Agenda item

This report provides an overview of complaints received by the Council during the period April 2015 to March 2016. High level data for the past 3 years has been included where available for the purpose of comparison.  Departmental/service area analysis has been provided for the 2015 – 2016 operational year (based on the current structure). 

Peter Gadsdon (the Council’s Director of Performance, Policy and Partnerships) introduced the report which provided the Committee with an overview of complaints received by the Council between April 2015 and March 2016. He explained the different stages to the complaints process according to the complaint type and a summary of the corporate complaints process (first stage followed by second stage, before being escalated to the Local Government Ombudsman). It was noted that the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee would hear greater detail about Adult Social Care, Children and Young People and Brent Housing Partnership Complaints (attached as appendices to the report).  

Peter Gadsdon emphasised the headline statistics from within the report which were that the number of overall complaints and referrals to the Local Government Ombudsman had decreased, however the number of stage two cases had increased alongside a higher level of compensation being paid by the Council to complainants. He stated that it was a key aim for the Council to improve on resolving issues at the first stage of the complaints process. The Committee noted page 46 of the agenda pack which outlined that the highest number of first stage complaints had arisen from the Regeneration and Environment directorate, however these were usually the most straightforward to resolve. Peter Gadsdon stated that complaints relating to BHP were also at a high level but were often considerably more complex. The Committee was directed to the table under point 3.22 of the report to give an overview of the most common reasons for complaints to arise within the different service areas. Peter Gadsdon concluded that, on the whole, the Council had been doing a lot of things right as the number of complaints had decreased overall however it was still a priority to address the number of stage two complaints and learn from the mistakes in not satisfactorily dealing with issues at the first stage. 

A Member of the Committee questioned the extent to which the Council fed back complaints data to respective departments on any patterns that had emerged and how plans were drawn up to address them quickly. Peter Gadsdon stated that the Council had developed various ways in which to do this. This included working closely with Strategic Directors and Heads of Service in regularly reviewing complaints data, with the data also being discussed at Corporate Management Team meetings on a quarterly basis. He also noted that the Council had recently introduced ‘portfolio meetings’ with Lead Cabinet Members to look at complaints data from within their portfolio. Peter Gadsdon noted that a clear recent example of the Council being receptive to complaints was the recent review of Housing Management Options which had been in part initiated by the noticeable levels of complaints originating from Brent Housing Partnership tenants and leaseholders.

Questions arose from a Member on what the Council’s plans were for reducing the level of compensation being paid out to complainants. Peter Gadsdon outlined that the Local Government Ombudsman set the framework for levels of compensation recommended according to the complaint type. This was factored in to what the Council prepared and then proposed to pay out if necessary when a complaint had been escalated. He stated that this arrangement usually resulted in the Ombudsman agreeing with the Council’s proposed compensation package to complainants. The Committee heard that it was this Ombudsman framework which guided the compensation levels being paid out by the Council.

A question arose on the report specifying that the baseline satisfaction rate from email responses was often lower than telephone responses, which may represent a problem for the Community Access Strategy’s plans to have more residents using online services. Peter Gadsdon responded by stating that, as was mentioned in the Community Access Strategy item, the ideal situation would be a move to online workflow forms with drop down menus relating to the issue being raised by the resident. This would ensure that the email would be directed to the correct team and allow them to be dealt with quicker and more satisfactorily.

RESOLVED that the Committee notes:

(i)         The Council’s performance in managing and resolving complaints;

(ii)        The actions being taken to improve response times to complaints and reduce the number of complaints which escalate to stage 2; and

(iii)       The ongoing measures to improve services as a result of complaints and improve the customer experience.