Housing Ombudsman report sets out insights from submissions under Complaint Handling Code

The Ombudsman said the report highlights “the journey in complaint handling from before the Code’s introduction to now. From being a ‘postcode lottery’ to formed timescales. To a lack of resources and systems into ethical complaint handling.”

The report described the standard of practice in complaint handling before the introduction of the code as “haphazard”, with access and awareness areas of particular concern.

Upskilling colleagues, improving systems and resources for complaint handlers did not appear to be a priority for most landlords, it said.

The Ombudsman said the code changed this landscape, setting universal standards, defining what a complaint is, the process and timescale for handling, and encouraging a positive complaints culture and behaviour based on fairness.

It also increases governance oversight through the creation of the Member Responsible for Complaints role.

However, the Ombudsman said reviews had identified common weaknesses in complaint policies, particularly in relation to:

• clearly defining the complaint at the acknowledgment stage
• setting out when a complaint may be extended and by how long
• offering escalation or recognising ongoing dissatisfaction with a service request as a complaint
• the application of exclusions, including how residents’ behaviour is managed

Richard Blakeway, Housing Ombudsman, said: “The introduction of the Complaint Handling Code was a landmark change for social housing residents, giving them stronger rights and clearer routes to resolve complaints.

“This report shares several lessons. It asks landlords to reflect on the appropriate complaints model for their organisation. The Code is largely principle-based, and several models would be compatible with it. But it is reasonable to conclude that a fully decentralised complaints model poses risks for landlords and a barrier to actioning learning.

“Given complaints remain high and escalate to later stages, focus is needed on making the most of stage 2. The Code allows for double the time to handle, but too often the review is inadequate.

“Upskilling those handling stage 2 complaints, using the right information to make fair, non-defensive decisions and ensuring commitments are completed are important steps to make this part of the process more robust. Other areas for landlords to consider are exclusions to make sure these are fair and proportionate.

“There is room for improvement but, overall, complaint handling across social housing has transformed since the introduction of the Code. This reflects a commitment shown by most landlords to embedding a positive complaints culture.”

The full report, Learning from: Duty to Monitor, is available here.

Harry Rodd