Complaints handling across social housing has changed significantly in recent years. Greater regulatory scrutiny, increased Housing Ombudsman activity and higher customer expectations have all brought greater visibility and accountability to how complaints are managed.
The challenge is not simply one of volume. Complaints are becoming more complex, often involving several service areas, significant evidence gathering and customers with a range of vulnerabilities or support needs. Technology is adding another dimension. Customers are increasingly using artificial intelligence to prepare complaints, while housing providers are beginning to explore how the same tools could support investigation, drafting, quality assurance and organisational learning.
Across the first two meetings of Neemar Search’s Complaints Forum, one theme came through clearly: complaints can no longer be treated solely as the responsibility of a specialist team. Effective complaints handling depends on ownership, capability and culture across the whole organisation.
Operating Models Are Evolving
Most organisations represented in the forum operate a centralised or hybrid model. A central complaints team typically manages the process, monitors compliance and provides quality assurance. Operational services remain responsible for investigating what happened, supplying evidence and completing the actions required to resolve the issue. This can strengthen consistency and governance, but it also creates a significant dependency on the wider organisation.
A complaints team can challenge the quality of an investigation, improve the wording of a response and ensure deadlines are met. It cannot independently complete a repair, address contractor performance or resolve a failure within another service. Where operational ownership is weak, complaints teams risk becoming coordinators of unresolved service failures rather than drivers of resolution. Some organisations are responding by introducing specialist roles for complex complaints, Housing Ombudsman cases or service improvement. Others are developing complaints champion or business partner models to strengthen accountability within operational teams.
There is no single model that will work for every provider. The more important question is whether responsibilities are clear and whether the structure enables the organisation to move quickly from investigation to action.
Complexity Is Increasing
Even where complaint volumes have remained relatively stable, individual cases are becoming harder to manage. A complaint that begins with a repair may also involve communication, contractor performance, vulnerability, compensation and the quality of previous responses. Information must be gathered from several teams, responsibilities coordinated and each element addressed clearly.
Housing Ombudsman investigations are adding further pressure. Evidence requests can be extensive and may relate to complaints raised several years earlier. In some cases, organisations are responding to findings about systems or processes that have since changed, while still needing to demonstrate what happened and what has been learned.
This growing complexity is leading providers to consider whether their current structures are supported by the right level of specialist expertise, operational capacity and management oversight.
Getting Stage One Right
One of the strongest themes across both sessions was the importance of stage one. Complaints do not always escalate because the customer rejects the explanation they receive. In many cases, escalation happens because an agreed action was not completed, ownership was unclear or the customer was not kept informed.
A well-written response cannot compensate for a repair that remains outstanding. This is leading organisations to place greater emphasis on what happens after the response is issued. Commitments need to be recorded, allocated to a named owner and tracked through to completion.
Early contact can also make a significant difference. Speaking to the customer at the start of the process can help clarify the issue, understand the outcome being sought and distinguish between the original service failure and the problems that followed. There is also growing recognition that stage one requires sufficient skill and authority. Staff need to be able to acknowledge failure, explain decisions clearly and agree appropriate remedies.
Where the initial response is defensive, incomplete or overly process-driven, escalation becomes more likely and the overall cost of managing the complaint increases.
AI Is Changing Customer Behaviour
Forum members reported an increase in lengthy and highly formal complaints, often structured around legislation, regulatory requirements or legal language. Some contain references to case law or policies that are not directly relevant or accurate. These complaints can appear comprehensive while leaving the central issue unclear, creating additional work for teams that must identify the underlying service failure before beginning an investigation.
AI-generated complaints are also contributing to higher expectations around compensation and, in some cases, a more adversarial approach from the outset. Some customers indicate immediately that they intend to escalate to stage two or approach the Housing Ombudsman. However, customer use of AI should not be viewed only as a problem. It can improve access to the complaints process for people who lack confidence in writing, experience language barriers or find formal communication difficult.
The challenge is to focus on the substance of the complaint rather than becoming distracted by its length, tone or presentation.
AI Is Also Part of the Solution
Housing providers are beginning to use AI within their own complaints processes. Current applications include summarising lengthy submissions, identifying key themes, improving the tone and clarity of responses, generating meeting notes and checking whether an investigation has addressed every issue.
Some organisations are also exploring more advanced tools linked to internal policies and knowledge bases. These could guide staff through investigations, identify missing evidence or highlight inconsistencies between a proposed response and organisational policy.
The potential benefits are significant. AI may reduce administration, improve consistency and support less experienced staff to manage complex cases. However, the discussion was clear that AI cannot replace professional judgement. Outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or written with more confidence than the evidence supports. A response can sound polished while still reaching the wrong conclusion. Human oversight, critical thinking and clear governance therefore remain essential.
Ownership Beyond the Complaints Team
The forum discussions repeatedly returned to organisational ownership. Where operational services view complaints as the responsibility of a central function, investigations become slower and learning is less likely to result in change. Some organisations are embedding complaints objectives into leadership roles, strengthening executive and board reporting and tracking overdue actions more visibly.
There is also greater focus on combining complaints insight with wider customer and service data. Repeat contacts, missed appointments and unresolved requests can provide an early warning that a formal complaint is likely to follow. Complaints data should therefore be treated as operational intelligence, not simply a compliance return.
Moving From Process to Resolution
The complaints landscape is continuing to develop. Operating models are becoming more structured, technology is creating new possibilities and organisations are paying greater attention to quality and oversight. However, the central challenge remains straightforward. Customers complain because something has happened, or because something that should have happened has not. Strong processes, systems and governance matter, but none can substitute for ownership and action.
The organisations making the greatest progress will be those that treat complaints not simply as correspondence to manage, but as a source of accountability, insight and service improvement.
At Neemar Search, our Complaints Forum brings together senior leaders from across the housing sector to compare operating models, explore emerging challenges and share what is working in a confidential, peer-to-peer environment.
Senior leaders with responsibility for complaints, customer services or operational performance who are interested in joining a future session are welcome to get in touch.
