Agenda item

At the September Panel meeting, the Panel had requested that a detailed report be produced covering the Council’s statutory and corporate complaints and compliments system. The Director presented a report which set out background information about the complaints process, detailed information for each area and the key issues and hotspots to be aware of, including:

·         Since the removal of Stage 3 of the Corporate representations process earlier this year, there had not been an increase in the % of complaints received by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO).

·         Fewer statutory Children’s and Adults Social Care complaints had been received this year to date, compared with 2018/19, with Children’s complaints having reduced by more than 50%. Corporate complaints had risen in the same period.

·         The Economy and Infrastructure Directorate continued to receive the most complaints. The Stage 1 response rate had improved in the year to date, however there was also an increase in the number of complaints fully or partly upheld. The Panel was informed that the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) regularly carried out a peer challenge on the Stage 1 responses.

·         Fewer complaints were progressing to a Stage 2 investigation, but those that were, were taking a longer time to be responded to.

·         The implications of an LGO maladministration or injustice ruling could be significant, with substantial financial awards issued to complainants.

The Consumer Relations Officer (CRO) provided further detailed information including:

·           The way in which the Team was organised, including the use of external investigators.

·           The different arrangements in place for the statutory children’s and adults complaints and also the corporate complaints system and the variances for deadlines by which complaints needed to be acknowledged and each stage completed.

·           The procedure carried out by the Investigation Officers, which culminated with a report to the relevant Director or the Chief Executive of Worcestershire Childrens’ First (WCF).  He advised that if the Director or Chief Executive did not agree with the report’s findings, they had to set out their explanation as to why this was the case. For WCF, Stage 3 then involved an Independent Review Panel, whilst for Adults Social Care, the level of risk determined whether the complaint was then reviewed internally or externally.

Members raised a number of questions and comments about the service, with a summary set out below:

·         In response to a Member’s question, the CRO advised that complaints and compliments could be submitted by post, via comment cards/leaflets, or on line, but that all were received in the central Consumer Relations Unit.

·         A Member requested that a schematic diagram of the complaints procedure be provided, so that the flow of the processes could be more easily understood.

·         In response to a query as to whether learning points gained from customer feedback were taken into account for future training needs, the Director confirmed that in such cases SLT received recommendations for actions going forward.

·         Further information was requested about the time limits that were in place and how performance was measured against these.

·         The volume of feedback and complaints handled by Councillors was highlighted. It was suggested that the way in which this linked to the formal complaints system needed to be looked at, as currently many of these contacts might not end up being recorded centrally.

·         A request was made for a drill down into the data to provide more detailed statistics to a future meeting.  In addition, it was highlighted that information would be useful to demonstrate where the delays arose in the process.

·         A Member suggested that benchmarking with other Councils would be a helpful process to complete.

·         A Member recounted his experience of previously serving on an Independent Review Panel and finding that the unanimous decision of the Panel was then overturned by the Chief Executive, a situation he found difficult to comprehend. The CRO confirmed that the Chief Executives of WCC and WCF had the final decision-making responsibility when using the Council’s internal process.

It was agreed that a report would be brought back to the Panel with further information as requested above.