Quarterly customer service complaint outcomes - October to December 2025
Introduction
SEPA’s Complaints Handling Procedure is in accordance with the requirements of the Model Complaints Handling Procedure published by the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) and requires us to publish quarterly a report on complaints outcomes and actions taken to improve services.
This report covers Quarter 3 (the period October 2025 to December 2025 inclusive).
Stage 1 complaints
A total of 18 Stage 1 complaints were handled in the reporting period – two were upheld, two upheld in part, 11 not upheld, two resolved, and one withdrawn by the complainant.
Of the 18 complaints, one involved the handling of a customer’s Waste Management Licence application. The complaint was upheld as information was not passed between teams within SEPA, leading to the application being rejected. SEPA apologised to the customer and advised them on how to continue with their application. Further checks were put in place following the complaint to ensure the situation does not happen again.
Another complaint related to a customer not receiving a reply to their enquiry. The complaint was upheld, and SEPA issued an apology to the customer. Employees were reminded of the timescales for responding to the type of enquiry made by the customer.
Stage 2 complaints
Nine Stage 2 complaints were handled within the reporting period – three of these were upheld in part, and six not upheld.
Of the three complaints upheld in part, one related to a lack of response from SEPA regarding burning of waste. One point of complaint was upheld in part, and SEPA apologised that a response was not provided to the customer despite the customer’s previous correspondence with a SEPA employee.
The second involved a customer not receiving assurances that proposed septic tanks near their property would not impact their water supply. We upheld this in part as we recognised that our correspondence with the customer fell short of our expected standards. In our response to the complaint, we assured the customer that our systems would flag if the proposed development would be close to the source of their water supply and offered regular engagement for further advice and guidance.
The third complaint which was upheld in part related to an activity the customer believed was incorrectly authorised. One of the two points of complaint was upheld as it was found that there was a fault in the SEPA process. SEPA worked with the authorisation holder to address the issue and agreed to ongoing engagement with the customer.