Meeting documents

To be presented by Kate Reed, Corporate Complaints Manager.

Kate Reed attended and presented this report and updated the Committee on the following points:

·         There had been a drop in the overall number of complaints recorded. An increased amount of contacts had however been made with contacts only being put through the complaints process where necessary. Work had increased where the team had acted as mediators to find a local resolution.

·         It was said that it could not be guaranteed that the team see 100% of complaints made. The Complaints Team had actively worked with teams in the business units to promote the team and encourage complaints be recorded in one central place.

·         Analysis had been completed and at stage 1, 59% of all non-statutory complaints were attributable to Transport for Buckinghamshire. The figures were very similar to those of the prior year with the most common reasons for complaints being linked to a delay or failure to be kept informed or in relation to a communication issue. Other issues included quality of service, staff conduct, SLA failure and non-adherence of procedure. The Central Complaints Team had continued work to make improvements and there had been a consistent approach in the investigation of complaints.

·         The total number of stage 1 complaints received was 471, the total number of stage 2 complaints was 117, and the total of stage 3 complaints was 43. Stage 1 and 2 complaints had reduced from last year whilst stage 3 was also slightly down on last year.

·         A copy of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) Annual Review Letter was attached to the agenda pack. The Council assumed that from lack of comment that the Ombudsman had not identified any specific areas of serious concern. The 40 additional LGO cases were unknown to the council, except for a small number of ‘premature’ complaints (which were formally referred back to the council by the LGO to be put through the Council’s relevant complaints procedure).

·         There had been a decrease in the number of compliments recorded although it was said this did not necessarily mean less compliments had been made rather that they had not all made their way to the Central Complaints Team.

·         A new system had been procured and was currently being developed to go live in 2016. The benefits of this included joint working with all areas of the Council so that a more efficient and consistent approach for the customer would be provided.

·         Changes to the 3 stage process had been agreed. Stage 1 would now be dealt with by a Senior Manager. Stage 2 would then be the equivalent of the current stage 3. This would save officer time and reduce the length of time a customer is in the complaints process.

Member Questions

Question 1

·         A Member asked whether any benchmarking had been done against other Local Authorities.

·         Kate Reed explained that this had been difficult to do with corporate complaints although had been done in respect of statutory complaints (discussed during agenda items 9 and 10). It was said that many authorities do not have a central complaints system.

Question 2

·         The question was asked whether any complaints had been made which could have been detrimental to the reputation of the council.

·         Kate Reed confirmed that in the absence of anything in the LGO annual review letter it was assumed that there had been no significant concerns.

Question 3

·         A Member asked how complaints were monitored that had been made to third parties such as TfB or BLT.

·         Kate Reed advised that as part of the contract monitoring the Central Complaints Team do not see them although it was believed that Contract Managers monitor these. A Member commented that complaints on outsourced contracts should be visible and it was said that this would be the ambition with CMA. Kate Reed explained that work was being done alongside the Innovation and Commercialisation Team to improve on the collection of complaints data for contracted out services. Lynda Forsythe added that there was now a requirement for contractors to provide data quarterly to the Council in a certain format and it would be explored how this would be logged by Contract Managers. It was said that complaints should be a standing item on the agenda of Contract Management meetings.

·         Ian Dyson advised that complaints were key and add cost to a contract. Due to this there should be very clear evidence of an effective complaints procedure. Ian Dyson recognised that other mechanisms would be beneficial in establishing how customers feel about the service they receive and assurances were needed that complaints are being dealt with by services on the Council’s behalf.

Question 4

·         A Member asked whether regular complainants were dealt with in a different manner to those who may have had more genuine grievances. The Member added that all complaints incur a cost and so may not necessarily need to follow the same process.

·         It was advised that all complaints had been recorded although the Complaints Team does have ways of managing persistent customers who frequently complain and the team had been careful not to take on complaints which had already been through the process.

Question 5

·         A Member asked whether complaints had reduced or whether contacts had just been reassessed to change the way complaints had been recorded.

·         Kate Reed explained that some contacts are service requests and not necessarily complaints and so contacts had been assessed differently. However if a customer says they wish to make a complaint it would never be refused.

RECOMMENDATION

Members should note and comment on the report.

RESOLVED

Members noted and made comments on the report.

The Chairman thanked Kate Reed for the report.