Agenda item
Complaints Annual Report 2016 -2017
This report sets out complaints performance in Brent Council and Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) for the period April 2016 to March 2017. High level data for the previous 2 years has been included where available for the purpose of comparison over a 3-year period. This 2016/17 Complaints Annual Report was presented to Cabinet on 23 October 2017 and the report recommendations were agreed.
Minutes:
Irene Bremang (Head of Performance and Improvement) introduced the Complaints Annual Report 2016 – 2017, which had been presented to Cabinet on 23 October 2017. The report set out complaints performance in Brent Council and Brent Housing Partnership (BHP) for the period April 2016 to March 2017 and included high level data for the previous two years for comparison.
Summarising the key trends, Irene Bremang advised that the volume of first-stage complaints had fallen by 32 per cent and the level of first-stage statutory complaints had also decreased. The Council upheld 43 per cent of complaints at the first stage; however, fewer complaints were being upheld at the second-stage, confirming the robustness of the first-stage decisions. It was noted that there had been an increase in second-stage complaints and the number of complaints referred to the ombudsman was still high. The main cause of complaints was service delay and failure but other issues included staff attitude and communication. The level of compensation paid with regard to first-stage complaints had decreased significantly but there had been a slight increase for second-stage complaints. Members’ attention was drawn to the eight recommendations set out in the report, which had been included in the report presented to Cabinet and subsequently approved. The eight recommendations formed the basis of the complaints action plan detailed at Appendix E.
Members welcomed the report and commented that it would be improved by the addition of comparative data for other authorities and data on the level of service interactions against volume of complaints. The committee questioned the cost of complaints for the council, querying the size of the complaints team and the number of officer hours spent. Members queried the reasons for some complaints not being dealt with within timescales. Acknowledging the impact of central government’s policy of austerity on local government services, the committee queried whether timescales for departmental responses had been adjusted to accommodate reduced resources and if so, whether this was communicated to Brent’s residents. Officers were asked to comment on the impact of the Customer Access Strategy. The committee expressed concerns regarding the level of complaints due to staff attitude.
In response, Irene Bremang advised that the Complaints Team comprised three full time equivalent case workers. The team managed Stage two complaints on behalf of the Chief Executive and worked with departments to reduce and troubleshoot complaints. Although the team manage the final review complaints, they also focussed on preventing the number and escalation of complaints. Attempts had been made to obtain benchmarking data and this would be further pursued.
Addressing queries on timescales, Irene Bremang explained that the expectation was that an acknowledgement would be sent within 5 working days but cautioned that the detail of the complaint would determine the speed of the full response. Overall, timeliness in dealing with complaints was improving across the council and corporate timeframes for the complaints process had not changed with any staff reductions. Analysis of the causes of complaints did reveal some complaints about policies and processes, some of which had changed to reflect national policy developments. In such cases, it was important that frontline officers provide appropriate explanations. It was also necessary to acknowledge that some complaints reflected an inherent tension between the function of a service and those affected, for example children’s social services. Good communication was key in addressing these types of complaints. The Committee also stressed that it believed that officers should be honest with the public at all times. If the Council was no longer able to provide a service, or had had to reduce the level of a service in response to government cuts, then it had to be clear about this and the reasons why.
Commenting on complaints linked to staff attitude, Irene Bremang noted that there were 90 such complaints made in 2016/2017. These complaints needed to be explored with the service as sometimes staff attitude was conflated with council policy. This issue was addressed in the action plan and each action represented a significant amount of work with departments. Councillor McLennan (Deputy Leader) advised that significant changes had been made in the organisation in recent years to set a corporate expectation regarding customer service and that such changes took time to embed. This work would be furthered by the introduction of new ways of working and the council’s Digital Strategy. The Customer Access Strategy had been subsumed by the Digital Strategy and Customer Engagement Strategy. Work to support these strategies was currently being undertaken regarding engaging vulnerable and hard to reach residents and communities. Councillor McLennan emphasised that the Cabinet regularly monitored complaints for each portfolio area.
During the discussion, officers confirmed that further information on the reasons for complaints not being dealt with within timescales would be compiled provided to the committee following the meeting.
RESOLVED:
i) That future complaints reports include benchmarking data for other authorities;
ii) That a report on complaints for Brent Housing Partnership be provided to the relevant scrutiny committee in six months’ time.
Supporting documents:
- Annual Complaints 16-17 Report, item 5. PDF 848 KB
- Appendix A, item 5. PDF 551 KB
- Appendix B, item 5. PDF 543 KB
- Appendix C, item 5. PDF 887 KB
- Appendix D, item 5. PDF 622 KB
- Appendix E, item 5. PDF 199 KB