased that the finalCharter included key indicators formonitoringcomplaints handling in the sector.

To read our consultation responses, visithttp://www.spso.org.uk/consultations-and-inquiries


A strong focus of ourwork over the past yearwason improving howhousing providers themselvesdeal with complaints. 2012/13was a significantyear inmoving towards our vision of a streamlinedcomplaints handling systemacross the publicsector, with the local government and registeredsocial landlord (RSL) sectors leading theway.Our Complaints Standards Authority (CSA)publishedmodel handling procedures (CHPs)for local authorities inMarch 2012 andRSLs inApril 2012, and supported these organisationsin implementing theirmodel CHPs throughoutthe year.

Supporting implementationAll RSLswere required to submit a pro-formaby October 2012 providing assurance on theirimplementation of themodel CHP byMarch 2013.In linewith our targets, themodel CHP is nowoperating in over 160 registered social landlordsand across all council services in Scotland’s32 local authorities. To provide support toorganisations in the lead-up to implementation,the CSA visited councils and housing associations,metwith regulators and other stakeholders andattended events across Scotland to provide furtherdetails of the SPSO’s expectations and advice onimplementation.

In terms of direct support and engagement forservice providers, between April 2012 andMarch2013we responded to over 1,000 stakeholderenquiries froma full range of public serviceproviders. Themajority of our activities related toRSLs and local government, reflecting the earlypublication of the CHPs in these sectors, withRSLs accounting for 51%and local government35%of enquiries or requests for support. Thesecontacts involved support on a range of issuesrelatedmainly to implementation, includingspecific guidance onCHP requirements and good

practice, compliance checks, support for stafftraining/systems changes and general complaintshandling guidance.Manywere straightforwardrequests, but a sizeable number required detailedadvice and guidance, and follow-up contact.

The chart below illustrates the range and extentof these contacts across the public sector inScotland.

IMPROVING COMPLAINTS STANDARDS

RSL 51%

Local government 35%

Higher education 3%

Further education 4%

Scottish Government& associated bodies 3%

Other 4%

CSAcontacts2012/13Total1,039

TheCSA’swebsite iswww.valuingcomplaints.org.uk



Meetings, events and conferencesWeprovided speakers at a total of 64 conferences,meetings and events across sectors, deliveringpresentations to staff,management teams,regulators and representative bodies. A sectoralbreakdown is included in the next chart and again,our highest areas of contact werewith RSLs andlocal authorities. These outreach activitieswerecrucial in ensuring both senior level commitmentto improving complaints handling and the qualityof the arrangements that organisationswereputting in place. Theywere used to explain therequirements of themodel CHPs, providefeedback on developing CHPs and organisationalplans for implementation, and provide tailoredadvice on improving complaints handlingprocesses and culture. We also provided supporton a sector-wide basis through the RSL and localauthority complaints handlers networks.

RSL 47%

Local government 19%

Scottish Government& associated bodies 11%

Higher education 8%

Health 6%

Water 3%

Further education 3%

Other 3%

Outreachactivity/supportTotal64

Our CSA team: FrancescaRichards, PaulMcFadden, JohnStevenson


CHP complianceWhile ensuring that bodies have adopted theCHP and its requirements in full, wewant tobe as light-touch as possible inmonitoringimplementation of themodel CHPs. The SPSOAct2002 now contains powers for the Ombudsmantomonitor and report on non-compliance, but ouraim in publishing themodel CHPswas toworkwith regulatory and sponsor bodies to developa consistentmethod formonitoring complianceagainst thesewithin existing regulatorystructures, including, wherever possible, throughself-assessment. In 2012/13we achieved this inthe housing sector byworkingwith the ScottishGovernment to embed themodel CHP and itsrequirements in the Scottish Social HousingCharter (the Charter). This will bemonitored in2013/14 by the ScottishHousing Regulator (SHR)as part of their widermonitoring of the Charter.

All RSLs are required to provide informationon their operation of the CHP to the SHR.As outlined in themodel CHP implementationguidewe also expect eachRSL to have appropriateself-assessment arrangements in place to assureitself that its CHP is operating in accordancewiththemodel CHP. Ongoingmonitoringwill also beachieved through reviews of RSLCHPs by theCSA includingwhen complaints are broughtfor consideration by the SPSO. Effectiveimplementation of themodel CHPwill also beevident fromperformance against complaintshandlingmeasures in the Annual Return onthe Charter.

Complaints handling performanceTransparency can be a great driver of improvementand one of the aims of the CHPs is to improve theinformation available about complaints to helpdevelop a performance culture in complaintshandling across the public sector in Scotland.In addition to requiring bodies to analyse andreport complaints information internally on aregular basis, CHPs require service providersto publish annual information on complaintsperformance statistics.

With each of themodel CHPswe publishedindicative performance indicators, designed tobe broadly consistent across the sectors.Workingwith the Chartered Institute of Housing,HouseMark and the ScottishHousingBest ValueNetworkwe developed detailed guidance onperformance indicators, published in December2012, to assist RSLs in assessing their complaintshandling in linewith the SHR’s requirement toreport on the Charter. Using these indicators as abasis we have developedmore detailed indicatorsfor the local government sector, in conjunctionwith the local government complaints handlersnetwork. Thesewill also form the basis ofdevelopmentwith other sectors.

We look forward to viewing this information for2013/14. The indicatorswill help usmove towardsa greater consistency of reporting on complaintsacross the sectors and provide an excellent basisfor developing benchmarking arrangements forcomparing how sectors are performing in theircomplaints handling. For the first timemembersof the public will have access to clear, transparentand consistent information on the volume ofcomplaints received by public bodies and howthey have handled these.

We are very grateful for the support that the SHRhas provided throughout the development of thesearrangements.


Transparency can be a greatdriver of improvement and oneof the aims of theCHPs is toimprove the informationavailable about complaints tohelp develop a performanceculture in complaints handlingacross the public sector inScotland.



Supporting housing providersA key objective of the CSA is improvementthroughmonitoring, promoting and facilitatingthe sharing of best practice in complaintshandling and supporting service providers inimproving their complaints handling.We aim toachieve this through developing and coordinatingnetworks of complaints handlers, promotinggood complaints handling by providers throughthe sharing of best practice and by developingand delivering high quality training.

Networks of complaints handlers

In 2012/13we successfully established twocomplaints handlers networks for the localauthority andRSL sectors. These networksmetfor the first time in September andOctober 2012.They are led by the sectorswith SPSO as equalpartners. The housing complaints handlingnetwork is led by representatives fromCastleRock Edinvar Housing Association andQueensCrossHousing Association andwe are verygrateful for their efforts.We look forward toworkingwith the network on supportingcomplaints handling practitioners and sharingbest practice and learning aswell as providing aforum for benchmarking performance.

ValuingComplaintswebsiteand online forumIn 2012/13we facilitated the sharing of knowledgeand best practice in complaints handling throughthe launch of our dedicated CSAwebsite atwww.valuingcomplaints.org.uk. Thewebsite,launched inMay 2012, provides:

> information on the CSA and progress onroll-out across the sectors, including accesstomodel CHPs and the requirements toimplement these

> good practice guidance on complaintshandling and links to relevant sources ofinformation and best practice in complaintshandling

> an online community forum for discussionand sharing best practice in the professionalcomplaints handling community, bothwithinand between sectors

> an SPSO training centre providing access toour e-learning resources, and informationabout directly provided courses offered bythe SPSO training unit.

Our aim over the year has been to develop thewebsite and forumand increase its usage as acentral information point for complaints handlers.The aim of the online forum, in particular, is tofacilitate the effective professional networking ofcomplaints handlers and support the sharing ofexperiences and learning.

For thefirst timemembers of thepublicwill have access to clear,transparent and consistent informationon the volumeof complaints receivedby public bodies andhowthey have handled these.


Training coursesOur training unit worked closely with the CSAthroughout 2012/13,meeting a steep increasein demand for direct delivery training coursesresulting from the introduction of themodelCHPs and our engagement with the RSLand local authority sectors.

In 2012/13we delivered a total of 71 courses,which included 43 in the RSL sector and 21 inlocal government. The training unit coursescontinue to get very high ratings fromparticipantsand are sought by awide range of organisationsacross sectors. The roll-out of e-learning trainingprovides significant scope and value, particularlyfor frontline public sector staff. However,classroombased training for complaintsinvestigators and others involved in complaintshandling remains crucial to improving thewaythat organisations handle complaints, particularlyon reaching the right decisions first time. Takenwith the new streamlined approach to complaintshandling, we expect this to be a significantfactor in howwe helpmanage the numbers ofcomplaints coming to the SPSO.

E-learning coursesA significant development in 2012/13was thedevelopment and launch of our e-learningmodules on frontline complaints handling tocomplement the ongoing activities of our trainingunit. Given the strong focus on frontline resolutionand the empowerment of frontline staff in theCHPs, we developed themodules to supportcouncils andRSLs in ensuring awareness andtraining in the complaints process.

The e-learningmodules are free and accessible toall public sector staff. The first e-learning course,specific to the local government sector, waslaunched inMay 2012, with a similar course forRSLs following in August 2012. The courses areproving popular, with almost 2,000 users signed updirectly through our training centre. In addition, anumber of organisations have implemented thecourses into their internal e-learning systems andhave rolled these out to themajority of their staff.

Formore about our training activities, visitwww.spsotraining.org.uk



CASE STUDIES

This is a selectionof case studies from investigationswepublishedabout complaintsrelated tohousing issues in 2012/13. Someshow just howbadly things cangowrongwhenpolicies arenot followed, or complaints arenot investigatedproperly. Others areincluded to showsomeof thepositive actions that organisations take in response tocomplaints. To share this goodpractice, the reports onourwebsite normally highlightwhereanorganisationhas takensuchaction. Still other case studies summarisedhereare includedasexamplesofwhereorganisationshavedelivereda service andinvestigated the complaints properly.

Amanwith a degenerative back condition had been complaining about draughts, leaksaround his front door and his heating system for two years. He had providedmedicalevidence that he could not copewith the conditions in his home. His housing providerrepaired thewindows and doors a number of times, but theman said that the repairs wereinadequate and temporary, and that they should have replaced his windows instead. Theman had also asked them for disability adaptations, flooring and an immediate transferand removal costs. The housing provider had carried out a number of adaptations, and hadalso placed him on their transfer register, but refused his other requests.

We found that thewindows and heatingwere due to be replaced, but the housing providerhad said they could not do this until after 2015.We upheld the complaint about heating aswe found that funding arrangements allowed the housing provider to consider replacing itas a disability adaptation, but they had not considered this.We did find, however, that theyhad taken other appropriate steps to repair the property and respond to theman’s needs,and did not consider it reasonable to expect them to domore.

RecommendationsThe housing provider review their practice for dealing with requests for heatingreplacement under aids and adaptations funding, to ensure that such requests are dealtwith taking into account relevant funding guidance, and consider theman’s request assuch a referral, taking into account that guidance.

Failure to replacewindows and heating system– disability issuesCase 201103142


CASE STUDIES

Whena tenant asked the council to change the heating system in her house fromelectric to gas, theyrefused. She complained that thiswas unfair and said that the council had not properly investigatedproblems in her heating system,which caused her family discomfort and resulted in high heating bills.She also said that it was unreasonable to refusewhen therewas no cost-efficient electric alternative.

As a result of our investigation, the council reviewed their assessment of the property and found thatit did need to be brought up to the 2015 ScottishHousing Quality Standards. They proposed a furtherassessment using new software, to provide themost up-to-date readings, and said that after thattheywould provide the tenant with options to bring her house up to standard. As this resolved herconcerns about upgrading the heating system, andwas a positive step towards achievingwhat thetenant wanted in bringing her complaint to us, we concluded our investigation.Whenwe latercheckedwe found they had installed a gas supply and newheating system.

Inadequate heating systemCase 201102253 Positive action takenby organisation

Aman had been living in temporary accommodation before beginning a prison sentence.When hewas sent to prison, a council contractor bagged and tagged his belongings and placed them in acouncil owned storage facility. When theman came to collect themhe provided lists of items, andcomplained that some personal itemsweremissing. The council said that the belongings had notbeen touched ormovedwhile they were in the storage facility. However, our investigation found thatat that time they did not keep inventories of belongings kept there. We noted that, as a result of thiscomplaint, they now ask the removals contractor to prepare and provide inventories. However, wefound that this does not include a fully itemised inventory. We upheld theman’s complaint as wefound that the council could not provide evidence of exactly what they were storing and for whom.

RecommendationsThe council apologise, consider theman’s complaint as a claim to their insurers and provideevidence that they now take itemised inventories of belongings they accept into storage.

Storage of belongingsCase 201102971

In this case, the owner of a property had asked the council to pay local housing allowance (formerlyknown as housing benefit) directly to their letting agent rather than to the tenant. This was becausethe tenant was behind in paying the rent. The council, however, continued to have the allowance paidto the tenant, who then left owing the ownermoney.We found that although the council actedcorrectly at first, they later delayed in taking action to have the letting agents paid direct when itbecame appropriate to do so, and had not respondedwhen asked about this. Therewas also evidencethat the council did notmeet their customer care standards in handling the subsequent complaint.

RecommendationsThe council pay the owner the amount that should have been paid to the letting agent, and take stepsto ensure that their procedures, and notices issued to landlords about appeal procedures, complywiththe housing benefit regulations and theDepartment ofWorks andPensions' good practice guidance.

Local housing allowance – paid to tenant rather than letting agentCase 201004828


CASE STUDIES

A housing association told a tenant that they planned to rewire his property. He had only beenthere a fewmonths and had just redecorated throughout, andwas unhappy because the rewiringwould affect this. He said that if he had been toldwhen he took the tenancy that rewiringwasplanned hewould not have redecorated, and hewas not happywith the amount the associationoffered to help him redecorate.

The association had already acknowledged that they should have checked this before offeringhim the tenancy, and had apologised.We upheld his complaint butmade no recommendationsaswewere satisfied that the association had taken action to ensure that, in future, staffmakeprospective tenants aware of any planned refurbishment to prevent this happening again. Duringour investigation, they also told us that they had taken the property out of the programmeandhoped to include it againwithin five years.We considered this a reasonable resolution to thecomplaint and that the redecorating allowance, whichwas themaximumpayable for that sizeof property, was also reasonable.

New tenant not told about planned rewiringCase 201200246 Positive action takenby organisation

This complaint was about an application for priority housing. Aman sent the council amedicalassessment form, explaining that his property was unsuitable as his daughter had complexhealth needs. Hewas awarded ‘seriousmedical need’ priority, but appealed this andwasawarded ‘urgentmedical need’ priority, although not untilmore than fourmonths after heappealed. We found that it took far too long to deal with that appeal.We also found that thecouncil had not given clear, detailed reasons for initially only awarding ‘seriousmedical need’,and had not backdated the ‘urgentmedical need’ award to the correct date. The councilapologised for the delay, reviewed theirmedical assessment process andmetwith theirmedical adviser to ensure that the outcome ofmedical assessments is in future properlyexplained to applicants. They also backdated the ‘urgentmedical need’ award to the date theoriginal applicationwas submitted. As the council took appropriate action to resolve theseproblems, we did not find it necessary tomake any recommendations.

Delay in assessing an appeal about priority housing needCase 201100730 Positive action takenby organisation


CASE STUDIES

A housing associationwere installing new kitchens during a refurbishment programme. However,they refused to do so in one house because the tenant had installed a range cooker that was not of astandard size. They had also told her that theywould not continue tomaintain the existing kitchen, astheywould not be able to source replacement parts. The tenant was unhappy and told us that othertenantswith range cookers had had new kitchens installed. The association acknowledged that in anearlier phase their designer had developed individual layouts, but this had led to difficultieswhennew tenantsmoved in. Because of this, they had decided that in future theywould only accommodatestandard appliances in new layouts.We found that they had explained this to tenants, and also thatthe tenant in this case had removed a cupboard and part of aworktop to install her cooker. She hadnot obtained permission to do so, in breach of her tenancy agreement. We found that the associationhad acted reasonably andwe did not uphold the complaint.

Kitchen refurbishment refused – non-standard appliancesCase 201103719

Awoman told us that her housing association did not deal with the problemof noise fromherneighbour's house. She also said that they did not deal with her complaint in accordancewith theirpublished complaints procedure.We found that the association had taken steps to try to resolve thenoise issue, including contacting the council's environmental health department and speaking to theneighbour.We did not uphold her complaint that the association did nothing about the noise, but werecommended that they should considermediation again.

We did, however, find that the association had not initially registered her concerns as a complaint.Because of this, they failed to respondwithin their own stated time limits, and they did not provide thetenant with copies of her complaint fileswhen she asked for them.We also found that, in his effortsto resolve the noise problem, the officerwhowas eventually asked to investigate both the noise issueand the complaints handling appeared to have overlooked the complaints handling issue altogether.

RecommendationsThe association explore the possibility ofmediation, apologise, take steps to ensure that theyrespond to requests for copies of information, and review their complaints handling guidance toensure that staff address all issues raised (and in doing so, take account of the guidance providedby the SPSO’s Complaints Standards Authority).

Noise nuisance and complaints handlingCase 201202244


CASE STUDIES

A council carried out a repair to themain entrance lock on a tenement as emergencywork underthe Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004, then charged co-owners for the repair. Under that Act, anyowner can instruct or carry out emergencywork, and all owners are liable for the costs. The councilsaid they had treated this as an emergency because residents could not get in or out, and because,when the broken lockwas removed, the stairwell was not secure. However, it was five days beforethe repair was done, and a flat owner complained to us that the council did not allow other ownersto arrange to have thework carried outmore cheaply.

The council had said that co-owners should have the opportunity to organise suchwork themselves,if a repair was going to takemore than 24 hours to complete.We found that the timescale herewasnot in keepingwith this, but noted that the council have since reviewed how they decidewhen arepair should be treated as an emergency.We did not uphold the complaint about the repairs aswethought it reasonable that the council initially treated this as an emergency, as residents could notget in or out, and as they had a duty of care to their tenants.We did find, however, that it took toolong for the council to provide information about the costs involved.

Emergency repairs in common stairCase 201102518 Positive action takenby organisation

This complaint arose after a council carried out repairs to a tenant’s home. Thework neededwasextensive, and thewoman, who had health problems, had tomove out. The council told her that herhomewould be returned to the same condition as it was before shemoved out. She complainedbecause shewas unhappy at the state inwhich the property was returned to her.While shewas outof her home she and her partnerwere also contacted several times for access to it, although shehad given the council keys. She also found that her homewas left insecure.We found evidence thattherewere problemswith the different trades accessing the property, and upheld her complaintabout the state of the property.We also found that the council had not compensated her for amissed appointment nor had they repainted her bedroomas they had said in their response toher complaint.

RecommendationsThe council apologise to their tenant for the problems, ensure her bedroom is repainted, andprovide us with evidence that she has been reimbursed formissed appointments.

Problemswith housing repairsCase 201103774


Further information about this sector is available on ourwebsite atwww.spso.org.uk/statisticsLocalAuthorityHousingCasesDetermined2012–2013

STATISTICS

Casetype

Stage

Outcome

Enqu

iryA

dvic

e&

sign

post

ing

Enqu

iry0

10

00

01

11

00

30

07

Total

01

00

00

11

10

03

00

7

Totalenquiries

01

00

00

11

10

03

00

7

Com

plai

ntA

dvic

eM

atte

rout

ofju

risdi

ctio

n(d

iscr

etio

nary

)0

00

00

10

00

01

10

03

Mat

tero

utof

juris

dict

ion

(non

-dis

cret

iona

ry)

00

00

00

10

10

00

00

2

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

05

01

02

75

06

122

00

49

Out

com

eno

tach

ieva

ble

00

00

00

01

02

02

00

5

Pre

mat

ure

018

34

46

1135

111

164

01

159

Total

023

35

49

1941

219

389

01

218

Early

Res

olut

ion

1M

atte

rout

ofju

risdi

ctio

n(d

iscr

etio

nary

)0

11

01

13

10

11

22

014

Mat

tero

utof

juris

dict

ion

(non

-dis

cret

iona

ry)

13

31

31

33

12

110

00

32

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

03

00

00

22

02

12

01

13

Out

com

eno

tach

ieva

ble

01

00

00

11

00

01

00

4

Pre

mat

ure

01

20

01

12

00

05

00

12

Total

19

61

43

109

15

320

21

75

Early

Res

olut

ion

2Fu

llyup

held

00

10

00

00

01

01

00

3

Par

tlyup

held

02

00

01

10

00

01

00

5

Not

uphe

ld0

20

00

00

10

21

60

012

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

00

00

01

00

00

01

00

2

Total

04

10

02

11

03

19

00

22

Inve

stig

atio

n1

Fully

uphe

ld0

01

01

01

00

20

00

05

Par

tlyup

held

01

00

00

23

01

06

10

14

Not

uphe

ld0

30

21

00

50

22

20

118

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

00

00

01

00

00

00

00

1

Total

04

12

21

38

05

28

11

38

Totalcom

plaints

140

118

1015

3359

332

9126

33

353

Totalcontacts

141

118

1015

3460

432

9129

33

360

Note:

No

deci

sion

reac

hed'

incl

udes

notd

uly

mad

e,w

ithdr

awn

and

reso

lved

.Th

ere

wer

eno

hous

ing

com

plai

nts

dete

rmin

edat

Inve

stig

atio

n2

stag

ein

2012

-13.Aidsandadaptations

Applications,allocations,transfers&exchanges

Complaintshandling

Estatemanagement,openspace&environmentwork

Homelesspersonissues

Improvementsandrenovation

Localhousingallowanceandcounciltaxbenefit

Neighbourdisputesandantisocialbehaviour

Other

Policy/administration

Rentand/orservicecharges

Repairsandmaintenance

RighttoBuy

Shelteredhousingandcommunitycare

Total


Further information about this sector is available on ourwebsite atwww.spso.org.uk/statisticsHousingAssociationCasesDetermined2012–2013

STATISTICS

Casetype

Stage

Outcome

Enqu

iryA

dvic

e&

sign

post

ing

Enqu

iry1

00

00

00

00

41

00

00

6

Total

10

00

00

00

04

10

00

06

Totalenquiries

10

00

00

00

04

10

00

06

Com

plai

ntA

dvic

eM

atte

rout

ofju

risdi

ctio

n(d

iscr

etio

nary

)0

00

00

00

00

00

00

20

2

Mat

tero

utof

juris

dict

ion

(non

-dis

cret

iona

ry)

01

20

00

00

00

00

06

211

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

52

01

22

05

011

00

00

3058

Out

com

eno

tach

ieva

ble

00

00

00

00

01

00

00

01

Pre

mat

ure

713

11

625

215

655

10

01

3917

2

Total

1216

32

827

220

667

10

09

71244

Early

Res

olut

ion

1M

atte

rout

ofju

risdi

ctio

n(d

iscr

etio

nary

)0

00

01

00

00

20

00

00

3

Mat

tero

utof

juris

dict

ion

(non

-dis

cret

iona

ry)

11

40

11

01

36

11

00

020

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

00

10

01

01

01

00

00

04

Out

com

eno

tach

ieva

ble

00

20

00

00

02

00

00

04

Pre

mat

ure

03

00

00

00

00

00

00

03

Total

14

70

22

02

311

11

00

034

Early

Res

olut

ion

2Fu

llyup

held

01

00

10

00

01

00

00

03

Par

tlyup

held

01

00

10

01

00

00

00

03

Not

uphe

ld0

22

01

30

20

60

01

00

17

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

00

00

00

00

01

00

00

01

Total

04

20

33

03

08

00

10

024

Inve

stig

atio

n1

Fully

uphe

ld0

00

00

00

00

10

10

00

2

Par

tlyup

held

00

00

11

00

05

00

00

07

Not

uphe

ld0

11

00

10

10

00

00

00

4

No

deci

sion

reac

hed

10

00

00

00

00

00

00

01

Total

11

10

12

01

06

01

00

014

Totalcom

plaints

1425

132

1434

226

992

22

19

71316

Totalcontacts

1525

132

1434

226

996

32

19

71322

Note:

'No

deci

sion

reac

hed'

incl

udes

notd

uly

mad

e,w

ithdr

awn

and

reso

lved

.Th

ere

wer

eno

hous

ing

com

plai

nts

dete

rmin

edat

Inve

stig

atio

n2

stag

ein

2012

-13.

Applications,allocations,transfers&exchanges

Complaintshandling

Estatemanagement,openspace&environmentwork

Homelesspersonissues

Improvementsandrenovation

Neighbourdisputesandantisocialbehaviour

Other

Policy/administration

Rentand/orservicecharges

Repairsandmaintenance

RighttoBuy

Sharedownership

Terminationsoftenancy

Outofjurisdiction

Subjectunknown

Total

SPSO4 Melville StreetEdinburghEH3 7NS

Tel 0800 377 7330Fax 0800 377 7331Web www.spso.org.ukCSA www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk

spso housing complaints report 2012 13

Documents

housing complaints

complaints standards

kinds of complaints

housing page

annual complaints reportabout

figuresin housing

housing casesdetermined

housing providerswill