Agenda item

The Director of Housing submits a report to the Commission which provides an annual update on the Council’s Corporate Complaints service.

The Director of Housing submitted a report to the Commission which provided an annual update on the Council’s Corporate & Housing Complaints service.  

The Head of Service in Housing presented the report.

Key points included:

• A complaint was defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, made about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the Council, Council staff, or those acting on behalf of the Council, affecting one or more residents.
• Issues brought to the attention of the service were initially treated as a service request.
• In 2025/26 787 Stage 1 Housing complaints were made, of which 63% were responded to within the timescale.  Many challenges were encountered, often these were challenges that were seen nationally.  Some of these challenges were due to the complexity of complaints and complaints written by AI, often involving multiple issues that were not always easy and clear to understand.
• If a tenant was not satisfied, they could escalate to Stage 2.  118 complaints were escalated to Stage 2 in the last year, and 67% of these were responded to within the timescale.
• Tenants not satisfied after Stage 2 could escalate to the Housing Ombudsman.  57 complaints were determined by the Housing Ombudsman. Of these, 17 were seen to be minor service failures, 22 were cases of maladministration and one case of severe maladministration.  This meant that 5% resulted in the Ombudsman determining maladministration.  This was a low rate.
• The most commonly upheld issues by the Ombudsman were related to communication, repairs, ASB and Estate management.
• The Ombudsman made orders to pay compensation in 37 cases that totalled £8,227 with the highest individual compensation payment being £1,252.
• To put the numbers into context, the Housing Division provided over 100,000 services each year and employed over 1000 people, so the fact that the Ombudsman only found fault in 40 cases was evidence of quality service provision. However, the complaints received would be learned from.
• Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) complaints related to all other non-social housing services provided by the Council. 648 complaints came from this area 68% of which were responded to within the timescale.  Of these, only 15 cases of the 648 were upheld in favour of the complainant.
• Since April 2025, Repairs had been the area where most complaints had been received, largely in terms of time taken to complete repairs.  More funding and resource had been given, and the process had been streamlined.  Additionally, materials had been made more readily available and demand had been managed.
• IT processes had been introduced to schedule repairs more effectively and quality control checks had been improved.  Additionally, a complaints workshop had been run to identify learning and patterns.  Information for tenants online had been improved and tenant pop-up sessions had been introduced.
• In terms of vulnerable tenants, processes were in place, but the proper adjustments were not always made.  This had led to the creation of the vulnerable person policy. 
• Complaints staff had been given training to ensure high standards across the team.
• The Housing Ombudsman required the Council to have a self-assessment. 
• The survey was being modified so that it was clear that not every expression of dissatisfaction was counted as a complaint.
• Ways for tenants to submit complaints were being worked on.
• Challenges existed, but work was being done to improve service delivery and handle complaints.

In discussions with Members, the following was noted:

• The service was looking at modelling and how they could resource and automate.  Complaints were all different so it was necessary to ensure that service areas responded and tailored responses were composed.
• The new IT system allowed provision of automated acknowledgements to manage expectations on timescales.  It was necessary to look at resourcing and the modelling of the complaints team and what staff were needed.
• In terms of staffing, the team were stable, with 3.5 Complaints Officers and a Complaints Manager.
• In terms of Communications, a dedicated officer had been employed for communications with tenants.  Additionally, Tenant Participation Advisory Service (TPAS) had been brought in who could inform the service on how to improve communications.  It was also aimed to ensure that additional items to take forward were adopted.  The senior officer from TPAS would be meet with to look at services and assess them, with a report being produced later in the year.
• IT systems had shortcomings, so the Council IT department were being worked with to build an in-house solution.  This would allow the Council to raise cases on the system and accept complaints along with much better reporting.  Officers would then allocate to the appropriate service areas and there would be coordination through a central log.
• It was clarified that the complaints that fell under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman did not necessarily mean that they went to the Ombudsman.  Only 5.9% went to the Hosing Ombudsman.
• In terms of benchmarking, it was noted that the Council were a few percentage points behind the national average of around 75% of complaints responded to within the timeframe, but it was aimed to get actions in place to improve.  It was hoped to be at 80% by next year, however, resources were needed to reach the desired targets, particularly with regard to getting IT systems in place.
• It was clarified that the figure for the payouts to the Ombudsman was the payout for the whole year.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account.