CENTRAL COMPLAINTS UNIT
17th SEPTEMBER 2007
REPORT AUTHOR: Mr. D.F. GOWERS
I have focused on Camden’s Central Complaints Unit, as they are the department that should a complainant be unhappy with the response received at Stage 2 of the complaints procedure and wish to take their complaint to Appeal by the Chief Executive; would have their complaint investigated by this Unit.
METHODOLOGY:
The methods I used to obtain information for my report are as follows and are in no particular order:
- Complainant’s own accounts and in some cases copies and/or originals of their complaint documentation.
- Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests made to: Camden Council.
- Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests made to: The Local Government Ombudsman.
- Correspondence and/or e-mail to certain Councillors’ and employees at Camden Council.
- Correspondence to Mr. Peter Swingler, Head of Camden’s Central Complaints Unit.
CONCLUSIONS:
I have looked in-depth at the workings of the CCU and researched other agencies that the CCU does business with. I am disappointed that the many of the posters on Council premises relating to making a complaint are out of date or not displayed at all. I would also like to see the CCU contact details in the complaints booklet and the heading on the cover in much bolder font and possibly changed.
It is clear that the ethnic minorities and certain other groups are still not being reached in terms of complaints and a review of why this is should be launched.
I received many responses from people that were dissatisfied with their treatment by the CCU. For every one of these people it is possible that they will speak negatively of their experience of complaining to the Council and the CCU. This is an area that must be looked at carefully.
I did not receive any positive comments from any contributor about the CCU. However, without any service-user involvement in determining the Complaints Policy, this is not surprising. In addition, many of the respondent’s gave me permission to use their names in my report. However, I have chosen not to do this, as I wanted my report to be independent and open and I did not want to make it about a person’s complaint, but about how they viewed the service they received from the CCU. However, there case may be mentioned but their name is not.
I have reported on the Charter Mark Agency, the British Standards Institute (BSI) and the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). It is clear that accreditation is a creditable testament to the work of the Council and the CCU; however, does it actually mean anything to service-users? I would argue that it does not mean much, as their experience of using the CCU will vary from, say, what the BSI says in its report.
The Charter Mark accreditation appeared to be a thorough process and highlighted some concerns. However, it is not clear that all of these were acted upon, as the amount of reporting on this subject by the CCU is negligible and this should be investigated.
The BSI accreditation is similar to that of the Charter Mark accreditation. However, Mr. Swingler reported that the BSI accreditation is of a much higher standard than the Charter Mark and that is why the CCU uses the BSI accreditation. However, the BSI does not use any of the negative information from the Ombudsman or the service-users, but has still raised concerns with the CCU about procedures, whilst still agreeing to the accreditation. It is for this reason that I believe that the Council should consider a service-users forum for the Complaints Policy and the CCU.
The Ombudsman reports some serious concerns in his Annual Letters, however, there appears to be little action or failure to report any action by the CCU to alleviate these concerns. This must be reviewed immediately otherwise it could leave the Council open to claims of ‘hiding’ bad news. In addition, the Ombudsman offers the Council training and this should be considered in light of the 58 Local Settlements (see page 31) for the year 2006-07.
Moreover, the reason I believe that members of the CCU need training is because it is important to remember that the Ombudsman will only receive the same evidence as the CCU and if the Ombudsman upholds the complaint or the Council agree a Local Settlement, then the CCU have failed and that is of great concern in determining its independence.
Internal Audits are needed and are carried out. However, from the paperwork I have seen they are not thorough enough and do not take into consideration any remarks made by the Ombudsman in his Annual Letters and the BSI in its report. It is my view that any internal audit should use the information from the Ombudsman and the BSI to ensure that the CCU has dealt with any negative comments from them.
Mr. Swingler gives his Annual Report on complaints to the Council every year. However, I am concerned that his report omits much of the negative information and negative statistics about dissatisfaction with the CCU and the complaints system as a whole. Moreover, when the Ombudsman raises concerns about the Council’s practices, Mr. Swingler does not comment on this in his Annual Report and I believe this is important information that the Council and its customers should be aware of. I argue that without this information being included, how can the Council ever hope to improve its complaints services?
I was concerned to find out that two former members of the Council’s complaint teams (the CCU and Housing) had started a complaints business (Complaints [r] Great). The reason for my concern is that Camden Council’s Social Services Department had paid this private company for work. The Council has Mr. Swingler and his staff from the CCU and has its own dedicated complaints officer in Social Services (Mr. Phill Sowter). So why were these employees, with their many years of experience, ignored and a private company with two former employees of the Council, used instead? This matter requires investigation.
By making a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request I attempted to ascertain how many complaints were made against members of the CCU. However, the Council refused me this information.
By making a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request I attempted to ascertain if any members of the CCU had a relative or partner working for Camden Council. However, the Council refused me this information.
I attempted to involve Mr. Swingler in my research, however he refused. He attempted to discredit my report before I had written a word by saying that it was not “…bona fide…” and he accused me of not being independent. Mr. Swingler informed me that he would only deal with me as he would deal with any other person and I would have to make Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests if I wanted any information. However, after complying with my Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests, the Council suddenly refused to release any more information and the reasons given for this were as follows:
“…We have also decided that your requests are repeated and vexatious. The requests are repeated, as they are the latest in a series of requests for information in respect of the work and staff of the CCU commencing April 2005…The requests are the latest in a series commencing April 2005 and having regard to their content and focus they are considered to be vexatious…Your requests impose a significant burden on the Council and cause a disproportionate inconvenience and expense. Taken together with your latest letter…and e-mail to a member of staff in another section of the Council…your correspondence form evidence of obsessive requests.
They are vexation because they (sic)
· clearly (sic) do not have any serious purpose or value;
· are (sic) designed to cause disruption or annoyance to the Council in general and the CCU in particular;
· has (sic) the effect of harassing the Council and its employees; and (sic)
can (sic) otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive.” (sic)
I have complained to the Information Commissioner and after an 18-month wait my complaint is being investigated. I am unable to comment on this, as it is still ongoing.
CONTENTS
1. Information on the history of the CCU and its staff
2. Procedures that the CCU follow
3. Posters and leaflets informing complainants’ how to complain
4. How many complainants were from ethnic minorities?
5. How many people responded to my request for information for this report
6. Responses from complainants positive and negative
7. Outside agencies with input to the CCU: Charter Mark, BSI and LGO
8. Internal Audit of the CCU
9. Annual Reports on the Complaints System
10. Complaints [r] Great
11. Complaints against CCU staff
12. CCU staff that have a relation working for Camden Council
13. Why was my Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests were denied on such varied grounds?
14. Conclusions and Recommendations
1. Information on the history of the CCU and its staff:
Camden’s Central Complaints Unit came into being in 1992.
The original staffing establishment was two full time equivalent posts. However, due to the increased workload, another full time equivalent post was added. All the previous and current staff in the CCU has a general local government and complaints handling background. At least one former member of staff has worked for an Ombudsman’s office, before joining Camden Council.
Mr. Peter Swingler has been the head of the CCU since its inception in 1992. He held another position with Camden Council in the Works Department, before taking up the post. The names of the current staff in the CCU are: Mr. Peter Swingler, Head of Department, Mrs. Della Edwards, Ms. Vivienne Caswill and Mr. John Hail.
The CCU is part of the Council but independent of the main service departments. The current reporting line for the CCU is through the Head of the Legal Services Department.
All staff in the CCU, if they wish, can freely fraternise with any member of Camden Council staff, during working hours.
Quality audits (internal and external) are carried out. Please see Chapters 7 and 8. All present staff members in the CCU and all previous members are, to my knowledge, White British. There are no members of the ethnic minorities represented in the CCU at this time and it appears to have always been this way. Previous staff members in the CCU include: Ms. Jessica Elliot, Mrs. Rosemary Winawer and Mr. Michael Hill. However, this list is not exhaustive, as when the workload increases, certain people are seconded to the CCU.
The 2004/2005 budget for the total cost of running the CCU is:
Salaries for 3 Full Time equivalent staff: £119,560
Other Revenue Expenditure: £26,400
This totals: £145,960
The CCU generates an annual income of c. £10,000 primarily for facilitating training courses. The CCU trains and advises many other Local Authorities and other organisations and is seen as a ‘best practice’ model by many.
2. Procedures that the CCU follow:
A three-stage complaints procedure has been in place since 1992. Camden Council has a very clear and concise complaints policy.
The CCU would not usually become involved in a complaint until it reaches Stage 3 of the procedure, although a complaint can be processed from Stage 1 to Stage 3 if Mr. Swingler decides that this is necessary. In addition, you can contact the CCU for advice on complaints and access to the Ombudsman, at any time.
Stage 3: Chief Executive reviews:
This is a system for the CCU to review the outcome of a Stage 2 complaint or a very serious or a multi-department complaint. However, this does not include Social Services, which has its own complaints procedure. There is also a different appeal system for parking representations.
The complaints policy applies to services Camden Council provide and services where they have a responsibility such as contracted-out services. The policy states that the Camden Council (this includes the CCU) will deal with all complaints:
Promptly
Efficiently
Courteously
Systematically
In addition, it states that they will acknowledge the complaint within two working days with a letter stating:
- What will be done
- How long before a reply will be given
- Who to contact about the complaint
The complainant will be kept informed about:
The progress of the investigation into the complaint
The final outcome (in writing)
When reaching the findings of a complaint, the relevant department will inform you of any right to appeal their decision and whom you can appeal to. If you appeal a decision taken by the CCU, then you have the opportunity to make this to the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).
At the completion of your complaint (at whatever stage), you should be sent a ‘customer satisfaction form’. This offers the complainant the opportunity to inform the Council how they felt their complaint was handled. I will return to these shortly.
The CCU prepares an Annual Report for members of the council. I will return to this shortly.
Vexatious and/or Repetitious complaints:
The Council may, at any stage of the complaints procedure, review a complaint and give a decision without a formal investigation, where a Chief Officer or the Head of the CCU considers it to be deliberately vexatious and/or repetitious. In addition, there is no appeal to the Council allowed if a complaint is decided to be vexatious and/or repetitious. In addition, the Ombudsman is likely to agree with the Council’s decision and new guidelines from the Ombudsman make this a near certainty (see LGO website). The Council have no definition of ‘vexatious’ and Mr. Swingler recommends using the vexatious and/or repetitious action to other Local Authorities. (Hillingdon Borough Council Report 2005, p.12).
Stage 3:
At Stage 3, the CCU is acting on behalf of the Chief Executive. The department that the complainant is complaining about will be required to supply information so that a decision can be issued within 25 working days.
The CCU can carry out investigations, by site and/or home visits, review of files and records, interviewing members of staff and complainants. The CCU will supply a note-taker if it is felt necessary. They will also supply an interpreter should a complainant require one. In addition, at its conclusion, the CCU will inform the complainant of their findings and of their right to appeal to the LGO or take any other legal remedies that are available.
Mr. Peter Swingler, Head of the CCU, also carries out investigations into complaints.
Complaints against the CCU:
If a complainant is unhappy with the way they were dealt with by a member of the CCU, they can complain to the Head of the CCU. The Head of the CCU or another Senior Manager will investigate their complaint and reply within 15 working days.
Confidentiality:
Any complaint processed through the procedure will be dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1988. Mr. Swingler also sits on the panel that considers Freedom of Information Act 2000 appeals against Camden Council.
Customer satisfaction with complaints handling:
The CCU sends out ‘Customer Satisfaction’ survey forms to all complainants at Stage 3, once the complaint is concluded. However, although 201 complaints were received in the CCU in 2004-2005, only 44 complainants’ returned the survey form.
I will now offer the CCU interpretation of the 44 complainants’ figures and the actual objective evidence obtained from the CCU:
The CCU Annual Report states that 73% marked the form as satisfactory to very good for the way their complaint was handled and 55% felt the outcome fell within the categories of satisfactory to very good. I will now show you the exact figures for the year 2004-2005, not the percentages:
Q1. What were the best things about how we handled your complaint?
The outcome: 10
An apology: 6
Quick reply: 15
Plain English in the reply: 4
Accurate reply: 4
Helpful staff: 11
Q2. What were the worst things about how we handled your complaint?
The outcome: 17
No apology: 5
Poor use of language in the reply: 1
Inaccurate reply: 8
Unhelpful staff: 4
Late reply: 4
Q3. How do you feel about how we handled your complaint?
Very bad: 10
Bad: 2
Okay: 11
Good: 10
Very Good: 11
Q4. How do you feel about the outcome of your complaint?
Very Bad: 10
Bad: 7
Okay: 14
Good: 6
Very good: 4
Q5. Where did you find information about how to complain to us?
There is no information recorded.
Q6. Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve our complaint procedure?
There is no information recorded
Q7. Are you:
Male: 23
Female: 20
Q8. Do you have a disability?
Yes: 8
No: 0
I am concerned that the Annual Report fails to show that just over one-quarter of complainants’ were not happy with how their complaint was handled. In addition, what is done with the information offered on the customer satisfaction forms about how the CCU can improve the complaints procedure, as this is not clear?
Mr. Swingler informed the Cabinet Office that there are many ways to involve complainants’. Two examples he gave are:
· User or representative groups
· Formal surveys of a representative sample of service-users
The standard of recording this information is totally inadequate and this needs to be improved to include all of the statistics or there is no point sending out these forms. Moreover, as it stands, this is a waste of time and resources for Camden Council.
The CCU and the Council use a system called ‘Respond Centre-Point’ to collate all complaints. This means that information about complaints can be accessed and the progress of a complaint is monitored, should a complainant wish to know the status of their complaint. Camden Council has been using the ‘Respond’ system since 1996 and have upgraded to ‘Respond Centre-Point’, which is a better software system.
I would like to share with you what Mr. Peter Swingler said in an article on the website of the organisation of the people that make ‘Respond’ He said: “We have been using Respond’s product suite to effectively manage a our complaints since 1996 and it has helped us to retain the BSI’s industry standard for complaint management.”
In addition, Mr. Swingler added: “We [the Council] believe that our achievements have been possible by listening to customers and understanding why people complain.” (Respond website article).
The paperwork that I received under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, regarding customer satisfaction forms, consisted of the adding up of figures by using four straight lines and one diagonal line, to represent a total of five.
I am concerned that as the Council have paid for and have been using ‘Respond’ for over ten years that this method of collating figures is still being used.
When accessing Camden Council’s website, there is no direct link to the complaints section. However, Borough’s such as, Brent and Islington, do have direct links to their complaint section. I would like to see Camden Council do the same.
In addition, the complaints page for Brent Council gives links to their Annual Reports of their complaints section and the Ombudsman’s Annual letter to Council’s. I would like to see Camden Council do the same.
Annual Report on Camden’s complaint procedures – 2004/2005:
I will not reproduce the whole report here, however I will summarise the report and for ease of reference, I will use the headings that are used in the report. In addition, I will use the Freedom of Information Act 2000 information that I received from the Council and compare and contrast the findings.
The Council received a total of 2,438 complaints under its formal complaint procedure. 45 of these were under the children and young people procedure.
The Local Government Ombudsman received 258 (this does not tally with the LGO figures) complaints against Camden Council, he issued decisions on 215 (82 of which were premature and referred back to Camden’s scheme.
The total number of complaints rose by 17% on last year.
£58,163 was paid out in compensation last year (down by £6,987 – 11% on the previous year). In addition, less compensation was paid out at Stage 3 and the Ombudsman’s stage. Complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman rose by 50 complaints on the previous year.
Camden Council successfully retained the British Standards Institute (BSI) accreditation for its complaint scheme for the fifth year running. I will return to this topic in Chapter 8.
Valuing Diversity:
The Council provide complaint leaflets for adults, children, those with learning difficulties and versions in Cantonese, Bengali and Gujerati. The Council continue to advertise and promote access into the scheme by disabled people.
For ethnic minority complainants, the amount of information available actually dropped by 9% on the previous year, from 86% to 77%.
20% of complaints were from disabled people, which is the same as the previous year.
Vexatious complaints:
Eight complaints were rejected for being repetitious and vexatious, compared to only four the previous year.
The special children and young persons complaint scheme:
The CCU is continuing its outreach campaign of visits to schools and play centres.
Delivering Excellence:
Camden Council has set itself six targets for 2005/2006 and these are:
1. Maintain final reports of maladministartion issued against Camden by the Ombudsman at one or less (I will return to this topic in due course)
2. Achieve the 90% target for replies to Stage 1 complaints
3. Maintain accreditation by the BSi
4. Outreach with children and young people about the children’s complaint scheme
5. Find ways of publicising the complaint procedure to the Somali and Bangladeshi community
6. Introduce a facility for persons to submit complaints by text
Local Government Ombudsman:
No final reports of Maladministration were issued and this maintains Camden Council in the best performing list of London Councils. 71 cases decided at Stage 3 of the complaints procedure went on to appeal to the LGO. Of these, 8 decisions made by the CCU were not upheld and these were resolved by local settlement (I will return to ‘local settlement’ in Chapter 7). These settlements resulted in increased compensation.
The breakdown of complaints to the LGO is as follows:
Housing – 51%
Highways – 9%
Planning – 8.5%
Council tax – 6%
Social Services – 4%
Education – 1.5%
All others – 19%
3. Posters and leaflets informing complainants’ how to complain:
In all Council buildings that are used by the public there should be posters and/or leaflets available explaining how to make a complaint and whom to contact. Over the last few months I have visited a range of buildings from Council offices and libraries. There have been posters and/or leaflets in some, however, not in others.
Furthermore, some of the complaint posters are out of date and some still offer the names of Council officers’ that no longer work for the Council. I was disappointed to find only one building that I visited had complaint posters and/or leaflets that offered another language.
4. How many complainants’ were from Ethnic Minorities?
Firstly, let us look at how many people who reside in Camden are from the ethnic minorities: This information is taken from the 2001 census and I have a licence to use this: C2007001723 and this runs from 9/9/07-8/9/2012
Please Note: Census Copyright – All census data is Crown copyright. If you intend to publish or pass data on to a third party, you should obtain a (free) click use licence from HMSO (http://www.hmso.gov.uk)
All households:
91,601
All households where the representative adult of the household is of ethnic minority:
37,580
All family households:
39,106
Family households where the representative adult of the household is of ethnic minority:
18,777
There is no information for the year 2003-2004 and for the year 2004-2005, the figures of people that complained and returned their form are as follows:
Ethnic monitoring form:
What is your ethic group?
White:
British: 25
Irish: 1
White other: 5
Asian or Asian British:
Any other Asian background: 1 Afghan
Black or Black British:
Caribbean: 1
African: 2
Any other ethnic group:
1 Turk/Kurd
This is a total of five people from ethnic minority backgrounds. These results are startling and can only point to one of two facts
1. Camden’s ethnic minorities have nothing to complain about or:
2. The ethnic minorities are not being reached and so are unable to make a complaint.
Mr. Swingler gave a presentation at the ‘Quality of Life’ Panel in January 2006. However, although he said that Camden’s complaints system has reached British Standards Institute accreditation for the last six years; he did not mention hard to reach groups, such as ethnic minorities, at all. This concerns me.
Some of the paperwork sent to me under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is totally inadequate for the purpose. Information has been left out and this whole system of recording how many complaints are received, needs to be reviewed, so that the best use of resources is employed.
5. How many people responded to my request for information for this report?
I had letters published in the Camden New Journal and the Hampstead and Highgate Express and I attempted to involve Camden Council’s own newspaper, ‘Camden Living’, however, they refused to help in any way.
The number of people that came forward is 30 and some of them sent me their complaint documents, some of them told me about their complaint without offering any documents. Many of the complainants’ gave their consent for me to use their names in my report; however, I have chosen not to do this, as I explained earlier.
In addition, I went to visit two of the people that contacted me and spoke with many others using e-mail or telephone. The information I received covered a wide range of topics, including: Housing, Neighbour Nuisance, Parking and Planning although this list is not exhaustive.
6. Responses from complainants’ positive and negative
As part of my research, I asked all complainants’ for their positive and negative experiences of using Camden’s CCU. However, even though I extended the closing date for submission of evidence, there were no positive experiences put forward about the CCU. Conversely, there were a number of negative experiences and I will highlight these by using samples of complainants’ own words when they describe their experiences of using the Council’s complaints system.
- “CCU does not offer an independent service.”
- “Ultimately the CCU’s job is to protect the Council.”
- “I have been through hell with the complaints sector.”
- “I do not seem to be getting anywhere with this rude Council.”
- “Important information was not available to the investigator.”
- “Many staff appear to be poorly qualified.”
- “Letters are sent from the Council with biased or inaccurate information.”
- “My Stage 3 complaint was completed quickly and hurriedly.”
- “The Stage 3 investigation did not fully cover my complaint.”
- “We have been dealing with our complaint for over three years.”
- “The Council does not seem to take the matter seriously.”
- “I have no trust in Camden Council.”
- “All this is affecting my health.”
- “The CCU lacks objectivity, probing, integrity, logic and fairness.”
- “At Stage 3 the Council flatly refused to consider my complaint.”
- “The Council said I was causing trouble by complaining.”
- “The Council does not treat people equally and fairly.”
- “I was told [by the Ombudsman] that even if the Stage 3 enquiry had been misconducted, the decision not to uphold my complaint would still stand.”
- “I am not aware that there is a customer satisfaction form to fill in.”
- “Camden’s Complaint Unit is rambling, confusing complicated and designed to protect their own interests.”
- “I believe that complaints to the Council to be a process designed to put off all but the totally committed.”
- “Camden Council does not consult and fobs you off.”
- “The Council did not answer my letters.”
- “The Council are resistant to admit that they are wrong.”
- “Complaining affected my quality of life.”
I make no apology for including so many quotes, however, I felt that it is important for the Council to note just how some complainants’ feel, when they have used the Council’s complaints system. I hope the Council will take into consideration the above comments and not just dismiss them as the norm for people that may not have had complaints upheld?
EMOTIVE LANGUAGE:
When people are stressed and angry, they often use emotive language and often the Council treat this as negative and often criticize the complainant. However, one must put this into perspective and try to ascertain why complainants’ feel this way.
7. Outside Agencies with input to the CCU: Charter Mark, BSI and LGO
I made Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) requests to the Council about the above outside agencies. The Charter Mark and British Standards Institute FOI requests were in respect of their quality assurance role in auditing the Central Complaints Unit. The Local Government Ombudsman was to obtain complaints statistics relating to the Council.
CHARTER MARK:
The CCU obtained a Charter Mark in 1999. This award lasts for three years and expired in 2002. After the expiry date the Charter Mark Assessment Services carried out an assessment of the CCU. This was done to ascertain if another Charter Mark should be awarded. In 2003 the current criteria, which was a 10-point criteria, was amended and became a 6-point criteria.
Criterion 4 applies directly to Complaints Management and it states: “Continuously Develop and Improve.” The CCU was successful in its application for a continuation of its Charter Mark for 2002-2005.
Furthermore, in 2002, the Charter Mark Assessment Services (CMAS) published an assessment feedback report. It is clear from this report that the CCU carries out much of its work to a high standard. However, there were areas that were relatively weak.
In the interests of this report, it is those areas that I will concentrate on.
CRITERION 1: SET STANDARDS
Areas for development: You do not involve the full range of users in setting and reviewing standards The annual report remains the only means by which you publish information on your performance.
The CMAS suggested: “You consider and agree ways to involve the full range of users in setting and reviewing standards, perhaps by including on your satisfaction questionnaire a specific question on time targets and a separate question asking for user views on your wider service standards.”
“You publish information on your performance against all standards together with information on dips in performance and the remedial action you take, to as wide an audience as possible. This may include for example, ‘headline’ information on your publicity leaflets with more comprehensive data on your web site and in your reception areas.”
CRITERION 2: BE OPEN AND PROVIDE FULL INFORMATION
Areas for development: Your satisfaction survey does not ask your users whether or not they find the information you provide clear and easy to understand.
The CMAS suggested: “You include a specific question on your satisfaction survey, which asks your users how clear and easy to understand they find the information you provide. You may find it useful to ask them to answer on a sliding scale.”
CRITERION 3: CONSULT AND INVOLVE
Areas for development: You do not fully summarise, analyse and record the outcomes of your consultation processes. Consultation with front line staff is not evidenced in your application. You do not yet have in place full procedures for review of your consultation methods to make sure they are effective.
The CMAS suggested: “You summarise, analyse and record the outcomes of your consultation processes so that you can demonstrate transparency in your procedures and evidence that you are meeting user needs.”
“You consider and agree ways to take views from all staff within the council who deal with complaints. You may, for example, wish to consider introducing a staff suggestion scheme on the council Intranet.”
“You make full use of the council’s recently developed Best Value Consultation Board to ensure that you regularly review your consultation methods. You may wish to use the Board to help you progress your plans to target greater numbers of refugees in the Borough.”
CRITERION 4: ENCOURAGE ACCESS AND THE PROMOTION OF CHOICE
Areas for development: You do not provide information on the way in which feedback from staff has contributed to the provision of greater choice for users of your service.
The CMAS suggested: “You encourage staff to draw on their experiences of dealing with complaints to put forward suggestions for further improvements to increase choice in the service you offer.”
CRITERION 5: TREAT ALL FAIRLY
Areas for development: You do not have a customer service policy, although you have contributed to the development of a draft customer service policy document.
The CMAS suggested: “You progress the initiative to develop a customer care policy which informs and reflects best practice within your service.”
CRITERION 6: PUT THINGS RIGHT WHEN THEY GO WRONG
Areas for development: You do not keep records of the comments and decisions taken by Complaints Liaison Officers or other staff during the complaints procedure review process.
The CMAS suggested: “You formalise the complaints procedure review process and ensure that comments received and decisions taken are recorded.”
CRITERION 7: USE RESOURCES EFFECTIVELY
Areas for development: The use of resources within your Unit is not yet subject to independent assessment of efficiency and VFM (Value for Money).
You do not provide Cost per Unit data for dealing with complaints.
The CMAS suggested: “You discuss and agree the means by which your use of resources can be independently assessed in terms of efficiency and VFM, perhaps by including this as a specific and discrete area for your BSI audit”.
“You use Best Value procedures as a vehicle for providing Cost per Unit data to enable you to tell users about your operating costs and enable you to make comparisons with your peer group authorities.”
CRITERION 8: INNOVATE AND IMPROVE
Areas for development: We have not identified any significant areas for development in this criterion.
CRITERION 9: WORK WITH OTHER PROVIDERS
Areas for development: You do not ask users of your service whether they find the joint services simple to use and more effective.
The CMAS suggested: “ You continue to progress and develop the draft community strategy and consider using this to gather user views on joint services.”
CRITERION 10: PROVIDE USER SATIFACTION
Areas for development: You do not record year-on-year outcomes of your satisfaction monitoring and so you are unable to demonstrate conclusively that levels of satisfaction are improving.
The CMAS suggested: “You review and revise your satisfaction survey questions in order to ensure you collect both quantitative and qualitative data to enable you to measure year-on-year trends in satisfaction.”
As you can see, there are many areas that needed to be improved and although some have, they are some that have not. The area around customer satisfaction is one that was highlighted but appears to have not been treated as a priority.
However, in 2005, Mr. Swingler, Head of the CCU, decided not to reapply to the Charter Mark Assessment Services (CMAS), as he informed me in a letter that the BSI award duplicated much of the CMAS award and was of a higher standard.
BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTE:
I will now focus on the British Standards Institute (BSI) award. The BSI issue different awards and the one relating to the CCU is CMSAS 86:2000.and thereafter ISO 10.002.
Mr. Swingler gave me the contact name of the person at the BSI that liases with the CCU and I attempted to contact him. However, after three letters and no response, I decided I was not going to gain a response. However, the BSI have a website and I gained valuable information from there.
In addition, the BSI would not give me any information about the Council, as it was confidential. In addition, the Council also refused to offer me any information about the BSI Annual Reviews, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and so I did not know what, if any, recommendations were made by the BSI in the six years that the Council has received accreditation? However, after over one year and a half, the Council (Mr. Swingler) relented and offered me the BSI reports on the 17th May 2007.
The report for 2002 is not available, as Mr Swingler informs me that and I quote: “The report for 2002 is ‘information not held’ as it has inadvertently been disposed on (sic) in the intervening period.”
So, what is a ‘Complaints Management Scheme’? The Complaints Management Scheme helps organisations of all types to identify, manage and understand how successfully they deal with their customer complaints.
Some examples of complaints include:
· Poor quality of service
· Inadequate handling of complaints from various sources
· Customer complaints compensation scenarios
· Recognising and protecting the rights of both customer and staff
The Complaints Management Scheme specifies over five key requirements for handling customer complaints successfully and includes complaint management controls to help you address customer dissatisfaction in a satisfying way within your business (BSI 2005).
As with everything in this world, if you require any type of recognition, you must pay for it and the BSI is no exception. In addition, once Camden Council had paid for and achieved the BSI standard, it featured in a news release in 2001 from the BSI, which I would like to share a summary with you now.
“Camden Council has become the first local authority in the UK to receive a British Standards Institution registration for the way it successfully handles more than 2,000 annual complaints.
Trailblazers in the area of complaints’ management, Camden actively encourages dissatisfied customers to complain, in the knowledge that this ultimately helps improve its services.
Peter Swingler, Head of Camden’s Central Complaints Unit, says” “Camden Council has made a virtue out of asking customers to complain we believe, by encouraging complainants, we gain a second chance to capture the loyalty and approval of our customers and improve our services. We have always had a positive complaints procedure but the BSI Scheme provides an open demonstration of our commitment to providing the best service possible.” (BSI 2005)
The BSI award is for one year and a further assessment is then required to be able to keep the award and there is a cost element to this, which is much dearer than the Charter Mark cost.
I will now offer you a summary of the information contained in the BSI reports for the years 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. As the BSI issued and reissued the certificate of competence, I will report on the issues that the BSI highlighted for the Council and the CCU to put right.
BSI Assessment Report 8th November 2000:
Non-conformities Identified During This Visit:
Central Complaints Unit: The internal audit program does not include the requirements of CMSAS: 86:2000 clause 4.4.4.2 and ‘annex F’.
The Council said: “We have agreed with Internal Audit to include regular auditing of the complaints process within the council’s internal audit programme”
Social Services: There was no evidence to indicate that all recommendations/corrective action needs from investigating officers’ had been formally concluded e.g. SSC2/CF/NR/IR/1229 complaint, ref standard 4.3.5.
The Council said: “We have agreed that all council departments will track and regularly report on recommendations made following complaints to ensure lessons are learnt”
BSI Assessment Report 29th November 2001:
Observations and Opportunities as given by the BSI:
1. “It is suggested the monthly reports includes the contributory reasons for the overrun of complaint resolution”
2. “In order to ensure traceability it is recommended that the unique complaint number from respond is used on all relevant correspondence”
3. “Consideration to the extension of recording centrally of all points of customer dissatisfaction, e.g. claims for damages is recommended. The ‘Respond’ process may be a suitable media to capture all such issues i.e. defects, claims in addition to complaints”
4. “There is a possibility of double counting of complaints moving through the ‘stages’ unless careful analysis of statistics is exercised. A unique number assigned at outset would best serve traceability, when retained at all ‘stages’ instead of renumbering”
5. “Respond is not net-worked across the departments and it is recommended that this is implemented as a high priority to ensure consistent and active data capture”
6. “It is suggested the LBC may wish to capture all data on customer dissatisfaction across all departments into one single analysis report thus providing visability (sic) and a single focus of the ‘Big Picture’ e.g. Education & other statutory complaint processes”
7. “A more uniform & consistent style of the corrective action reporting format is worthy of consideration as an improvement opportunity and to include corrective action ownership, target completion date and final close out confirmation”
8. “A visiable (sic) Audit Forward Programme is worthy of introduction to ensure internal audits are carried out in a structured & timely manner”
I reiterate there is no report available for 2002, as the Council destroyed it. However, I am surprised that as they paid for the assessment and report to be done that they could not have requested another copy?
BSI Assessment Report 9th January 2003:
Observations and Opportunities:
1. “Internal audit of the CCU should be effected by an auditor independent of the dept at the earliest opportunity”
2. “Focus on ‘the big picture’ of complaints should be maintained & promoted”
3. “The complaints policy statement should be endorsed by top management and published at all levels”
4. “How the matter of confidentiality of complaints is managed is worthy of clarification in respect to members of staff and recruitment records”
5. “The retention & recording of training activity appears fragmented & not consistent cross the business and is an area where improvement opportunity exists”
6. “It is unclear how the organisation notifies customers/or the general public where a complaint has wide safety implications and a review of the existing procedures is recommended to cover the requirement of clause 4.3.1.4 of CMS AS 86/2000”
BSI Assessment Report 15th January 2004:
Nonconformity report:
SRE 1 “The response time to resolution of complaints requires closer monitoring & follow-up to ensure excessive overdues do not occur as seen in complaint No. 0140 - 240 days unresolved; No.0566 – 105 days & No. 01079 – 72 days; No. 0822 79 days 4.4.3 & .4.4.1”
SRE 2 “No independent internal audit has yet been carried out of the Central Complaints Unit (CCU)”
Opportunities:
“The internal audit process would be enhanced with the publication to the auditee of audit outputs with follow-up of observations & non- conformities; and internal auditors should be trained & competent in auditing techniques 4.4.4.2 Annex A 5.2”
“The complaints manual & support documents would be improved by unique numbering & issue status and the addition / deletion as changes dictate eg. (sic) the new Higher Education Complaints System 4.3.3”
“It is suggested that the annual report includes an overview of the Big Picture and any plans for continuous improvement identified 4.5”
“The training resource to cover improved complaint resolution in Housing (Capital Projects) is worthy of review Annex A 5.3 A3”
BSI Assessment Report 10th 11th and 12th January 2005:
Non-conformities: A corrective action plan was required by the Council to correct the non-conformity.
Environment – AFC 01- In respect of complaint no. (sic) LBC/030000/0405 no documentary evidence was seen today that an allegation made during the course of this complaint – that an undated acknowledgement letter was sent by the Council to the complainant’s solicitor – was not recorded or responded to when the complaint was dealt with”
Commentary:
These are the observations made by the assessor.
“Please consider if there should be a Council wide approach to answering allegations of rudeness, unhelpfulness etc from staff when such complaints are not upheld. The assessment team observed different approaches in different areas to answering these issues in writing and a more standardised approach might be appropriate”
Housing
1. “It is suggested that an executive summary from the Management Review Document is produced for easier understanding”
2. “The establishment of a work instruction or guidance document is recommended covering the receipt/processing of informal complaints as seen in Housing. The process of review of complaints resolution letters as published by complaint owners could also be consistently applied”
Finance Department/Council Tax
“Please consider recording on the Respond system the cost to the Council on any complaint concerning recovery action where it is upheld or partially upheld e.g. the cost to the Council of any summons or bailiff costs incurred”
Environment
“It is unclear if there is currently a system within Development Control to monitor Council service standards for response to customer communications. How is this currently monitored by senior management?”
Social Services
“Due to the complexity of the statutory requirements and the high level of commitment shown by officers and sometimes other agencies in resolving complaints, please consider whether there is merit in undertaking a review of each complaint when it is first received. This would enable you to determine the level of complexity, time and risk of each complaint and, in turn, decide the investigation priorities. Also, with such an approach, if the matter is likely to be lengthy in resolution this can be flagged at an early stage of the investigation”
BSI Assessment Report 11th January 2006:
Non-conformities - There were no non-conformities.
Areas assessed & findings
Housing
“It may be an advantage to define what is a complaint in certain circumstances i.e. at what stage does request for service transfer into a complaint for entry onto the ‘Respond C M System as an expression of dissatisfaction and not just a service request”
Central Services
“The retrieval of information at the request of an external solicitor was not made available and the reply to the complaint advised that the retrieval system would be available by the end of December 2005 as required by ODPM IEG3. This could not be verified during this visit”
Leisure
Where a service or activity is Sub-Contracted it is suggested that the level of complaint recording and resolution should be monitored and reported to ensure compatibility with the LBC requirement is maintained”
General
“Improved housekeeping in Respond entries is recommended and with response times to requests for information. Equally, service improvements, where identified, could be better monitored to ensure timely completion”
Notes
“The assessment was based on random samples and therefore issues may exist which have not been identified…”
BSI Assessment Report 10th January 2007:
Management Review: I will offer a summary of the findings:
“2417 formal complaints were addressed during the review period April-March. A breakdown of on time resolution/overdues and the numbers at what stage the complaint was settled e.g. stage 1,2,3 to Ombudsman is reported. Compensation levels were also shown”
“Ombudsman complaints about Camden totalled 224 in the review period.”
“Road Traffic Act & Parking Complaints do not form part of this report as it is pursued under separate legislation.”
Internal Audits: “The CCU is audited by an independent ISO 9000 Assessor”
OBSERVATIONS:
1. “It is recommended that audits of support agencies (Sub-Contractors) be carried out to ensure that, as required by the contract, Complaints are being handled in a structured and effective manner to support Council objectives, e.g. Leisure Centres, Care Homes, Libraries etc. and for CCU to be aware of the level of activity for the BIG PICTURE”
2. “Adoption of the Q.A. reporting documentation for Audits is suggested”
Operations: I will offer a summary of the findings:
2 – FINANCE
“…Target times were not being met at Stage 1 with a performance of 68% on time (10 days) against 90% target”
OBSERVATION
“It is recommended that in revenues a review of the reasons for under performance from 90% time resolution target be carried out to effect improvement”
3 - Housing and Adult Social Care
OBSERVATION
“(1) The audit checklists of available mandatory complaints information for the public is worthy of improved clarity to ensure conformance”
“(2) Annual Departmental Reports of Complaint handling Performance is not clearly available to staff and it is suggested this be addressed e.g. by a summary fly sheet or in the inside Camden house magazine”
“It was noted that approx 1300 complaints were handled (mostly housing) during the review period”
5 – Children Schools and Families (Social Services)
“Overall recorded complaints in these departments total 162…”
“It was noted that the control of documents and leaflets require improved attention on issue status”
OBSERVATION
“It is recommended that stricter document control is introduced through the CCU to ensure the current information is always referenced”
6 – Culture and Environment.
“The internal Audit Programme lapsed during 2006 due to staff absences and needs to be re instated on an urgent basis using trained auditors.”
OBSERVATION
“The Internal Audit programme requires management attention to ensure Internal audits are carried out in a timely and structured manner.”
Mr. Swingler decided to release some more information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (first requested in 2005 about the cost to the Council for assessment by the BSI.
This is what the Council paid for inspection and accreditation by the BSI:
1999/2000 £1,500-£1,750 plus VAT, (Mr. Swingler offered this figure from memory).
2000/2001 £1,750-£2000 plus VAT, (Mr. Swingler offered this figure from memory).
2001/2002 £1,750-£2000 plus VAT (Mr. Swingler offered this figure from memory).
2002/2003 £1,750-£2000 plus VAT (Mr. Swingler offered this figure from memory).
2003/2004 £2396 plus VAT: This is the actual figure.
2004/2005 £2500 plus VAT: This is the actual figure.
2005/2006 £2580 plus VAT: This is the actual figure.
2006/2007 £2760 plus VAT: This is the actual figure.
What concerns me is that when the BSI finds something major wrong or the Ombudsman has concerns; the BSI accreditation is still awarded. It is my belief that this may be interpreted as suspicious by complainants?
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN:
The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) is a body set up by Government, as an independent ‘referee’, to assist complainants’ if they are not satisfied with an organisations final response to their complaint. The Council is just one of the many organisations you can appeal to the LGO about, however, for the purposes of this report, it is the Council and the CCU that I will focus on.
You can approach the LGO before you complain to the Council, however, the LGO prefers that you offer the Council the opportunity to respond before you involve them. The LGO will become involved earlier if you have complained to the Council and they have not responded to you within a reasonable time period, such as one month.
At the end of every Stage 3 report, a complainant should be advised that if they are not satisfied with the outcome, they could appeal to the LGO. Many people do this and I made a Freedom of Information Act 2000 request to the LGO to ascertain what complainants’ in Camden had done.
The information I asked for is for the years: 2000 - 2007.
A table summarising the outcome of Camden Complaints for those years is shown below. However, I will offer of explanation of the terminology used for ease of reference.
YEAR: Year that the information relates to
TOTAL RECEIVED: Number of complaints received
TOTAL DETERMINED: Number of complaints the LGO looked at
PREMATURE: Complaints sent too early and returned to the Council
OUTSIDE JURISDICTION: LGO unable to investigate
NO MALADMINISTRATION/LGO’s DISCRETION: No reason to investigate and the LGO can use his discretion as to whether the complaint warrants investigation
M AND I REPORTS: Maladministration and Injustice reports; these are serious and issued when the LGO finds that the Council has acted erroneously and has caused the complainant injustice, by its actions
LOCAL SETTLEMENTS: This is where the LGO finds Maladministration and/or injustice, however, the Council offer a settlement and the LGO treats the matter as closed. No report is issued if a matter is settled in this way and the complainant has no say in this, as is it the LGO’s decision.
(HAVE HAD TO OMIT THE TABLE AS CANNOT CONSTRUCT IT PROPERLY TO FIT ON BLOG PAGE)
The figures in the table appear not to add up and the LGO has informed me “Please note that the total of complaints determined in the year is not the same as the total of complaints received. This is because some complaints determined at the beginning of the year will have been received in the previous year, and some complaints received at the end of the year will not be determined until the following year.”
The LGO has been sending the Council Annual letters since 2003-04, however, there was a pilot scheme in 2002-03 and Camden Council were part of that scheme. These letters are to give the Council an appraisal of their complaints handling and offer statistics. In addition, the Ombudsman makes suggestions and recommendations to the Chief Executive of the Council on matters that will enhance the Council’s complaint handling performance.
The Annual Letter to the Council from this year (2006) is being published on the LGO’s website. However, for your ease of reference I will summarise the core issues in the Ombudsman’s letters to Moira Gibb, Chief Executive of Camden Council for the years 2002-2007.
However, copies are available from the Ombudsman’s office, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and from the LGO website.
Annual Letter 2002-03:
The Ombudsman received nearly 8% fewer complaints against Camden than the previous year. This reduction occurred across the board, other than in Social Services, where there was a small increase. However, the Ombudsman did not think that this was significant.
The Ombudsman referred 77 (45%) back to the Council as premature, this was higher than in 2001/02. The Ombudsman settled 20 (21%) of non-premature complaints about the Council. This was higher than the previous year.
The Ombudsman issued no reports for the year 2002/03.
Details of some of the Local Settlements:
The Ombudsman dealt with a small number of council house repair and management complaints. As a result of one, the Council agreed to consider its policies for charging for fuel, which had not been reviewed for many years.
In addition, the Council had failed to deal with a problem of water penetration; despite its promise top do so. When the Ombudsman became involved the Council offered £100 and subsequently a further £75 in compensation to the complainant.
In a problem where a tenant was affected by an interrupted water supply for several months the Council paid the complainant £500 in compensation. The Council did this even though it was not clear that they were 100% responsible.
The Ombudsman settled three complaints involving leaseholders. These included a delay in paying back a leaseholder for overpaid service charges. In addition, delays in deciding on and carrying out repairs and improvements.
Two other complaints raised wider issues. In one the Council delayed for nearly six months in making available a computer that was required as part of a statement of Special Educational Needs. The Council paid £250 in compensation and the Ombudsman criticised the Council’s actions.
The Council and their Social Services department had been criticised in a report issued by a statutory complaints panel. Although the Council had admitted it was at fault, it had offered no remedy. However, with the Ombudsman’s intervention, the Council paid £3000 compensation, apologised and undertook to pursue procedural improvements. The Ombudsman criticised the Council and said that for upheld complaints, proper remedies are offered.
Working arrangements between the Ombudsman and the CCU:
The staff in the CCU are always helpful in making arrangements for investigations.
Annual Letter 2003-04:
The Ombudsman received 160 complaints against Camden Council, a small reduction compared with the previous year. The Ombudsman referred 54 (32%) back to the Council as premature. This was slightly lower than last year.
The Ombudsman settled 36 (32%) complaints with the Council. This was higher than previous years.
The Ombudsman issued no reports for the year 2003/04.
Details of some of the Local Settlements:
Two complaints concerned homelessness applications.
In one the Council had delayed assessing an application. It settled the complaint by backdating the priority that had been awarded and paid the complainant £100 compensation; this reflected the fact that no suitable offers had been missed.
The second case was the Council offering unsuitable temporary accommodation and there was a lack of clarity over the complainants right to seek a review. The complainant abandoned the property. The Council resolved the complaint by making a new offer of accommodation and reinstating the complainant’s application, as if he had never moved out. A feature of this case is that the Council did not keep copies of key letters. It has changed its procedures to ensure it now does.
Five complaints concerned neighbour nuisance. The Council has procedures to deal with such matters based on a multi-agency and planned approach and support for the victim. I found that the Council did not always identify a case as one of harassment or a victim as vulnerable or follow its procedures more generally.
The Council settled the complaints by paying compensation of nearly £3000 and in some circumstances agreeing transfers for the complainants. It has taken action to ensure its procedures are always followed in the future.
Six complaints concerned delay and associated problems in dealing with housing repairs. The Council settled the complaints by paying compensation of between £200 and £800.
Conclusions and General observations:
The Ombudsman offered training courses to Camden Council.
Annual Letter 2004-05:
This year the Ombudsman received 258 complaints against the Council, a substantial increase from the previous years total of 160. There were significant increases in the number of housing complaints (from 78 to 131), in housing benefit complaints (3 to 21), in planning complaints (from 9 to 22) and in miscellaneous service areas (from 17 to 30). In addition, the number of education complaints fell from 10 to 4. Just over half the complaints were about housing.
Moreover, the increases in complaints about Housing, Housing Benefit and Miscellaneous Service areas are significantly greater than the national average. However, other trends were consistent with the national profile.
There were 27 local settlements (compared with 36 the previous year). This action included the payment of a total of £9,730. This percentage this year (10.5%) is lower than the national average (27%).
In addition, 38 complaints were concluded to contain insufficient evidence of maladministartion to warrant pursuing the complaint. In 37 cases the Ombudsman concluded that there were grounds to exercise his discretion not to pursue the complaint.
31 complaints lay outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This means that there are other avenues that the complainant could use to pursue their complaint. The Ombudsman pointed out to the Council that they should make this clear to complainants’ in documentation about their complaint. The Ombudsman states: “I suggest that it may be helpful for the Council to indicate such remedies to complainants (without restricting their ability to complain to me) sooner rather than later.”
82 complaints were referred back to the Council because it had not had a reasonable chance (or not taken a full opportunity) to consider a complaint in its complaints procedure and reply to it. The evidence suggests that hat the Ombudsman tends not to find it necessary to recommend significant further action by the Council in response to premature complaints that complainants resubmit to us after the Council has considered them in its complaints procedure.
No formal reports were issued against the Council.
Details of some of the Local Settlements:
The Council settled ten complaints about failures to repair, or provide services to, council housing, or failures to keep appointments. The remedies included paying compensation, completing outstanding work and improvements to procedures. The Council also settled a complaint about its failure, for five months, to check on works by a private landlord to a leaking downpipe. The Council offered to pay £500 and put procedures in place to check whether such work was complete.
One complaint arose about the Council’s failure to maintain records, which would have enabled it to inform the complainant about her brother’s death in a Council hostel. The complainant was unable to arrange a burial in accordance with the family’s religious practice. The Council offered to exhume the body and move it to place of the family’s choice. However, due to the passage of time, the complainant did not wish to pursue the option. The Council improved its procedures and offered to pay £2,000.
The Council failed, in one case, to follow Government guidance about home tuition for a young person with school phobia, so that the young person received no education for about 18 months. There was confusion by the Local Education Authority about how to handle multiple complaints and indicate to the complainant how he might escalate his concerns. The Council offered to provide the young person with 18 months additional tuition but, when the placement broke down, it offered to pay the complainant £2,950.
While this was a difficult complaint, we had concerns about the rigour of the Council’s complaints process where a decision, which may prove unpopular within the Council, is appropriate. During the course of this investigation, the Head of the Central Complaints Unit and three other Council officers came to meet the complainant at the Ombudsman’s offices. This is the first time that the Council has ever done this.
Your Council’s complaints procedure and complaint handling:
The Council has a well-established complaints procedure, which contains three stages. The first two stages are based in the service department that the complaint relates too. The third stage is made to the Central Complaints Unit (CCU), which aims to be independent of the department complained against.
The CCU can omit Stage 1 and Stage 2 if they feel that this would be helpful, however, the Ombudsman finds that this is only helpful in a minority of cases.
“Decision letters at the third stage of the procedure can be lengthy and repetitious. Some complainants say that they find that such letters lack clarity and tend to contain a potentially confusing long account or narrative.
Decisions at the third stage tend to contain relatively little analysis, explanation of the standards by which the Council would uphold a complaint, or a clear chronology.”
The Ombudsman understands that some thought is being given to reviewing the style of these letters and the Ombudsman offers his help and advice, if necessary.
The Ombudsman points out that in some departments they are reluctant to register a complaint as such or signpost a complainant to Stages 2 and 3 or the complaint procedure.
Training:
The Council were offered the opportunity to participate in the training programs offered by the Ombudsman.
Annual Letter 2005-06:
The Ombudsman received 224 complaints against Camden Council, which was a decrease of 34 on the previous year.
Highways complaints more than doubled and many of these concerned parking. This can be a contentious area and in recognition of this, the Ombudsman published a Special Report: ‘Parking enforcement by local authorities’. A copy was sent to the Council and it can also be downloaded from the Ombudsman’s website.
Decisions on complaints –Reports and Local Settlements:
There were no reports issued this year. There are a significant proportion of investigations that do not reach this stage. This is because we settle the complaint during the course of our investigation. We call these decisions ‘Local Settlements’.
There were 49 Local Settlements this year and this was an increase of 22 on last year.
Action taken by the Council to remedy injustice in Local Settlement cases included the payment of about £23,000 in compensation. This is a significant increase from 2004-05 of about £10,000 (figures taken from the Ombudsman’s letter to the Council).
Other settlements included: Changes to procedures, providing refund and credits, undertaking works, and, importantly, giving apologies.
Details of some of the Local Settlements:
The figure for compensation includes a single payment of £7,786. In this case the Council wrongly concluded that planning permission was not required for a roof extension. The complainant (a neighbour) sought legal advice, which found that planning permission was required and the Council subsequently agreed with this. The compensation included the complainants’ legal fees.
In one distressing case involving homelessness, a female, fleeing domestic violence, had her application for housing delayed by seven months. Despite repeated interviews with the Council, they failed to add her name to the housing register, even once they accepted that she was homeless. However, after intervention by the Ombudsman, the Council then agreed to provide additional housing points to the complainant and awarded her £350 in compensation.
In four cases settlements were agreed about complaints from Council Leaseholders. One major problem highlighted is the delays by the Council in providing leaseholder service charges. The Ombudsman had this to say about the subject: “As you know my staff have previously met with Council officers about problems with delayed leaseholder service charges; you may wish to consider if there are any more general issues that these complaints raise for the Council”.
Finally, the Ombudsman has this to say about Local Settlements: “The national average for local settlements is 25.8% of complaints I may pursue, so the Council’s figure of 36% is higher than usual. Where I get relatively few complaints I would be reluctant to draw conclusions from such a figure. But it does seem that more complaints about your Council are justified than is common”.
The Ombudsman found that in other decision he made: 36 found the Council not at fault and in 49 cases the Ombudsman used his discretion to discontinue his investigation, because there was, in his view, insufficient injustice to the complainant to warrant my involvement.
In one highways matter (parking), the Ombudsman recommended that the Council review the wording of its Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). He did this as the wording suggested the complainant could only make representations on the Statutory Appeal grounds. This of course is not the case and anyone that received a PCN can make an informal appeal, immediately. The Ombudsman goes on to say: “As my Special Report makes clear, the Council must consider other mitigating circumstances as well…”
Your Council’s complaints procedure and handling of complaints:
The Ombudsman had this to say about the Council’s Stage 3 response letters: “Last year I said that decision letters at the third stage of the complaints procedure could be lengthy and repetitious and that I understood consideration was being given to reviewing the style of these letters. I know the Council has been experimenting with different approaches and would welcome further information on this as, I continue to feel that these could be clearer and would benefit from more analysis. I remain very willing to offer further advice and help in this regard”.
The Ombudsman also makes clear that complainants to the Council do not have to complete all three stages of the Council’s complaints procedure before approaching him.
However, it is always good practice to approach the Council in the first instance, as it is unlikely (but not impossible) that the Ombudsman would consider a complaint before the Council have had the opportunity to consider it.
Training in complaint handling:
The Ombudsman again offered training to Camden Council in complaint handling, however, at this stage, the Council has not taken up this offer. ***This should be considered.
The LGO offers training days for officers of Councils that deal with complaints and the prices for these are:
· One day course for up to 15 people, with one presenter: £780.00
· One day course for up to 30 people, with two presenters: £1,320.00
There is no extra charge for travel or expenses.
Annual Letter 2006-07:
The LGO received 212 complaints against the Council this year. This was 10 fewer than in the previous year. More than four in ten complaints were about housing and housing repairs accounted for the majority of these.
There were 17 complaints about anti-social behaviour in 2006-07. This was an increase of 10 from the previous year although 6 complaints were about the same issue.
Children and Family Service complaints rose from 5 to 11.
The LGO comments on the number of Local Settlements. The LGO decided on 58 Local Settlements this year.
I will quote verbatim what the LGO has said about this large rise (7%) in Local Settlements:
“Last year I issued no reports against your Council, but I did agree 58 local settlements. This was 43% of those cases which were within my jurisdiction and which had not come to me before the Council had been able to consider and respond to the complaint. Nationally these comprised of 28% of complaints, so it was more common than normal that some action to remedy the complaint seemed appropriate. In 2005/06 the figure for Camden was 36%. So such cases became more prevalent. This causes me concern.”
The Council paid out about £12,000 in compensation to locally settled complaints. They also agreed to review their procedures, take action, such as carrying out repair works and apologised to complainants.
Details of some of the Local Settlements:
I will quote the LGO verbatim:
“The Council settled fourteen complaints relating to delay or failure to take action in relation to problems of disrepair in its housing stock. These included problems with inspections prior to tenants moving in, boiler replacement and problems with leaks and flooring. In one case the complaint’s property had very poor water pressure and, every three or four weeks for about three days at a time, no water in the bathroom. In another, the Council failed to repair a disabled tenant’s intercom system for ten months. In last years Annual Letter I referred to four complaints where I had found delay and failure to take action. As the number has risen so markedly, I shall monitor the situation here closely.”
“In a homelessness case a number of errors in the Council’s computer based lettings system meant that an elderly man to whom it had accepted a homelessness duty missed a number of opportunities to bid for properties. The Council agreed a financial remedy and to increase his housing priority, but the complaint highlighted repeated failures to correct the errors on the system which was of concern. I have not seen similar issues in other complaints, but the Council may nevertheless which to check that there is no evidence of a wider problem here.”
“I agreed local settlements on twelve complaints about anti-social behaviour. In one case the Council inappropriately housed a person with mental health problems in the flat below the complainants’, causing significant nuisance to them. The Council agreed a significant settlement and to provide temporary accommodation until the matter was resolved. In another case six neighbours raised concerns about the actions of another. The Council delayed by four months in taking action – it does not seem that officers knew how to pursue legal action – and did not keep the neighbours properly informed of the steps it was taking. In three further cases I also found delay by the Council in investigating neighbour nuisance problems.”
“I welcome the Council’s agreement to my recommendations in relation to these complaints, but again the Council may wish to explore the common themes to see whether procedural changes are required.”
“A number of highways cases involved the actions of bailiffs acting on behalf of the Council. In two cases inadequate information was provided in bailiffs’ letters and it was unclear whether visits had been carried out. In another, the bailiff refused to accept payment by the complainant’s father. As well as recommending compensation in these cases I also asked the Council to confirm what steps it had taken to improve bailiffs’ documentation, and to carry out reviews of procedures more generally. I should be grateful if you could update me.”
“In two unrelated planning complaints I agreed settlements were there were inaccuracies in the reports on the application. I was also concerned to find that the Council does not routinely retain site visit notes and photographs relating to planning applications. Without this information the full story of an application cannot be told and review of decision making and proper investigation is made more difficult. In another case, while I did not propose a remedy, I was nevertheless concerned that the Council was unable to locate the case file. I again recommend a review of the Council’s procedures here and should be grateful to learn of any changes made.”
“In a children and family services case a social worker provided inaccurate advice on consulting a complainant on her child’s statement of special educational needs. There were also other communication failures and fault in acting on agreed recommendations. While I welcomed the Council’s agreement to settle this matter I was concerned about a somewhat defensive attitude in its responses and what appeared to be a lack of corporate acceptance of the fault that had occurred. This contrasted with the Council’s normal willingness to acknowledge errors on its part.”
Other findings:
“In one case relating to a council tax student discount the matter had been resolved before I made enquiries so there were no grounds for me to pursue it. But I nevertheless recommended that the Council made clear what evidence of student status was required, and when this needed to be produced. Again, I should be grateful to learn of any changes that have been made.”
Your Council’s complaints procedure and handling of complaints:
“I should like to draw to your attention to one complaint involving bailiffs where the Council said that, because they were not employees of the Council, their actions could not be considered through your complaints procedure. As there was no doubt that the bailiffs were acting on behalf of the Council, there seemed no reason why these matters should not have been considered through the complaints procedure. I should be grateful for confirmation that the Council’s practice here has changed.
In response to last years Annual Letter the Council said it was continuing to review the structure of its decision letters at Stage 3 of the complaints process. I welcome the fact that the Council has recently received some positive customer feedback on the handling of complaints at Stage 3. If this exercise is repeated it might be worthwhile to invite particular comments on the structure of the Stage 3 letter.”
Training in complaint handling:
The LGO again offered Camden Council the opportunity to attend its training workshops.
They enclosed with the Annual Letter details of how to apply and whom to contact. The LGO now has training courses for Social Services and members of the Social Services’ review panels.
8. Internal Audit of the CCU
There were internal audits of the CCU in 2001-2004-2005-2006 and these were carried out by: Mr. Joe Laidler, Chief Internal Auditor (2001), Ms. Tracey Barnett, Acting Chief Internal Auditor and Ms. Karen Seager (2004), Ms. Margaret Humphrey, Mayor’s Officer and Ms. Caroline Bartram Mayor’s Project Officer (2005) and Ms. Margaret Humphrey, Mayor’s Officer (2006). Mr. Swingler, Head of the CCU, gave evidence.
There were no internal reports offered for 2002 and 2003.
These are short internal reports, which, I found did not delve into areas surrounding complainants’ concerns except for 2004, which recommended that customer satisfaction forms give the complainant the option of giving their name and address in order to gain further feedback for continual improvement. Moreover, it said the risk of not doing this would lead to: “Poor communication leading to further dissatisfaction by the complainant.”
However, I have filled in my name and address and never received any feedback when I have offered it, until recently. I wonder how many other complainants’ have been treated the same?
However, on the 23rd May 2007 and for the first time ever, the CCU (Mrs. Della Edwards) actually wrote to me about my feedback and in response to my comments to have the feedback box increased in size, she informed me that this would be looked at. However, as yet, I have received no feedback.
Although one of the reports mentions the BSI, there is no mention of the LGO and any recommendations that he has made to the Council and this surprises me, as this has a direct bearing on the Council, the CCU and its customers.
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I asked for copies of the latest internal reports carried out by Mr. Swingler, of all the departments within the Council, as this is part of his remit and I offer my comments below.
I received:
Legal Services 13-11-06 Pre-BSI Annual Assessments of Complaints
Time Taken: 10.00-12.22 I was concerned to see that no in depth investigations took place and this appeared to be all about making sure that everything was in place for the BSI inspection, rather than a thorough internal audit.
Finance-Council Tax: 13-11-06 Pre-BSI Annual Assessments of Complaints
Time Taken: 13.30-14.30 I do not believe that one-hour can facilitate a thorough investigation. I was concerned to see that no in depth investigations took place and this appeared to be all about making sure that everything was in place for the BSI inspection, rather than a thorough internal audit.
Finance-Reception-Valuers and Cashiers: 13-11-06, Pre-BSI Annual Assessments of Complaints.
Time Taken: 14.30-15.30 I find it difficult to comprehend how it can only take one hour to carry out a thorough internal audit of four sections of a department. I believe this audit to be flawed and was only done to make sure that everything was in place for the BSI inspection, rather than a thorough internal audit.
Finance-Benefits: 13-11-06 Pre-BSI Annual Assessments of Complaints
Time Taken: 15.30-16.30 I do not believe that one-hour can facilitate a thorough investigation. In addition, this report contains one complaint that led to a change in procedure over a passport. The residents of Camden have not been informed about this and any change of policy and/or procedure, should be made available to all Camden residents.
Children, Schools and Families and Housing Adult Care: 14-11-06 Pre-BSI Annual Assessments of Complaints.
Time Taken: No Time Given. This audit was only carried out to make sure that everything was in place for the BSI inspection.
Culture and Environment: 16-11-06 Pre-BSI Annual Assessments of Complaints
Time Taken: 13.30-15.30 This audit reportedly took two hours and there is no adverse comments about these departments.
Housing and Adult Care Services: 19-12-06 Pre-BSI Annual Assessments of Complaints
Time Taken: 10.00-12.00 Samples of two complaints taken and neither of these were upheld. I argue that it would have been better to use complaints that were upheld, as this shows the Council’s willingness to deal with problems.
9. Annual Reports on the Complaints System
Every year Mr. Swingler, Head of the CCU, issues an Annual Report, which he delivers to the Council. On page 13 I summarised the report for 2004-05. These reports cover all the complaints procedure and not just Stage 3. I will not be commenting fully on these reports, as my remit is the CCU. However, some of the Annual Reports can be seen and downloaded from Camden’s website, under the ‘democracy’ section and they can be requested from the Council under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I expected an Annual Report to have fully reported the facts. However, Mr. Swingler appears to omit from his reports’ certain information that I believe that the Council should be made aware of.
I will now report on how many complaints reached Stage 3 of Camden’s complaints procedure and were taken to the Ombudsman. It is important to remember that the Ombudsman will only receive the same evidence as the CCU had and if the Ombudsman agrees a Local Settlement, then the CCU have failed and that is of great concern in determining its impartiality. (See ‘Local Settlements’, paragraph 3, p.26).
The first figures are the Ombudsman’s Local Settlement (LS) figures and the second figures are Mr. Swingler’s from his Annual Report and the CCU figures were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
· 2000-01 LS 17 No Information
· 2001-02 LS 24 No Information
· 2002-03 LS 20 Stage 3 44 Upheld 12
· 2003-04 LS 36 No Information
· 2004-05 LS 27 Stage 3 71 Upheld 8
· 2005-06 LS 49 Stage 3 67 Upheld 19
It is reported in ‘Camden Council’s Corporate Plan 2006-2009’ that in a survey carried out in 2003-04, only 23% of people surveyed were satisfied with the way their complaint was handled by Camden Council.
Camden Council’s performance was among the lowest 25% of worst performers in London. How could the Charter Mark and the BSI keep issuing a certificate of good practice, when the figures above suggest that all is not well?
Mr. Tony Redmond, Ombudsman, visited Camden Council in 2003-04 and said to staff that Camden is a ‘model authority’ in terms of complaints. However, this is not what the LGO has highlighted over the years and how could the Charter Mark, the BSI and Camden’s own internal audit not highlight: “…that more complaints about your Council are justified than is common”, as the LGO highlighted when reporting on local settlements?
10. Complaints [r] Great
In section one, page four of this report; under ‘previous members of CCU staff’ you will see the name of Mr. Michael Hill, a former CCU investigator. Mr. Hill left the CCU to set his own business, which he named ‘Complaints [r] Great (CrG). This business is situated in St. Albans, Hertfordshire.
One of the remits of CrG is to help organisations offer a high quality customer feedback management process and Camden Council is listed as one of their customers. In addition, I was led to believe by the Complaints [r] Great website that they helped Camden Council achieve a Charter Mark award (CMSAS 86:2000). Moreover, there is a picture on the CrG website of Mr. Swingler, Head of the CCU and Mr. Hill (named as a Consultant for CrG) among others, collecting their awards. This is highly misleading, as Mr. Hill was working for the Council when the Charter Mark was awarded and CrG were not in business. This website implies that CrG helped Camden Council achieve the Charter Mark.
In Mr. Hill’s complaints history, on the CrG website, he makes no mention of the fact that he was a complaints investigator for Camden’s CCU and this surprises me.
Moreover, another member of staff employed by Mr. Hill, is Mr. Mohamed Patel. Camden Council employed Mr. Patel, as a Senior Complaints Officer until he resigned to join CrG. According to the CrG literature, Mr. Patel helped to develop the Housing Customer Complaints Service for Camden Council. Mr. Patel’s name still appears on a Council complaint poster in Gospel Oak Housing Office.
I contacted Mr. Hill and he informed me and I quote: “Dear Mr GowersI have not completed any work for the CCU - but I have done businesswith the Social Care complaints team at Camden.”
I find it difficult to understand why Camden Council paid for CrG to help them at all when Mr. Swingler, the Head of the CCU, and Mr. Phill Sowter, Head of Complaints at Social Services, have all the relevant experience to apply and deal with this themselves?
I believe the Council should investigate why money was paid to a private Complaints Management Company with ex-Council employees on its staff, when Mr Swingler and Mr. Sowter should have been able to assist Social Services and keep matters in-house to reduce expenditure?
11. Complaints against CCU Staff
I applied under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for this information and Camden Council refused to release it.
12. CCU staff that have a relation working for Camden Council
I applied under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for this information and Camden Council refused to release it. However, Mr. Swingler, Head of the CCU, does have his partner working for Camden’s Committee Services. This information was given to me by one of the people that formed part of my research and after checking this I found it to be a matter of fact.
This ‘secrecy’ leads complainants’ to doubt the independence of the CCU.
13. Why was my Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests denied on such varied grounds?
I made many and varied requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, relating to the CCU whilst researching for this report. Mr. Joshua Subair dealt these with, however, he has now left the Council’s employment.
At first the Council answered these fully and within the timescale allowed. However, without any warning, the Council began to refuse all of my Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests and did not just cite just one reason for their refusal; they cited every reason you could imagine and I will quote from their correspondence to me:
“…We have also decided that your requests are repeated and vexatious. The requests are repeated, as they are the latest in a series of requests for information in respect of the work and staff of the CCU commencing April 2005…The requests are the latest in a series commencing April 2005 and having regard to their content and focus they are considered to be vexatious…Your requests impose a significant burden on the Council and cause a disproportionate inconvenience and expense. Taken together with your latest letter…and e-mail to a member of staff in another section of the Council…your correspondence form evidence of obsessive requests.”
They are vexation because they (sic)
· clearly (sic) do not have any serious purpose or value;
· are (sic) designed to cause disruption or annoyance to the Council in general and the CCU in particular;
· has (sic) the effect of harassing the Council and its employees; and (sic)
· can (sic) otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive.” (sic)
I wrote to Mr. Subair on the 9th November 2005 and asked him to explain how the Council reached its decision? However, he failed to respond to my correspondence.
14. Conclusions and Recommendations
The CCU is part of the Council but independent of the main service departments’. However, it is part of the Legal Services department (formally Law and Administration), and if a complaint is against the Legal Services department, then I argue that it puts the CCU investigator in a difficult position and open to claims of bias.
I recommend that any complaint against the Legal Services department that reaches Stage 3 should be investigated outside the CCU.
Staff in the CCU mix freely with all other staff within the Town Hall and this includes meal breaks. I am concerned that when friendships form, which they often do, it would be difficult to objectively investigate someone that you may know as a friend. Mixing in this way can bring into question the independence of the CCU and lead to claims of bias.
I recommend that in the future a situation should develop whereby investigators’ in the CCU do not mix with the people they may have to investigate. However, this could not come about with the present staff, as friendships may have already been formed.
In all my years of appealing to the Chief Executive, CCU investigators’ have always been white in origin. I have never seen any person from the ethnic minorities taking up a position within the CCU. Moreover, considering that at the last census there were 91,601 ethnic minorities in Camden, this concerns me. The ethnic minorities are underrepresented in the CCU.
I recommend that at least one, but preferably two, members of staff from an ethnic minority group take up a position within the CCU. Only then would there be a proper balance and complainants’ from the ethnic minorities would feel that they are being truly represented.
The area around vexatious and repetitious complaints is a ‘black hole’ for complainants. If a complainant is deemed by the Council to be vexatious and/or repetitious, they have no right of appeal to the Council. This puts the Council in an enormous position of power and can also be used to stop complaints from going further. However, if the Council have objective proof that a complainant is being vexatious and/or repetitious, then stopping the investigation would be warranted. However, if only subjective evidence is offered then the complainant should have the right of appeal. Moreover, although you may approach the LGO, it is likely that the decision to terminate your complaint will be upheld.
I recommend that the Council should investigate allowing the right of appeal to the Council unless objective evidence is given for claiming a complaint is vexatious and/or repetitious.
If someone makes a complaint against a staff member from the CCU and it reaches Stage 3 then they should not investigate the complaint and neither should the Legal Services department.
I recommend that any complaint against a staff member of the CCU that reaches Stage 3 should be investigated by another department and not the CCU or Legal Services.
Mr. Swingler also sits on the Freedom of Information Appeals Panel. If information about the CCU or Legal Services was asked for under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and refused; then it would go before a panel, which includes Mr. Swingler.
I recommend that Mr. Swingler should not sit on the Appeals Panel for any appeals involving the CCU or Legal Services, as this could be seen as a conflict of interest. Moreover, it could also lead to claims of bias.
Customer satisfaction forms are sent out after a Stage 3 complaint. However, it is clear that the return of these forms is very low. In addition, when Mr. Swingler reports back on the customer feedback forms, he only offers the positive and never the negative feedback and I would argue that the negative is just as important as the positive, as it shows where improvements can be made. In addition, on the customer feedback form there is a small box asking you if you have any suggestions, however, I can find no information from the CCU where this is stored or more importantly, if any action has been taken because of any suggestions by complainants.
I sent for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 about customer satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The standard of recording this information is totally inadequate, which surprises me as the Council use ‘Respond Centre-Point’ software. This information needs to be improved to include all of the statistics or there is no point sending out customer satisfaction forms.
I recommend that customer satisfaction forms should be offered in e-mail form as well as hard copy. This may improve the return rate and offer a clearer picture of complainants’ views. In addition, this would save the Council money in paper, envelopes and postage. The complainant is already asked for an e-mail address on the Council’s printed complaint form and if they do not use that, then they could be asked if they would like to offer their e-mail address and it should be explained why this is being asked for (Data Protection purposes).
I recommend that the negative figures be reported on and not just the positive. Without both figures it gives an unbalanced view of complainants’ views and leaves the CCU open to claims of hiding the ‘bad news’.
I recommend that the customer suggestion box on the customer satisfaction forms should be made much larger; the suggestions should be reported on so that the Council can see what has been suggested. In addition, any suggestions that are taken up should be made public so that residents of Camden can see that they are being listened too. In addition, any person that offers a suggestion and gives their contact details should have their suggestion acknowledged.
The Council are a frontrunner in valuing diversity, however, leaflets and communication for ethnic minority groups, children and the disabled in making complaints, are still not good enough in some areas.
The Council say that there are leaflets available; however, there is no information on where people from the ethnic minorities or the disabled can obtain these leaflets. It is clear that the ethnic minority groups are still not being reached and nor are the disabled.
I recommend that the information about making complaints and its three stages should be put on the reverse of any letter the Council send to any person that is deemed to be from the ethnic minority section of the community and the disabled section of the community. If this is not feasible, then a separate leaflet should be sent with any and every letter. This would show the Council’s openness in wanting people to complain if they feel they have not received a good service. Moreover, a full review of complaint posters, posters in other languages and other ways to reach vulnerable residents should be considered.
The CCU says it is visiting schools and playcenters to spread the word of children’s complaints. However, there is no information on how many visits are made and the success rate of these visits. Is this scheme ongoing or is it for a period of time only and more importantly, are the children involved, (for example, role-play), in any way?
I recommend that the number of visits made and the take-up of complaints by children be published in the CCU Annual Report. Consideration should be given to placing children’s complaint forms in schools and colleges if this is not already being done.
I added a number of quotes given to me by complainants’ that contributed to my research. I did this to highlight how some people feel about their complaint experience, as I believe this is vital information for the Council.
I recommend that such information is taken seriously and not just disregarded as the views of people that have had not had their complaint upheld. There is a real possibility that genuine information that the Council could benefit from is being missed if negative comments made to the Council are not being looked at objectively.
When a person makes a complaint it is because they are unhappy with a particular Council service. In addition, in the course of their complaint, the complainant may use emotive language. This should not always be viewed as an attack on the person that is being written or spoken to, as complaining can raise contentious issues.
I recommend that, if not already available, training should be offered to all Council employees in dealing with complainants that use emotive language in written or verbal communication. In addition, the CCU should set up a forum for complainants’ to discuss and feedback on the CCU’s performance or the complaints system as a whole.
The CCU is accredited by the BSI and has been now for six years. Mr. Swingler informs business publications and people that write to him about the CCU, of this fact. However, it is surprising that the Council refused to let me have copies of the BSI’s annual audits of the CCU for two years. I would have thought the CCU would have been proud to show that they have gained accreditation and the reasons why.
I recommend that the BSI reports be published with the CCU Annual Report so that the Council and its customers can see where improvements (if any) can be made or have been made.
The CCU has a good working relationship with the LGO and that is laudable. However, it appears that Mr. Swingler has not taken on board suggestions made by the Ombudsman.
For example, for the last two years, the LGO has suggested that the CCU Decision letters at Stage 3 can be lengthy and repetitious and the LGO has asked for further information on any changes that the Council are going to make. Moreover, the LGO says Stage 3 decision letters need to be clearer and offer more analysis and the LGO has offered his assistance in this matter. However, this does not appear to have been taken up at the time of writing this report.
The LGO has offered training to the Council in complaint handling; however, this has not been taken up either.
I recommend that the CCU take on board the comments made about their Stage 3 letters and change the layout and content of these. This would save officer time and make the letter clearer for complainants’. In addition, the Council should consider the training offered by the LGO in light of the latest LGO figures.
The LGO offers local settlements and negates the need for an actual Maladministration report. However, the whole area around local settlements is one where the complainant may not agree with what is proposed by the LGO and the Council but is not given a choice. For example in a local settlement in 2004 the LGO said: “The Council failed, in one case, to follow Government guidance about home tuition for a young person with school phobia, so that the young person received no education for about 18 months. While this was a difficult complaint, we had concerns about the rigour of the Council’s complaints process where a decision, which may prove unpopular within the Council, is appropriate.” Local Settlement resolved this case.
However, a very similar case in Wandsworth meant that the Council had a report of Maladministration issued against them.
The LGO can ask (but not force) the Council to change its procedures after a complaint has been made. Likewise, a complaint to the Council can highlight a gap in procedure; for example, I once went to meet with the investigator from the CCU at the Town Hall. I arrived on time and reported to reception. The receptionist contacted the CCU and informed me that the line was busy and he left a message. He tried on two more occasions and I had tried to contact the CCU on the internal telephone, but the line was still busy; I waited nearly half and hour and then left.
It had transpired that the investigator that I had the appointment with was on the telephone and that he did not know that I was in reception until he finished his call. I was informed that this might result in changes to the way this situation will be dealt with in the future. However, I still do not know if any changes were made and it makes me wonder if the Council were paying lip service to my complaint?
I recommend that if a complaint highlights a gap in a service or procedures are changed because of a complaint; then the Council should inform residents via their own newspaper, website and letters, as this will show that the Council really are acting on complaints, as at the moment, this is not clear.
Although internal audits are carried out they are not, in my opinion, thorough enough. I find it hard to understand why there is no reference to the LGO and any recommendations that he may have made in his Annual Letter to the Chief Executive, contained in the internal reports?
In addition, in Camden’s Corporate Plan 2006-2009, which included the information that in a survey carried out in 2003-04, it says only 23% of people surveyed were satisfied with the way their complaint was handled by Camden Council. More importantly, Camden Council’s performance was among the lowest 25% of worst performers in London. Why does this information not appear in Mr. Swingler’s Annual Report for 2003-04 or 2004-05 and why does it not appear in any internal report?
I recommend that the LGO’s recommendations be reported in any internal report and followed up to see that they are acted upon and any other relevant information is acted upon.
Mr. Swingler’s Annual Report is not thorough enough and he leaves out much of the negative information about certain Stage 3 appeals, Ombudsman’s recommendations and certain other complaints. This causes me some concern, as it would be better to be open and report positive and negative feedback. Moreover, this shows a willingness to accept that sometimes the Council does get it wrong and I argue that that shows strength and not weakness.
I am also concerned that vexatious and repetitious complainants’ are included in the CCU Annual Report but are done so anonymously. Mr. Swingler can report what he pleases and the alleged vexatious and repetitious complainant has no recourse; this is grossly unfair, as there are two sides to every story.
I recommend that the CCU inform the vexatious and/or repetitious complainant that they are being included in the Annual Report and ask them if they would like their name published?
I recommend that Mr. Swingler include positive and negative information in his Annual Report and offer a full audit of the facts.
I am concerned that Mr. Swingler does not report that Camden Council’s complaints performance was among the lowest 25% of worst performers in London in 2003-04. This is important information that should have been included in his Annual Report and remedies offered to put this right.
I recommend that Mr. Swingler makes sure that in the future all such information is made available to the Council and its customers in his Annual Report.
When entering Camden Council’s website, there is no direct link to the complaints section. However, Borough’s such as, Brent and Islington, do have direct links to their complaint section.
I recommend that the Council consider putting direct links to their complaints section on the front page of their website.
In addition, the complaints page for Brent Council gives links to their Annual Reports and the Ombudsman’s Annual letter to Council’s.
I recommend that Mr. Swingler add the Annual Reports, the Ombudsman’s Annual Letter and the BSI Accreditation Report to the Council’s complaints page, as this would save on Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests and would show an openness to share information with the residents’ of Camden and other interested parties.
I am surprised that Mr. Michael Hill, Founder of Complaints[r]Great did not mention in his profile that he had once worked for Camden Council in the CCU, as an investigator.
In addition, I am concerned that the Council paid for the services of Complaints[r] Great when surely Mr. Swingler and Mr. Sowter had all the relevant knowledge and experience themselves?
How did Camden Council’s Social Services complaints team find out about Complaints [r] Great? Why did Camden Council’s Social Services’ complaints team not approach Mr. Swingler, Mr. Sowter or the LGO for assistance?
I recommend that the Council investigate this matter and see if any lessons can be learned from this, as it could lead to accusations of cronyism.
Although I asked under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for details on how many complaints had been made against CCU staff, the Council refused to offer me this information.
I recommend that the Council should not refuse such information, as it can appear that the Council have something to hide and lead to mistrust of the Council.
Although I asked under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 if any of the CCU staff had relations working for the Council, they refused to offer me this information.
I recommend that the Council should not refuse such information, as it can appear that the Council have something to hide and lead to mistrust of the Council.
I am very disappointed that Camden Council and Mr. Swingler in particular, were not more helpful in assisting me in my research. Moreover, the Council’s refusal to answer many of my Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests, led to an unacceptable delay in completing this report, as I had to approach the Information Commissioner to complain and there is a long backlog of complaints being investigated. My complaint is still being investigated at this time.
I recommend that the Council ask Mr. Swingler why he was not more helpful. I was not asking the Council to pay towards my research, which I funded myself. The reasons given by Mr. Swingler for not allowing me to visit him and discuss my research, only hardened my resolve to find out why he was so vehemently opposed to it, when he regularly accepts visits from outside agencies and other Local Authorities? Has the Council considered ‘open days’ where customers get the opportunity to attend complaints training sessions and/or visit the CCU?
This ends my independent report on the effectiveness and independence of Camden Council’s Central Complaints Unit.
Mr. D.F. Gowers, Author
