Named client · Local authority
Creating a Single Source of Truth for Gas Compliance at Fife Council
30,000 properties · 100% of documents checked · 1.5 supervisor days per week saved
Fife Council is the third largest local authority in Scotland, managing approximately 30,000 properties. TCW removed manual certificate checking, gave the council one verified gas compliance position, and strengthened its Duty of Care under the Defective Premises Act 1972.
Download PDF SummaryMeasured outcomes
100%
Of data checked within compliance documents
Automated validation on receipt
1.5 days
Gas Supervisor time saved per week
Time redeployed to proactive asset management
0.3 FTE
Business support resource released
No longer manually checking certificates
Duty of Care
Defective Premises Act 1972
Improved ability to evidence compliance
The detail
The Problem
Fife Council is striving for 100% compliance for gas servicing, driven from both the Head of Housing Services as landlord and the Head of Building Services as contractor. Existing systems had too much scope for introducing errors through manual input, and handwritten certificates from external contractors and from the in-house workforce had to be loaded whenever the mobile working system was offline.
What TCW Did
Compliance is now managed from a single system. Certificate checking rules were configured quickly to Fife's own requirements, handwritten certificates were accommodated before go-live, and every certificate is checked automatically the moment it is received with issues highlighted immediately.
The Solution
Managing compliance from a single IT system improved the compliance management of the asset portfolio, replacing multiple manual routes into the record.
Implementation went smoothly, with a quick turnaround on the rules applied to certificate checking for Fife's own requirements, and a workable route for handwritten certificates agreed before going live.
Customer support, from implementation through to day-to-day working, is first class.
What the Data Showed
Fife Council were surprised by the level of certificate errors that were previously going undetected.
A clear scheduling rule now applies: if a valid certificate does not exist in the software, then the service, installation or capped gas did not happen. Further resource savings are expected as combined reporting is completed.
The Benefits
- A single source of truth for gas compliance across the whole portfolio.
- Business support resource saving of 0.3 full time employees previously checking gas certificates.
- 1.5 days per week of Gas Supervisor time released for proactive asset management.
- Certificates checked as soon as they are received, with issues highlighted immediately.
- Reduced risk from human error and improved Duty of Care under the Defective Premises Act 1972.
- Improved workflow, with reporting combining TCW data and the work scheduling system.
“Our current systems had too much scope for introducing errors due to the need for manual input. We needed a single source of truth for gas compliance, which we now have.”
Certificate received
T+0s · LoggedMobile or handwritten record loaded into a single system
Automated check
T+2s · VerifiedValidated against gas legislation, ACOPs and Fife's own rules
Error detected
T+3s · FlaggedCertificate error previously going undetected is surfaced
Supervisor review
Same day · LoggedGas Supervisor reviews exceptions only, not every document
Compliance position updated
T+1 day · ClosedNo valid certificate means the service did not happen · chain sealed
Every stage timestamped, attributed and permanently retained for audit, regulator and coroner scrutiny.
More case studies
Named client · Social housing
One Compliance System, One Dashboard: settle's Servicesoft Integration
Named partner · Work management software
From the Engineer's Fingertips to Sign Off: Servicesoft and TCW
Named client · Property repairs and maintenance
From Paperwork to Proof: How 0800 Repair Eliminated Compliance Failures
Named client case studies are published with client permission and reflect their own reported figures. Remaining studies are composites drawn from anonymised TCW deployments — client names withheld under confidentiality, with figures reflecting measured platform outputs across comparable portfolios. All job titles and attributions were correct at the time of publication; individuals may have since moved roles or organisations.
Ask Us to Run This Against Your Own Portfolio.
We will show you the gap between your reported compliance position and your verified one, before you commit to anything.