Mr Raja submitted following Statement and Questions:
PUBLIC STATEMENT
Chair and Members of the Commission,
I am writing not to raise an individual complaint, but to draw attention to potential systemic governance risks within Housing; particularly in relation to complaints handling, procedural compliance and oversight transparency.
In August 2025, the Regulator of Social Housing identified gaps under the Transparency, Influence and Accountability standard, including enhanced complaints handling and formalised reporting on learning from complaints (Point A). In the same meeting, it was recorded that complaints were approximately 75% compliant with response timescales (Point B).
In June 2025, this Commission also considered an LGSCO maladministration finding relating to Housing procedural failures, including failure to notify statutory review rights and delays in responding to suitability concerns (Point C).
Since then, the corporate complaints function has been moved under the Housing Division itself (Point D), and a Regulator of Social Housing Oversight Board has been established reporting to Executive, with an intention to provide updates to Scrutiny (Point E).
Taken together, these developments highlight that complaint handling and procedural compliance are not peripheral matters; they are central governance risks.
My concern is not about disagreement with outcomes. It is about structural integrity. Specifically:
The minutes from November 2025 also record tenant frustration about difficulty contacting officers. My concern relates to what happens after contact is made; whether escalation pathways, review rights and complaint compliance are functioning as intended, and/or ignored.
Housing is currently operating under significant statutory, financial and regulatory pressure. In that context, procedural integrity, transparent reporting and independent oversight become even more important.
This is not about individual disputes.
It is about ensuring that the governance framework around complaints is as strong as the framework around operational delivery.
Thank you.
QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION
1. Complaint Acknowledgement Compliance
In light of the previously recorded 75% compliance rate with complaint timescales (Point B), what percentage of Housing Stage One complaints in Q4 2025 and Q1 2026 were acknowledged within the published policy timeframe?
How many exceeded 10 working days before acknowledgement?
2. Procedural Escalation Safeguards
Given the June 2025 maladministration findings involving procedural failures (Point C), what formal safeguard now exists to prevent residents from being procedurally blocked from escalating to Stage Two or to the Ombudsman where a compliant Stage One response is not issued?
3. Independence of Complaint Investigations
Following the structural move of the complaints function under the Housing Division (Point D), who independently investigates complaints made about Housing Complaints Officers / Housing Officers themselves, and how is operational separation maintained to avoid perceived internal bias?
4. Data Governance
What written policy governs the Council’s use of Companies House or other external data sources in leasehold or enforcement matters, and has this practice been legally reviewed for proportionality and data protection compliance?
5. Scrutiny Oversight of Complaint Trends
In August 2025, the Regulator identified the need for enhanced complaints handling and formalised reporting on learning from complaints (Point A).
The Commission routinely receives performance data on fire safety inspections, tenant satisfaction, void times and homelessness prevention outcomes.
Does the Housing Scrutiny Commission now receive equivalent anonymised performance data on:
If this data is not routinely reported to the Commission, could Members clarify why complaint compliance metrics are not scrutinised in the same way as operational performance indicators?