Housing

ScottishPublicServicesOmbudsman S P S O CO M P L A I N T S R E P O RT 2013 – 14

This is one of a series of reports throughwhich we arecontinuing to put keymessages, information and analysis ofcomplaints about the housing sector into the public domain.

We expect housing providers and councils overseeinghousing-relatedmatters to use this report to enhance theirlearning about the issues the public bring us about housing inScotland and about the quality of their complaints handling.We anticipate that Parliamentary committees, governmentdepartments, regulators and other improvement and scrutinybodies will use it to identify issues arising from the complaintswe see.

Equally, we hope it will prove useful tomembers of the public,and advice and advocacy groups that represent them, byproviding information about the kinds of complaints that areescalated to the SPSO, howwe handle them, and howwe putthings right though our recommendations, where we can.

December 2014

Contents

Ombudsman’s introduction 4

Casework 6

Sharing the learning 13

Case studies 15

Improving complaints standards 20

Housing complaints determined 2013/14 23

Ombudsman’sintroduction

PAGE 4

Problemswith housing can have a significant,ongoing and highly detrimental impact on people.It can be extremely difficult trying to cope on a dailybasis with concerns connected to your immediateenvironment. Good complaints handling, therefore,is crucial in helping people to resolve day-to-dayissues thatmay significantly affect their qualityof life.

TransformingScotland’scomplaints culture2013/14marked a sea change in theway thatthe housing sector in Scotland handle tenants’complaints about their services.

It was the first full year of operation of simplified,standardisedmodel complaints handling procedures(CHPs) across all of Scotland’s Registered SocialLandlords (RSLs) – of which there are over 160 –and all 32 local authorities.We developed themodelCHPs in partnershipwith stakeholders, and I wouldlike to put on the record againmy thanks to themany people and organisations in the housingand local authority sectors that supported thiswork andwho have continued towork towardsimprovement throughout the first year of theCHPs’ operation.

The newprocedures benefit customers because theynow knowwhat to expect whenmaking a complaint.There is clarity and consistency about stages,timescales, and how their complaint will beinvestigated and responded to. Thismeans fewerpeople are being lost in the complexity ofmulti-stagecomplaints processes.We believe the improvementsmade through implementing the standardisedmodel has contributed to the significant decreasein premature complaints about housing receivedby this office.

For RSLs, there aremore opportunities for learningand improvement through increased responsiveness,transparency and oversight. There is, for the firsttime, a developing performance culture incomplaints handling, with RSLs now required tomake information available both through therequirements of the CHP and also the ScottishHousing Regulator’s Annual Performance andStatistical Return on the Scottish Social HousingCharter.

They are required to not only publish annualcomplaints statistics but also to showhow they havelearnt from complaints and used them to driveimprovements. 2013/14 is the first year for which thisinformationwill be published. Thismeans thatinformation about theway their landlord handlescomplaints should be clear, transparent, consistentand accessible to all tenants. It will also provideopportunities for reliable benchmarking by the sectorandwill, over time, create a basis for comparingperformance and supporting ongoing improvement.Ultimately it is for RSLs themselves to take theopportunities presented by this greater availabilityof information, but I look forward to continuing tosupport the sector in this area.

PAGE 5

Volumes and issuesI now turn to the complaints that we received fromthe public about housing services. First, the keynumbers:> In 2013/14 we received 797 complaints about

housing. This is 16%more than in 2012/13.Despite receiving over 100more cases wewereable to give people answers earlier.

> Housingmade up almost 18% of the totalcomplaints we received about all publicauthorities during the year.

> The rate of upheld complaints was 53%, upfrom 43% last year, and higher than the year’srate for all sectors of 50%.

> The rate of complaints coming to us too earlydropped again from 52% to 42% compared tolast year. This is an encouraging trend on anissuewe have raised with the sector over anumber of years, with premature rates inprevious years at over 70%.

> Wemade 106 recommendations for redressand improvement.

Repairs andmaintenance remained themostcommon subject of complaint by far andincreased in number significantly on the previousyear. Neighbour disputes and anti-socialbehaviour also remained as the second highestcategory of complaint in this sector. Complaintsabout applications for allocation, transfer orexchanges of housing was one again the thirdhighest category and those complaints also rosein number. We have also seen an increase incomplaints received about homeless issues,highlighting the fundamental vulnerability ofsome of the people who complain about housingservices.

Sharing the learningTo ensure transparency and to help facilitate thesharing of learning from the complaints we receive,we continue to publishmost of our decisions. In2013/14, we published 92 complaints about housingon ourwebsite, outlining the 106 recommendationsfor redress and improvement whichwemade.

RSLs can use our published cases to analyse trendsand identifywhether theymay also have the sameproblemsandfix thembefore a complaint ismade tothem. Similarly, tenants andmembers of the publiccan see the kinds of complaints that aremade tohousing providers and find examples of the kinds ofredresswe are able to recommendwhenwe seesomethingwhich has gonewrong anduphold acomplaint. The informationwepublish can also becombinedwith the informationRSLs publish undertheir CHPor through the ScottishHousingRegulator(SHR). Thiswill increasingly provide them, tenantsand other customerswith a broad and full picture ofcomplaints.Webelieve this is starting to inspire aculture inRSLs of valuing complaints and allowsthem to use complaints to better analyse, learn anddrive improvement.

Looking aheadImproving complaints standards remains apart of our ongoing focus in our engagementwith the housing sector, aswith others. A keyaspect of our role is towork closely with serviceproviders, regulators and other stakeholders tooffer advice, support and guidance on effectivecomplaints handling.We continue to provideadvice, support and guidance across a rangeof issues directly to RSLs.We provide accessto training through classroombased trainingand housing-specific e-learningmodules oncomplaints handling.We areworking closelywith the SHR to highlight key issues and identifyareaswhere their regulatory activity can beinformed by thework that we do, includingthrough theirmonitoring of the Scottish SocialHousing Charter.

Aswell as statistical information, this reportprovides analysis of the complaints people bring us.Case studies and recommendations demonstrateour impact for individuals. There are also sectionsdetailing our contributions in the complaintshandling improvement and policy areas. I hope itwill prove a useful learning tool for the sector, andfurther the goal we share of improving the qualityof the services provided to the public.

JimMartin, SPSO

Ombudsman’s introduction

Complaint numbersIn 2013/14 we received 797 complaints abouthousing – 16%more than in 2012/13. These797 complaintsmade up almost 18% of the totalcomplaints we received about all public authoritiesduring the year, slightly up on last year, when theycomprised almost 17% of the total. We dealtwith 817 complaints, some of which were carriedforward from 2012/13.

446 (56%) of the complaints we received wereabout local authorities and 351 (44%) abouthousing associations. Although a number of localauthorities no longer provide housing directly, wemay still receive complaints about them that weclassify as housing-related. These tend to relateto subjects such as neighbour disputes andanti-social behaviour, housing homelesspersons or providing assistance to people intheir day-to-day living.

Premature complaintsDuring 2013/14, the percentage of prematurecomplaints that we received about housingauthorities dropped again from 52% to 42%.This is welcome, although there is still work to doas it remains above the overall rate across allsectors, which is 34%. Housing is an area in whichpeople do tend to approach us before they havegone through thewhole complaints process ofthe housing authority concerned.

We find that people tend to do this in particularwhen they are finding it difficult to get a repairmade to their home, or when they are havingdifficulties with their neighbours. As these twoareasmake upmore than half of all the complaintswe receive about the sector, it is hardly surprisingthat the housing sector has such a high rate ofpremature complaints. From our statistics, it isalso clear that people say that they came to us tooearly because they did not know about or foundit hard to complete the complaints process.Authorities in the sector need tomake sure thatthey signpost people properly through theirprocess, that information about it is readilyavailable to the public, and that their staff arewell aware of the process and of how to recogniseand deal with complaints at the front line.

The top four areas complained about are thesame as last year and in the same order. Repairsandmaintenance remains themost significantarea of complaint by far, andwe saw numbersincreasing by almost 40% on last year. The numberof complaints about the difficult area of neighbourdisputes and anti-social behaviour is still oursecondmost commonly complained aboutsubject but, in contrast with other areas, thenumbers remained stable compared to last year.Complaints about getting/exchanging a house andpolicy/administration both rose by around 33%.Complaints about improvements and renovationrose by 17% and those about issues to dowithhomeless peoplemore than doubled, while thoseabout complaints handling dropped by almost 38%(although all of these were on low numbers).

PAGE 6

CaseworkTop areas of housing complaintsreceived 2013/14

Subject Housing Local TotalAssociations Authority

Repairs/ 129 184 313maintenance

Neighbour disputes/ 50 62 112anti-social behaviour

Applications, 31 45 76allocations, transfers&exchanges

Policy/administration 38 38 76

Improvements/ 19 15 34renovation

Estatemanagement/ 9 19 28open space/environmentwork

Communication/ 18 9 27staff attitude/dignity/confidentiality

Complaints handling 13 10 23

Rent and/or 11 11 22service charges

Homeless personissues 1 20 21

PAGE 7

Casework

Complaints determinedThere is a table at the end of this report showingthe outcome of all the complaints we determinedduring 2013/14. We closed 724 complaints at theearly stages of our process, usually because theywere premature, or because they were aboutsomethingwe could not investigate. This is a largenumber – almost 89% of the complaints wedetermined – but reflects the fact that people veryoften come to us too early about housing issues,and that their concernsmaywell be resolved bythe housing authority whenwe ask the person toapproach themdirectly about it.

Wewere also able to resolve some of these casesby contacting the authority early without the needfor a long investigation – for example in one caseafter we got in touchwith a housing association,they offered a tenant a housing transfer, whichprovided a satisfactory remedy to his complaint.In another case wewere able to get the council tofix a leak and take action on other issues relatedto work they had done on the property. In anothercase, after we got in touchwith a council, theyvisited and looked into repairs that a tenant hadbeen seeking for some time. Although they did notagree to do everything, they didmost of the repairs.Afterwards, the tenant said that they believed thiswould not have happenedwithout our intervention.And in a case of a homeless person, a councilmade him an offer while wewere looking into hiscomplaint, so he decided not to take it further.

However, quick fixes are not always availableandwe fully investigated 93 complaints aboutthe housing sector, 92 of which were publishedon our website.

We upheld 49 of these investigated complaints,either in full or in part. This was 53% of all thosewe investigated in detail, andwas a higher upholdrate than last year, whenwe upheld 42 (43% ofthosewe investigated in detail). It alsomeans thatthe rate of complaints upheld about housing hasrisen to above the overall upheld rate for all sectors(which is 50%). 17 (35%) of the 49 upheld caseswere about repairs andmaintenance and 10 (20%)were about neighbour disputes or anti-socialbehaviour. We provide examples of some of theseinvestigations in the following sections of thisreport, as well as examples of those where wedid not uphold the complaint.

Repairs andmaintenanceWhere repairs take too long to investigate orcomplete, it can cause unnecessary stress and otherproblems for tenants. People regularly tell us aboutthe problemsdelays cause themand as explainedabove, it is one of themain reasons that people givefor having brought their complaint to us too early.Weoften find the problem lies, at least in part, in issueswith communication. These should be easy to fix andfor theRSL to identify before a complaint comes tous sowehighlight someexamples of these here.

In one case, aman complained that the councilrefused to carry out work on his bathroomwalldespite previously agreeing to do so (case201203110). The council said that the offer waswithdrawn because he hadmade an abusive phonecall to amember of staff. Theman complained thatthe council hadn’t told himwhat the abusewas, orwhen it wasmeant to have happened.We upheldhis complaint, aswe found that the council did notadequately investigate this, and their responseswere confused and contradictory. Council staff wereunclear about the policies and procedures theyshould usewhen dealingwith difficult phone calls,andwe found that thewithdrawal of theworkwasneither proportionate nor reasonable. Among otherthings, we recommended that they complete theoutstandingwork, put in placewritten guidance onmanaging unacceptable behaviour, and draw this tothe attention of all council staff.

In another example, a woman complained that thecouncil did not follow the proper tendering andprocurement process for communal repairs to theclose in which she lived (case 201202395). She saidthat they had ignored a report requiring them tore-tender due to a lack of competitive quotes, thatthe council costs were far higher than her privatelyobtained quotes, and that they had asked her tosubmit quotes that could not then be used as thesuppliers were not on the council's approved list ofcontractors. We found that the council had alreadyapologised for the confusion about approvedcontractors, and had produced a new informationleaflet, setting out the statutory repair processclearly for private owners. We also found thatalthough the report on the tendering processrecommended re-tendering, the council did nothave to accept this, and that re-tendering could infact have resulted in higher costs. We did, however,criticise them for poor record-keeping, as thedecision-making audit trail was unclear.

PAGE 8

Casework

And in a final case (201204626), shortly beforeChristmas awoman reportedwater leaking intoher home through the roof. After the new year,the council put plastic sheeting in the loft space.Nothing happened to the roof until July when ascaffoldwas erected for a day, although thewomandisputed that anyworkwas done then. After shecontacted the council again, they issued a repairorder at the start of August, and roof workswerecompleted by late October. The scaffoldingremained up for another six weeks and thewomansaid that when it was taken away the roof leaks hadnot been completely attended to. Our investigationfound that the council’s communicationwasinadequate, as they should have explainedwhatthey intended to do andwhen they planned to do it.We found it difficult to see from their recordsexactly what they did plan to do to the roof, andwhy, and the evidencewe saw suggested thatrepairs were not carried out within a reasonabletimescale.We recommended that they apologise,inspect the downpipes and guttering to see iffurther repairs were needed and, if this was thecase, provide a timescale for completing that work.

Neighbour disputes andanti-social behaviourThe area of anti-social behaviour and neighbourdisputes is fraught with difficulty, both for thepeople suffering from the situation and forthe housing provider involved. Claims andcounter-claims about the nature and type ofbehaviour are often a feature of these types ofcomplaint and it can be very difficult to get to theroot of the problem. Sometimeswe find that ahousing provider or local authority has done asmuch as they reasonably can to resolve theproblem. A good example of this is in one of ourcase studies later in this report (case 201202396).That case also highlights that it is for councilofficials to use their professional judgment todecide whether noise is at a level where it couldbe considered anti-social or a nuisance. Anothercase that demonstrates this waswhere a tenantcomplained about noise from a lift that a housingassociation installed in the house next door (case201200385). We found that the association hadno previous experience of installing lifts in theirproperties. However, they had asked the council’soccupational therapist and the lift company to

manage the installation and planning.We found thatthe association had acted appropriately to ensurethe liftwas installed correctly and in linewith nationalguidance.We also found that they had investigatedtheman’s complaints about the noise. A noiseenforcement officer hadmeasured it and concludedthat it could not be considered a nuisance. Theassociationwere not obliged to domore than this,but they had gone further by taking steps toimplement a number of theman's suggestionsabout the problemshewas experiencing.

Where the relationship between neighbours hasbroken down, ameeting of the parties involved canbe a solution but is dependent on all parties to thedispute agreeing to participate. Housing associationsand councilsmay try to arrange thiswhere theythink it would help.

As long as they act in line with appropriatelegislation and policy, RSLs retain discretion abouthow theymanage anti-social behaviour. Wheninvestigating wewill not investigate the behaviourof the neighbours but whether the actions anddecisions of theRSL are in linewith the appropriaterules. For example, a woman complained to thecouncil for some time about noise in her building(case 201105006). One flat was owned privatelyand had a high tenant turnover. Thewoman told usthat she felt that the council had not addressed theunderlying problem, as they took up the noiseissue on a tenant-by-tenant basis rather thantreating it as a continuing problem related to thatparticular property. We couldn’t look directly at theissue of the anti-social behaviour, but we did lookat how the council handled her complaint about it.We found that the council had explained theirposition satisfactorily. However, whenwe looked atthe correspondence, we saw that the long-termproblems had had a significant and distressingeffect on the woman. The council's responses hadnot really taken this into account, as there weredelays in replying and they had not kept her updatedabout howmatterswere being progressed. They hadsince revised their complaints process andwe saidthat they should also reflect on their complaintshandling in this case and tell us what they did toensure that in future complaints will be handledmore appropriately.

PAGE 9

Casework

Finally, it should be noted that where anti-socialbehaviour is involvedwe do not publicly reportall the caseswe investigate, and that in someof the cases that we do publishwe anonymisethe housing provider or local authority. We do thisto ensure that we protect the anonymity of thoseinvolved.

Tenancy chargesAt the end of a tenancy, chargesmay bemadedepending on the state in which the property isleft. This is known as ‘recharging’ andmost oftenhappenswhen the property has not been cleaned,where repairs need to bemade or there hasbeen poor workmanship (such as poor qualityself-repairs) by the tenant. Although it isunderstandable and appropriate that the landlordneeds to recoup costs as far as possible, everyyear we see cases where people are recharged, yetmaintain that they sorted things out before leaving.

We have seen problems occur when a landlord hasnotmade sure that they had conclusive evidence ofthe state of the property at the time the tenant left.An example of this is where we received acomplaint after a tenant terminated her tenancyandmoved to a new house (case 201300251). Thecouncil did not inspect the property before she leftbut later arranged for work to be done there. Theytold the woman that shewould have to pay for this,and estimated that it would costmore than £600.She disputed this, but received no response.Their next contact with her was over sixmonthslater, when they sent an invoice for well over £800.We found that their position on inspections wasinconsistent. We also found that they delayed insending the invoice, had not explainedwhy thefinal figure so exceeded the estimate and did notdeal with correspondence in line with theirprocedures. We said they should apologise and, inthe light of our findings, reconsider whether theycould reduce the amount of the invoice.

In another case, aman told us that he, his partnerand several friends worked hard to clear hisformer house and leave it tidy, although they hadleft behind two bags of rubbish (case 201202656).Some sevenweeks later, the council invoiced himfor the cost of clearing and cleaning the house. Hedisputed this through solicitors and complained tothe council. Meanwhile, the council asked recoveryagents to collect what they said he owed them.

Our investigation found that, on balance, this wasunreasonable. The council had pictures, whichthey said were taken about twoweeks after themanmoved out. However, these were undated,did not conclusively identify the property, and theman said that several of themwere not of hisformer home.We said that they should apologise,reconsider in the light of our findings whether theycould reduce the amount claimed, and in futureensure that digital images showwhen they weretaken, as well as being able to verify this andidentify the property.

In a final case, which involved repairs as well asthe end of a tenancy (case 201201242), amanreplaced his kitchen tiling, having told a housingofficer at the housing association that he wasdoing this. He then had a lighting and powerfailure and called out the association’s emergencyelectrician service. The association invoiced himfor the cost of this, and he complained both aboutthat and about dampness in the property.When these complaints were not resolved tohis satisfaction, he gave notice andmoved outwithout paying the invoice. He left the propertybefore handing in the keys, so there was nopre-termination inspection and he left noforwarding address, although his email addresswas known. The association inspected theproperty and said that the tiling was unsatisfactory.They replaced it and eventually instructed debtrecovery agents to pursue theman for the costs.They did not, however, try to contact him by email.

Theman eventually found out about the debtthrough a relative, and complained to us aboutthe charges, and that they had not contacted himbefore trying to recover the debt. We found theiractions unreasonable, as there was no evidence toshow that they had raised concerns about the tilingbefore, and they had not consideredwhether itwas in fact reasonable in the circumstances fortheman to have called the electrician. Wemadeseveral recommendations, including that theyreviewwhat they tell tenants about the emergencyservice andwhere rechargingmay be appropriate,consider reducing the amount charged, and shareour decision and its implications with staff toensure better recording of information andchecking of work in future.

Casework

PAGE 10

We received 797complaints and dealt

with 817*

The rate of upheld complaintswas 53%, up from 43% last year,

and higher than the year’soverall rate of 50%

Key figures in housing complaints 2013/14

The rate of complaints coming to us too earlydropped again from 52% to 42% compared to last

year (the overall rate for all sectors is 34%)

People who receivedadvice, support andsignposting 624

Cases decided afterdetailed considerationpre-investigation 100

Wemade 106recommendations

for redressand improvement

Complaints fully investigated93, with 92**publicly reported tothe parliament during the year

* There is some carry forward each year.** Some cases published in 2013/14 will have been handled in 2012/13. In a small number of cases, we do

not put information into the public domain, usually to prevent the possibility of someone being identified.

PAGE 11

Casework

CommunicationA number of the cases described above, and inthe case study section that follows, show theimportance of timely and accurate communication.Failing to communicate effectively triggersmanyof the problems in the housing complaints we see.This is something that we hope organisationsshould be able to identify and resolve before theycome to us. However, we accept that, in somecases, it will only be clear what has gonewrongwhenwe look at a complaint in detail. As wellas highlighting what can gowrongwhencommunication fails, we include in this section acasewhere we did not uphold the complaint as anexample of where we found that a council haddone everything they could tomake sure thecomplaint was properly dealt with.

Aman and his father exchanged their rentedhouses (case 201300633). Theman then found thathe could not buy his new home through the right tobuy scheme, as this had been suspended beforethe exchange took place, and had since beenextended for a further ten years. We found that theleaflet the housing association gave himwhen heexchanged did notmention the suspension at all.It said that although one type of right to buy wouldbe lost when the properties were exchanged,someone in his position would qualify for themodernised right to buy scheme. As theassociation could not show that they had toldtheman about the suspension, we upheld hiscomplaint, and also said that they could havealerted him to the possibility that the suspensionmight be extended.We said that they shouldapologise and considermaking him an ex-gratiapayment. We also said they shouldmake sure thatall of their paperwork is correctly updated, andthat staff understandwhat they should tell people.In another case, aman complained that, after hisfather died, the association pressurised him toclear the house of which his father was the tenantand hand back the keys (case 201300104). Theassociation investigated and found that staff hadnot followed their policy onwhat to do in suchcircumstances. They apologised and took action to

sort this out. Theman then came to us becausehewas unhappy with the investigation. He alsosaid he had discussed financial redress with theassociation but they had not offered this. Theassociation confirmed that theman had saidhewas unable to remove some items and thatredress for these was discussed, but that themanhad not then claimed for them. Althoughwe foundthat the investigation was thorough, and theoutcome appropriate, we upheld the complaint aswe found staff asked about the return of the keysfar too early – actually on the day that their tenantdied. As, however, the association had alreadytaken appropriate action, we did not need tomakeany recommendations.

And in the final example, where we found thelandlord did everything they could to communicateand explain the position so we did not uphold thecomplaint, aman complained that the councilhad not fixed a range of problemswith his centralheating system (case 201203718). He alsocomplained about the cost of running it.We found that the council responded to eachproblemwithin their timescales for repairs andsaid that the property was due to have additionalinsulation installed. They also arranged for theinstallers and systemmanufacturers to visit andensure that it was working properly. The councilenergy officer visited and provided energyefficiency advice, and contacted an energyassistance organisation to provide furtherinformation and advice and ensure that themanwas on the correct electricity tariff.

PAGE 13

This section focuses on our role in sharinglessons from the complaints we see.We do thisin part by putting information, including analysisand trends, into the public domain.We alsoworkalongside regulators and other improvement andscrutiny bodies to ensure that they are informedabout the concerns people bring us and therecommendationswemake.

Our role is to identify failings andmakerecommendations that ensure justice forindividuals and put organisations back on theright track.We see it as the role of other scrutinybodies to regularly review processes and ensurethat organisations stay on that track. To put itanotherway, our investigation is a red flag thatmakes the organisation sit up, take notice andmake changes; regulators and other improvementand scrutiny bodies carry out green flag checksin a continuous and systematic way that showthat the organisation is acting properly.

Sharing lessonsWeshare learning from the complaints we seeabout housing providers through:

> publishing a significant volume of decisionson our SPSOwebsite

> publishing statistics, including details ofcomplaints received and dealt with, alongwith premature and uphold rates for all RSLs,comparedwith the previous year.

> regular liaisonwith the ScottishHousingRegulator (SHR) about trends and issues inRSLs’ complaints handling, including thestatistics published on ourwebsite

> consultation and inquiry responses> conferences,meetings, presentations and visits.

Under themodel CHP and the SHR’s requirementsfor the Annual Performance and Statistical Return,housing providers are required to report on andconsider carefully the learning from the complaints

that they handle.We also expect them to looksystematically at the cases that are escalated to theSPSO. Although small in number, these casesprovide a free, independent and impartial view ontheir handling ofmatters and they can be amongthemost indicative and serious of complaints abouta housing provider. Through systematicallyreviewing these complaints, housing providers canreassure themselves that they are aware of anycommon or systemic concerns and take steps toaddress them.

Publishing reportsEachmonth, we publish reports of asmanycases aswe can and lay thembefore Parliament.In 2013/14we published 92 decision reports aboutthe housing sector,making themavailable to raiseawareness and to support learningwithin andacross sectors. In doing this, we are careful toprotect the identity of the personwho complainedand any individuals about whom the complaint wasmade. In housing cases, asmentioned earlier, wesometimes anonymise complaints that relate toproblemswith neighbours. The bulk of our reportsare summaries of decision letters. These detailthe complaint, our decision andwhetherrecommendationsweremade.We also publishsome full investigation reports eachmonth(although therewere none about the housing sectorin 2013/14) where the public interestmakes itimportant that all the detail is in the public domain.

All the reports are searchable on ourwebsite byorganisation, date and outcome and they provideawealth of information for complainants andorganisations.We promote learning from thereports through the Ombudsman’smonthlye-newsletter which highlights themes and issuesfromour casework. It is sent to over 2,000recipients, includingMSPs, scrutiny bodies, serviceproviders, advocacy agencies and themedia.

Sharing the learning

PAGE 14

Sharing the learning

Informing providers and the publicAnotherway inwhich learning from complaints isshared is through a joint initiative fromHouseMarkand ombudsman schemes. HouseMark is amember-based organisation, jointly owned by theChartered Institute of Housing and theNationalHousing Federation, which provides performanceimprovement services. A section on its websitecontains case studies fromour office and otherombudsman schemes that deal with housingcomplaints such as theHousing Ombudsman andthe Local Government Ombudsman in England, andthe Public Services Ombudsman forWales. To readthe digests visit www.ombudsmansays.info.

We have developed fact sheets to help the publicunderstandwhat we can do about some of the topsubjects of complaint about housing. These areregularly updated and include areas such ashousing benefit, anti-social behaviour or neighbourdisputes and a specific leaflet about what to do if youare a tenant of a housing association or a localauthority and have a complaint about them.We havealso produced a leaflet jointly with Shelter Scotland,which aims to help people understandwhere to gofor advice and support in the areas of homelessnessapplications and renting or buying their own home.

To read our decisions or search by subject, organisation or case reference number,visitwww.spso.org.uk/our-findings

To read our information leaflets, visitwww.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets

PAGE 15

This is a selection of case studies from investigations we published for 2013/14.Some illustrate the double injustice that can happenwhen a poorly delivered service iscompounded by poor complaints handling. Other case studies are included to show someof the positive actions that organisations take in response to complaints. To share thisgood practice, in the report on our website we normally highlight where an organisationhas taken such action. Others are included as examples of where organisations havedelivered a service and investigated the complaint properly.

These case studies are brief summaries andmay not contain all the informationwe published about the complaints. You can findmore information online atwww.spso.org.uk/decision-reports.

Case studies

Aman and his wife had lived in his parents' council house formany years. When his fatherdied in 2007, theman became the tenant and wanted to apply to buy the house under themodernised right to buy scheme. He was told he had to wait five years to do so and, whenhe asked about this again in 2011, he was told twice that the previous advice was correct.

The council had separately decided that they wanted to designate the area as having‘pressured area status’ which would suspend the right to buy under themodernisedscheme. Councils can do this where there is a serious lack of social rented housing inan area, and they think that people exercising their right to buymaymake this worse.They consulted on this, and then put the status in place in February 2012. From then,if the council want to sell a house, they had to ask Scottish Governmentministers forpermission to do so.

Theman then found out that he could have applied to buy his home as soon as he becamea tenant, and complained that the council gave him the wrong information. They upheld hiscomplaint; and eventually agreed that they wouldmake the case to Scottishministers forconsent to sell it to him at hismaximum discount, with an allowance for the rent he hadpaid sinceMarch 2011. Theman asked us to look into his complaint because he thoughtthat that this wasn’t enough and that the rent allowance should be given fromwhen hebecame the tenant. We upheld his complaint, and recommended that when they asked forthe consent they calculate the cost including an allowance for all the rent he had paid up tothe date when a sale was completed. We also said that if ministers did not consent to thesale, the council shouldmake him an ex-gratia payment of the rent paid from 2007, toreflect his financial loss.

Case 201204866

Misinformation about right to buy; failure to remedy full loss

Case studies

Amental health support officer complained on behalf of her client, whowas a housing associationtenant. She said that after water came into her client’s property the association didn’t help to cleanup or redecorate, and her client had to live in a damp property. She also complained that theydelayed in passing a claim to their insurers and didn’t respond to her letters of complaint.We found that the association had offered another property while the house dried out, but this wasdeclined because of the tenant’smental health problems. They provided dehumidifiers and paidfor the running costs (although the support officer had to bring up the issue of these costswiththem).We also found that the time it took them to investigatemeant that it wasmore than twoand a halfmonths before they decidedwhether they could offer to redecorate.

The association had delayed in forwarding the insurance claim and didn’t follow their ownprocedureswhen investigating. Fromwhat the support officer said in their first letter, it wasreasonable for the association to have started their claims process. However, the letter clearlyshowed that shewas also unhappywith the support provided and the handling of her client's case.We said that the association should have explained inwritingwhat theywere treating as aninsurance claim andwhat they could consider under their complaints procedure, then dealt withthese appropriately.We found that they had already taken some remedial action, but wemadeseveral other recommendations, including that they apologise to the support officer and her client,revise their procedures and feed back our findings to the staff concerned.

Case 201201524

Complaints handling; vulnerable individual

Awoman said that she’d had problemswith repairs to her council property since shemoved in fiveyears before. She said that she’d reported lots of issues requiring attention, however, repairsweren’t done properly and the appointment servicewas poor. We found that sometimes the councilcancelled appointments and sometimes they couldn’t get access, but thatwhat had happened intermsof the appointmentswasn’t unreasonable. The council said they had since told staff tomakesure that suitable appointmentswere given and to communicate betterwith tenants. In termsofthe quality of the repairs, therewas an 18-month periodwhen thewoman clearly reported anumber of problems, but the council had not recorded these.We also found that the councilcouldn’t showuswhat they’d done in response to her complaint.We said they should apologise,explain our decision to staff,make sure reports of inadequate repairs are logged in future andmake sure they keep evidenceof any action they have taken after investigating a complaint.

Case 201105521

Repairs andmaintenance; communication

PAGE 16

PAGE 17

Case studies

Aman complained to us that after his son died, leaving awidow and young family, the housingassociation continued to take the rent direct debit fromhis son’s account. He also said that staffvisited the property with paperwork that was still in joint names, inappropriate rent reminderletterswere sent and correspondence continued to be issued in joint names. Theman had toldthe association of his son's death very quickly, and complained that all of this was very distressingfor the family, and that the association had not appropriately passed information to staff.

The association explained that the local housing officerwhowould normally have handled this hadleft unexpectedly. However, we found that theman had contacted the association directly, ratherthan through that person.We noted that the association had apologised for and explained theirmistakes, and had offered the family some redress, sowemade no recommendations about this.However, we recommended that they take steps to ensure that, in future, information aboutbereavements is communicatedmore effectively.

Case 201204783

Failure to communicate effectively about a tenant’s death

Awoman told us it took too long for her housing association to fix dampand drainage problems.She had contacted themmany times on behalf of herself and her neighbours and felt shewasn’tgetting anywhere. The association told her that the problemswere significant, they’d had toinvestigate in detail and had found it difficult to provide a timescale for fixing them. They acceptedthey could have communicated better, offered her a voluntary payment, and explained that they’dintroduced a newcustomer care centre to improve communications.

We found that it took aroundninemonths for the problems to be addressed, but that the associationhad clearly beenworking on this during that time. The problemswere considerable and affected thewhole building.We agreed that thesewere exceptional circumstances, and that the actions takenabout the repairswere reasonable. Although the association’s responses becamemore helpful aswork progressed,weupheld the complaint about communication as sometimes thewomanhad toask for information rather than this being provided as it should have been.

Case 201204216

Repairs andmaintenance; communication

PAGE 18

Case studies

A couple in a council house complained about noisy neighbours. Council officers visited but thevisits didn’t coincidewith any disturbances, and they didn’t find the noise significant enough toclass it as anti-social. They providedmonitoring equipment, but again found the noise levels toolow to be considered a nuisance. The couple’sMSP then complained that the council did not takethe complaints seriously, did not record their concerns and did not take effective action.

The couplewere clearly badly affected by the noise, but before the council could take decisiveaction they needed the noise confirmed by others, and evidence that it was at a level consideredanti-social. The problemwas that although the couple had kept records and therewerewitnessstatements these did not confirm specific incidents or how bad the noisewas.We found that thecouncil had donewhat they could to help. They took reasonable steps to investigate, looked atwhether therewas a problemwith theway the houseswere built and arranged specialmediation.It was, however, up to their officers to decidewhether the noisewas anti-social andwe found thatthey reached a reasoned decision about this.We did, however, criticise the council for not fullyexplaining their anti-social behaviour policy to the couple and for not recording the outcome oftheir complaints. The couple hadmade hundreds of complaints about the noise – bettercommunication from the council could have significantly reduced this.

Case 201202396

Anti-social behaviour; complaints handling

A tenant complained that her heating systemwas ineffective, unreliable and expensive to run.We found that the difficultieswith it tookmonths to resolve, and that the association had not in factassessed relevantmedical information before offering thewoman the property. The property'senergy performance certificate (EPC) indicated that the systemwas inefficient, and the associationhad not explained the certificate or the potential running costs to the tenant beforehand.Wewereconcerned that it took somemonths before the systemwas repaired, especially as the problemsoccurred inwinter. We recommended that the association apologise and in future ensure that a fullexplanation of the EPC is provided, and that any ‘health and housing need’ form fromaprospectivetenant is assessed and taken into account, before a tenancy agreement is signed.

Case 201202120

Repairs andmaintenance; delays

Aman complained about how the council handled his concerns about dampness in his property afterstormdamage to his roof. Hewas also unhappywith how they handled his complaints. During ourinvestigationwe found that the council had repaired the roof and had arranged for two independentsurveys. Although these did not identify any newevidence ofwater coming in, repairswere carried outas suggested in one of them.During our investigation, given theman’s continuing concerns aboutdampness, the council also agreed to ask a different company to carry out a further independentsurvey.We found this a positive responseanddidnot uphold this complaint.Wedid, however, find that thecouncil had failed to handlehis complaints in linewith their ownprocedure, but as theyhadapologisedandhaddrawn this to the attention of relevant staff, wedid not need tomakeany recommendations.

Case 201203122

Repairs andmaintenance; complaints handling

PAGE 19

Case studies

A couple had a number of problemswith anti-social behaviour from their neighbours, which theybelieved stemmed from their objections to planning applicationsmade several years before. Acouncil officer investigated, consultedwith the police and interviewed the couple. He sought legaladvice on thematter some threemonths later. This was provided nineweeks after that, and saidthat the information held did notmeet the statutory test for the council to pursue formal actionagainst the neighbours.The couple then complained about the fivemonth delay in clarifying this. The council responsesimply referred back to the original complaints, however, and ignored two requests for information.We found that the responsewas inadequate and took too long to provide, and said that the councilshould apologise for this.

Case 201205407

Anti-social behaviour; complaints handling

Ahousing association tenant complained after the association installed a lift in his neighbour'sproperty. He said that he andhis familywere disturbed by noise from the lift and questionedwhether it had been correctly installed. Hewas also unhappywith the association's response tohis complaints about safety issues in and around the building.Our investigation found that the association had appropriately placed the planning for the installationin the hands of the local council's occupational therapist and the lift company. Althoughwe found noevidence that the level of insulation between the propertieswas considered, as it should have been,wewere generally satisfied that the association took appropriate steps to ensure the lift was installedcorrectly and in linewith national guidance.We also found that they investigated the tenant’scomplaints about the noise, and had asked a noise enforcement officer tomeasure it. He had saidthat the noisewas not at a level that could be considered a nuisance. The associationwere notobliged to domore than this, butwenoted that they also took steps to put in place a number ofsuggestions that the tenantmade, that he thoughtmight help. We also found that the associationsought the opinion of an appropriate professional on each safety issue and acted on their advice.

Case 201200385

Noise from lift installation

Awoman complained that for three years the association had not fully investigated and resolved hercomplaint about a strong smell of sewage in her home. Thewoman told us that the association hadeventually used a camera to inspect the drainage pipework. This had found a burst pipe in thebathroom,which had beenfixed, and the association had also replaced a cracked section of piping inthe kitchen. However, she said that therewas still a smell, and shewas unhappy that the associationwould not agree to dig up her garden to investigate further.Our investigation found that the association had donewhat they could to resolve thematter, and thattheir actions and decisions about carrying outwork had been reasonable.Wedid, however, find thatthey hadn’t followed up on a request to ScottishWater to inspect the communal public drainagesystem, andwemade a recommendation about that.

Case 201302349

Drain problems

PAGE 20

The CSAwebsite is atwww.valuingcomplaints.org.uk

Improvingcomplaints standardsAsimple, standardised procedure2013/14was the first full year of operation of the newmodel CHPswith themodel CHP operational acrossall local authorities andRSLs in Scotland from1April2013. This led theway for the implementation of theCHP across other public service sectors throughout2013/14. It is to the sector’s credit that the 2012/13implementation stage passed smoothly. This year,RSLs and local authorities have now begun tomovetowards fuller andmore consistent reporting, asrequired under the CHP and by the ScottishHousingRegulator (SHR)’smonitoring of the Scottish SocialHousing Charter (SSHC).We are focused on helpingthe sector work to help benchmark their complaintsperformance.

Ensuring complianceFrom the outset, our Complaints Standards Authority(CSA), which led the development of the CHPs inpartnershipwith sector representatives, has beenclear that compliancewith themodel CHPs shouldbe built into the existing regulatory frameworkwherepossible. The CSA therefore set up arrangementswith the SHR to ensure that compliancewith themodel CHPwasmonitored in linewith theirregulatory approach, including through theirindicators formonitoring the SSHC outcomes,which is alignedwith the CHP. All RSLswere requiredto provide a return on complaints handling andadoption of themodel CHP to the SHR as part ofthe Annual Performance and Statistical Return.Compliancewith themodel CHP also forms part ofthe SharedRisk Assessment (SRA) and annual auditarrangements for local authorities. RSLs and localauthorities are also expected to have appropriateself-assessment arrangements in place to assurethemselves that their CHP is operating in accordancewith themodel CHP.

We have also carried out additionalmonitoringworkon compliance in 2013/14 and have been encouragedwith the overall results.We tested compliance

with the requirements of the CHP across a randomsample of 10%of RSLs in Scotland. This includedfocus on the definition of a complaint, accessibility tothe CHP viawebsites and leaflets, timescales, stagesand signposting to the SPSO. The outcomes of theassessmentwere positive with the vastmajoritycompliant, subject to some amendmentswhich havebeen or are now being addressed.We discussed anyconcernswith the organisations themselves andwiththe SHR and Audit Scotlandwhowere content withour approach tomonitor ongoing improvement beforeinitiating any compliance action.

Reporting and publicising complaintshandling performanceQuarterly reporting

2013/14will be the first year for which all RSLsand local authorities issue clear, transparent andconsistent complaints information. The CHP requiresbodies to publish annual complaints statistics andlearning against performance indicators. In additionthere are requirements to report internally andto publish, on a quarterly basis, information oncomplaints trends, outcomes and actions taken.The aim of this is both to help increase transparencyand also to demonstrate to customers the valueof complaining and that complaints are treatedseriously.We carried out some samplemonitoringof the requirements to publish quarterly during theyear. Again, wewere pleased that the vastmajorityof organisations hadmeasures in place for internalmanagement reporting. However, in some casesthis did not follow through to externally publishingthe outcomes of complaints on a quarterly basis.Wherewe identified problems, we provided supportand guidance.We appreciate that this level ofreporting is new formost organisations and thesearrangementsmay take time to fully bed in.Wewillcontinue tomonitor compliancewith the reportingand publicising requirements of the CHP in discussionwith the SHR and Audit Scotland.

PAGE 21

Improving complaints standards

AnnualReturnon theSSHC

RSLs are also required to report annually on theircomplaints handling performance in linewith SPSOmodel CHP requirements and provide informationto the SHR.We have provided self-assessmentcomplaints indicators for the housing sector,developed in associationwith the Chartered Instituteof Housing, the ScottishHousing Best ValueNetwork andHouseMark, tomonitor performanceagainst the requirements of themodel CHP. Theindicators, which are linked to the core recording,reporting and publicising requirements in the CHPcan be found on the Valuing Complaints website1.These indicators enable RSLs to self-assess andshould provide the basis of public reporting totenants. The information RSLs publishwill alsoallow the sector to compare their complaintshandling performance across the sector, buildingon existing benchmarking arrangements.

The SHRhave nowpublished information on theAnnual Return on the SSHC for all RSLs. Thisprovides all of the data fromeach landlord on howthey performed against the outcomes of the Charteras outlined in the SHR’s indicators, including inrelation to complaints volumes. The aim is to reachgreater consistency in reporting on complaints andprovide a basis for comparing performance andsupporting ongoing improvement andwe areengagingwith the SHR on how, together, we canfurther support the sector in this regard.

Sharing best practice: advice, supportand guidanceWehave also continued to fulfil our duty tomonitor,promote and facilitate the sharing of best practice incomplaints handling through:

> supporting public bodies

> coordinating networks of complaints handlers

> developing and sharing best practice

> high quality training.

A key aspect of our role is towork closely withservice providers, regulators and other stakeholdersto offer advice, support and guidance about themodel CHPs and effective complaints handling.Throughout 2013/14we continued to provide thissupport across a range of issues, and respondedto over 900 stakeholder enquiries. 124 of thesewere fromRSLs, which at 14%of the total stillrepresents the third largest sector for enquiries(local government and central government andagencieswere the first and second largest).

Manywere straightforward requests, but othersrequired detailed advice, guidance and follow-upcontact. Aswe anticipated, therewas a shift in thesource of the requests, reflecting the stage of eachsector in implementing itsmodel CHP. However,the fact that the local government and housingsectors continue to provide themajority of contactsdemonstrates that there is an ongoing demandfor advice onwider aspects of good complaintshandling.

Housing complaints handlers networkThe housing complaints handlers’ network firstmetin 2012/13, co-ordinated jointly by Queens Cross andCastleRock Edinvar Housing Associations. The aimof the network is to share good practice, developtools and guidance, support complaints handlingpractitioners and, in time, provide a forum forbenchmarking complaints performance information.SPSO’s role is to contribute our expertise and ideasand provide support and advice on aspects of goodcomplaints handling and themodel CHP.

Over 50 housing associations have been involved inmeetings to date. Aswell as sharing good practice,the network looked at how complaints performanceshould be reported and how other RSLs are doing inthis area tomeet the annual reporting requirementsof themodel CHP. The network also consideredways ofmanaging unacceptable behaviour followinga presentation on the subject from the SPSO.

1 www.valuingcomplaints.org.uk/wp-content/media/RSL_performance_indicators.pdf

If you are interested in joining the network please contactCSA@spso.org.uk andwewill provide your details to the appropriate sector representatives.

PAGE 22

Formore about our training activities, visitwww.valuingcomplaints.org.uk/training-centre/For links to the e-learningmodules please visitwww.spsotraining.org.uk

Improving complaints standards

TrainingClassroomcourses

In 2013/14we delivered a total of seven complaintsinvestigation skills courses across six housingproviders. These courses relate to second-stagecomplaints handling under themodel CHP, wherethe provider appoints a person to investigate acomplaint in detail. This happens because:

> the frontline complaints handling hasnot resolved the issue; or

> the complaint was initially identified ascomplex; or

> the complainant asked for it to be escalatedstraight to this stage.

At the courses staff discussedwhat is important topeoplewhen they complain, and how tomake theexperience better for them. They identified andpracticed the skills needed for planning and carryingout investigations, evaluating evidence and reachinga decision, using case studies based on housingissues. They discussed howbest to feed back thelearning from complaints to avoidmistakeshappening again. Other areas they looked at werethe importance of effective apology, andways ofmanaging the difficult behaviour sometimesexhibited by a smallminority of customers. Thislatter subject is regularly raised by peoplewhoattend training sessions andwas somethingwefocused on at themeeting of the housing complaintshandlers’ network held during 2013/14. In response,we are currently developing guidancematerial tosupport staff in this area.

Feedback frompeoplewho took part in the courseswas very positive. They told us that they found theexercise of planning andworking through a complaintinvestigation step by step, the use of practicalexamples and the session that looked atways ofmanaging behaviour to be particularly useful.

Commentswe received on training courses included:

> ‘identifying the links between complaints andservice improvementwas crucial’,

> ‘the course should be compulsory for thosehandling complaints’; and

> therewas a ‘good emphasis on personalthoughts, feelings and processes’.

People also found it helpful to understandmoreabout the SPSO process, the advicewe can provide,and our perspective on complaints handling.

E-learning courses

The previous year, in 2012/13, we launched freee-learningmodules for RSLs and local authoritieson frontline complaints handling. These continueto help staff dealing directly with the public to feelmore confident about responding to complaints.Over 3,000 people have signed up across all sectors(with 870 new sign-ups in 2013/14), and in additionsome public bodies have adapted the courses fordelivery through their own internal e-learningsystems. The roll-out of e-learning training providessignificant scope and value, particularly for frontlinepublic sector staff. The training is directed at theskills needed to identify, handle and resolvecomplaints at the frontline as soon as they happen.The short interactivemodules use case studies andexamples, and provide information designed tosupport staff awareness of the frontline resolutionstage of themodel CHP and good practice incomplaints handling in general.

All our e-learning trainingmaterials are free andare available to all public sector organisations.

PAGE 23

Statistics

Further information is available atwww.spso.org.uk/statistics

Sta

geO

utco

me

Advice

Notdulymadeorwithdraw

n1

134

11

91

416

012

248

12

3118

Outofjurisdiction(discretionary)

01

00

00

10

00

20

30

00

7

Outofjurisdiction(non-discretionary)

00

01

10

01

10

02

40

00

10

Outcomenotachievable

05

00

30

01

10

20

170

00

29

Premature

416

34

76

15

271

184

773

20

178

Resolved

00

00

00

00

00

00

10

00

1

Tota

l5

357

612

153

1145

134

815

04

43

343

Early

Resolution1

Notdulymadeorwithdraw

n0

12

11

00

02

01

02

00

010

Outofjurisdiction(discretionary)

10

00

00

00

00

10

50

00

7

Outofjurisdiction(non-discretionary)

02

00

21

10

20

21

70

00

18

Outcomenotachievable

02

01

10

01

30

00

70

00

15

Premature

00

00

02

00

30

00

00

00

5

Resolved

00

00

00

01

10

00

30

01

6

Tota

l1

52

24

31

211

04

124

00

161

Early

Resolution2

Fullyupheld

00

00

00

00

10

00

10

00

2

Som

eupheld

00

01

00

12

00

00

10

01

6

Notupheld

11

01

10

00

10

10

30

00

9

Resolved

00

01

00

00

00

00

00

00

1

Tota

l1

10

31

01

22

01

05

00

118

Investigation1

Fullyupheld

00

00

00

00

30

00

51

01

10

Som

eupheld

02

00

00

10

20

01

30

00

9

Notupheld

02

00

01

00

30

30

40

11

15

Resolved

00

00

00

00

10

00

00

00

1

Tota

l0

40

00

11

09

03

112

11

235

Tota

lcom

plai

nts

745

911

1719

615

671

4210

191

55

745

7

Aidsandadaptations

Applications/allocations/transfers/exchanges

Communication/staffattitude/dignity/confidentiality

Complaintshandling

Estatemanagement/openspace/environmentwork

Homelesspersonissues

Housingstatutoryrepairnotices/HAAareas/demolitionorders

Improvements/renovation

Neighbourdisputes/anti-socialbehaviour

Other

Policy/administration

Rentand/orservicecharges

Repairsandmaintenance

Righttobuy

Shelteredhousing/communitycare

Terminationsoftenancy

Total

Loca

lgov

ernm

enth

ousi

ngco

mpl

aint

sde

term

ined

2013

/14

Not

e:Therewereno

localgovernm

enthousing

complaintsdetermined

atInvestigation2stagethisyear

PAGE 24

Statistics

Further information is available atwww.spso.org.uk/statistics

Sta

geO

utco

me

Advice

Notdulymadeorwithdraw

n1

63

14

03

130

114

251

00

00

476

Outofjurisdiction(discretionary)

00

01

00

20

10

01

00

00

00

5

Outofjurisdiction(non-discretionary)

00

10

00

10

03

13

00

00

30

12

Outcomenotachievable

03

21

10

23

02

27

00

01

00

24

Premature

218

68

21

722

021

061

21

31

06

161

Resolved

00

01

00

00

00

02

00

00

00

3

Tota

l3

2712

127

115

381

377

993

13

23

1028

1

Early

Resolution1

Notdulymadeorwithdraw

n0

00

20

01

10

00

20

00

00

06

Outofjurisdiction(discretionary)

00

10

00

01

01

00

10

00

00

4

Outofjurisdiction(non-discretionary)

02

00

20

11

00

47

00

00

00

17

Outcomenotachievable

00

20

00

01

00

04

00

00

00

7

Premature

00

00

00

02

00

00

00

00

00

2

Resolved

00

00

00

01

00

02

00

00

00

3

Tota

l0

23

22

02

70

14

151

00

00

039

Early

Resolution2

Fullyupheld

01

01

00

00

00

10

10

00

00

4

Som

eupheld

01

20

10

01

00

01

00

00

00

6

Notupheld

00

10

00

01

01

08

00

01

00

12

Resolved

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Tota

l0

23

11

00

20

11

91

00

10

022

Investigation1

Fullyupheld

00

01

00

02

00

00

00

00

00

3

Som

eupheld

01

00

00

11

00

06

00

00

00

9

Notupheld

00

00

00

13

00

01

00

00

00

5

Notdulymadeorwithdraw

n0

00

00

00

00

01

00

00

00

01

Resolved

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Tota

l0

10

10

02

60

01

70

00

00

018

Tota

lcom

plai

nts

332

1816

101

1953

139

1313

05

13

33

1036

0

Aidsandadaptations

Applications/allocations/transfers/exchanges

Communication/staffattitude/dignity/confidentiality

Complaintshandling

Estatemanagement/openspace/environmentwork

Homelesspersonissues

Improvements/renovation

Neighbourdisputes/anti-socialbehaviour

Other

Policy/administration

Rentand/orservicecharges

Repairsandmaintenance

Righttobuy

Sharedownership

Shelteredhousing/communitycare

Terminationsoftenancy

Outofjurisdiction

Subjectunknown

Total

Hou

sing

asso

ciat

ion

com

plai

nts

dete

rmin

ed20

13/1

4

Not

e:Therewereno

lhousing

associationcomplaintsdetermined

atInvestigation2stagethisyear

SPSO4 Melville StreetEdinburghEH3 7NS

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