Agenda item

This report seeks to provide an overview of Brent's performance in handling and resolving complaints.

(Agenda republished to include this item on 15 April 2025).

Councillor Mili Patel (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources)  was invited to introduce a report providing a breakdown of complaints received by department and the top five issues of complaint for those respective departments. The report also provided a breakdown of the number of complaints that had been upheld, not upheld, partly upheld, rejected or withdrawn for each department, with further details provided in the appendices. In presenting the report, the Committee was informed that complaints served as important learning points for the Council, helping to shape the Council’s priorities in many different ways and enable the Council to make necessary changes to achieve and further its priorities. Complaints also offered an opportunity for the Council to understand issues and put things right, also ensuring that they did not reoccur.

The Housing Management Score was notably high, with a high number of stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. Specifically, 60% of stage 1 complaints were upheld, and 75% of stage 2 complaints were upheld, indicating that fault was found in these cases. The Housing Needs department had also received a significant number of complaints at both stages 1 and 2, followed by the Customer Access Team.

Although complaints regarding Adult Social Care and Children's Social Care followed separate statutory complaints procedures, both departments were still among the top six departments with the highest number of complaints received. It was reiterated that this data pertained to the period 2023 to 2024.

Having thanked Councillor Mili Patel for introducing the report, the Chair then moved on to invite questions and comments from the Committee in relation to the Complaints Annual Report 2023/24, with the following comments and issues discussed:

• As an initial query, members raised concerns regarding the high number of complaints around social work and communication, which accounted for over half of the complaints in 2023/2024 and the impact on performance and standards of care. Details were sought around the measures implemented to address this issue and improve future care experiences. In response, Claudia Brown (Director of Adult Social Care) acknowledged the concerns around communication, emphasising that the majority of complaints were related to inadequate updates on care plans, untimely processing, and lack of proactive follow-up. The initiatives undertaken to address these issues included targeting customer care through training programs for managers and social workers, introducing policies and procedures for responding to customers, with a standard operating model accessible to all staff since 2023, ensuring work practices were reinforced during supervision sessions, implementing training programs focused on general customer care and introducing standard letters to inform individuals of next steps and contact information post-assessment.

• Views were then sought regarding what lessons could be learned from a wider organisation perspective whether in terms of Adult Social Care (ASC) as an outlier with issues also noted in relation to the complaints upheld involving the contact centre, localities, and Looked After Children (LAC). In response, Claudia Brown (Director of Adult Social Care) advised that she did not regard ASC as an outlier, as indicated by the medium range of complaints in the adult social care report. It was noted that the majority of complaints related to service failure, predominantly in commissioning services, and communication issues. The need for improvement was emphasised, highlighting the importance of providing appropriate responses to customers. The volume of complaints was also contextualised, with it being noted that ASC served approximately 4000 service users.

• Clarification was sought as to whether the complaints received by ASC were related to recruitment and retention of staff. In response, Claudia Brown (Director of Adult Social Care) confirmed that the complaints were not significantly related to recruitment and retention of staff. Issues with timely responses and handover delays were acknowledged but it was emphasised that most complaints were related to communication. A number of measures to address these issues were cited, including ensuring thorough communication post-assessment, implementing templates for standard letters and monitoring complaints and developing customer care posts to improve communication.

• Details were sought on wider learning in relation to performance around communication.  Councillor Mili Patel (Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Finance & Resources) agreed on the need to improve communication but did not feel this represented a chronic issue. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People, and Community Development) added that while there were 41 stage 1 complaints, the number was relatively low compared to the total number of children in care (300), care leavers (600), and open cases (3000). The challenging nature of social work and the impact of difficult decisions on families was highlighted, which often led to complaints about communication. Martin Stollery (Principal Complaints Investigator) further emphasised the importance of record-keeping to address disputes about communication. It was noted that clear records and detailed notes facilitated responses to residents' concerns and highlighted the practice of recording calls through the contact centre.

• Details were sought around whether there was a system in place where verbal communication was supplemented with written confirmation as part of the process. In response, Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People, and Community Development) informed the Committee of the use of the Mosaic case recording system, which provided opportunities for case note recording with families or children. Members heard that one of the practice promises was that information should be recorded in the Mosaic system to reflect discussions held, though it was acknowledged that there were situations where records were not maintained, and in such cases, complaints investigations often found in favour of the complainant due to the lack of documentation with the need to ensure information was accurately recorded reiterated.

• Members further inquired whether, as a matter of course, verbal communications were confirmed in writing, considering the potential for misunderstandings and language barriers. In response, Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People, and Community Development) noted that it was not always practical to confirm all conversations in writing. While communications were largely documented, staff also used work phones for informal communication methods preferred by young people, such as WhatsApp messages. It was acknowledged that in more contentious situations, social workers provided written confirmations to mitigate the risk of disputes. The importance of recording significant communications, especially in cases where there might be disputes with parents, was highlighted. Claudia Brown (Director of Adult Social Care) further added that under Adult Social Care, significant communication events were added to the client database, and staff were expected to update the database within 24 hours of a visit. It was noted that complaints often arose from failures to follow through on promises or untimely responses. The importance of timely communication and providing individuals with information about what to expect after interactions with social workers was emphasised. The introduction of the "Waiting Well" process was additionally highlighted to address issues related to long waiting lists.

• The Chair questioned whether there were additional measures from Adult Social Care that other departments could adopt to address similar issues. In response, Martin Stollery (Principal Complaints Investigator) emphasised the importance of record-keeping across all departments. It was noted that significant communications should be uploaded to databases rather than being stored in individual email accounts. The need for a cultural shift towards better record-keeping was stressed to ensure continuity of information, even where officers left the organisation. Amira Nassr (Deputy Director Democratic and Corporate Governance) further highlighted the importance of following through on actions set out in stage 1 and stage 2 complaints to prevent escalation. It was noted that ensuring actions were completed as promised was crucial to managing complaints effectively.

• Members sought clarification as to the responsible persons for checking whether visits had been made, if clients had been responded to in a reasonable time, and whether there was a process for recording visits and management-level checks. In response, Claudia Brown (Director of Adult Social Care) explained that there was a process in place through management supervision. During supervision, caseloads and any complaints were reviewed. All complaints were signed off by the Heads of Service, ensuring that the process was followed and complaints were addressed appropriately.

• Members were keen to seek details around addressing issues to avoid complaints and inquired about the potential for a technological solution. In response, Claudia Brown (Director of Adult Social Care) reiterated the introduction of standard letters to inform customers of what to expect post-assessments. It was noted that this initiative aimed to reduce complaints by providing clear communication and setting expectations. This approach was anticipated to enhance communication and reduce complaints over time. Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People, and Community Development) further mentioned the use of Power BI dashboards within the service area which tracked casework information, flagging overdue assessments and visits. The system enabled team managers to monitor their team's casework and ensured that key performance indicators (KPIs) were met. Members were reassured that tracking systems were in place to address issues.

• Members raised concerns regarding the rise in complaints about the commissioning and marketing of services in Adult Social Care, noting that paragraph 5.5 indicated an increase from 15 to 31 complaints. Details were sought around how teams were working with service providers to address these concerns and ensure that feedback from residents and their families was being incorporated to meet expected standards. In response, Claudia Brown (Director of Adult Social Care) detailed that all providers on the framework had undergone a robust process to be included. The commissioning service monitored these providers rigorously, with placement officers conducting regular visits to ensure compliance with requirements. Social workers raised service concerns if a provider was not delivering as expected or where complaints were received from customers. Common complaints included carers arriving late, which were addressed through the commissioning team. If issues persisted, a provider concern process was followed, working with the provider to improve service delivery.

• The Chair sought clarity around the factors behind the rise in complaints as noted in the report, which highlighted issues such as care package decisions, assessment delays, and providers not arriving on time or starting services late. In response, Claudia Brown (Director of Adult Social Care) acknowledged the issues highlighted and noted that improvements had been made in starting services through a clear process with commission brokers. A new database was being developed to monitor complaints against specific providers, allowing for more prompt and effective responses. The provider concern process varied based on the situation, with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) being informed where there were significant concerns. The process would take approximately 3 to 6 months, and if improvements were not made, it was reported that the CQC could take action.

• Questions were raised around the frequency of placement officer visits, the turnaround time given to providers, and how delays in assessments were being tackled. In response, Claudia Brown (Director of Adult Social Care) informed that a new process for prompt Care Act assessments was being introduced, ensuring that individuals received some degree of support pending a comprehensive assessment. The new database was anticipated to help monitor and respond to complaints against providers more closely. It was also noted that the provider concern process was individualised, with the CQC being involved in significant cases.

• Members noted two partially upheld complaints regarding commissioning for Children and Young People (CYP) and requested further details regarding the complaints. In response, Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People, and Community Development) informed that the specific details of the individual complaints were not immediately available at the meeting but offered to provide a brief written update for the Committee.

• Members sought further details on the recurring themes or issues identified in stage 2 or stage 3 complaints and whether these were systemic issues within CYP. In response, Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People, and Community Development) noted that the issues were small in number, with themes including support for care leavers and ensuring care leavers understood their eligibility for services. Several issues were attributed to a transient staff group of personal advisers with efforts highlighted to recruit and retain a permanent workforce. Disputes between parents and the role of social workers in such situations, which sometimes led to complaints, were also conveyed.

• As a further issue raised, members inquired about complaints regarding direct payments in CYP and whether these were related to cuts in provision, expressing concern about potential increases in complaints next year. In response, Nigel Chapman (Corporate Director Children, Young People, and Community Development) clarified that the complaints were not related to cuts but to a more stringent approach to determining eligibility for services. The focus was on delivering services efficiently and reviewing care and support packages to ensure appropriate use of resources. It was also noted that support for children with disabilities had been growing significantly. Financial pressures and the need to spend money prudently was also acknowledged.

• Members sought examples of changes driven by complaints that resulted in procedural and process improvements, leading to a reduction in complaints from 2024-25. In response, Martin Stollery (Principal Complaints Investigator) drew attention to the appendices within the committee report, which listed service improvements arising from stage 2 complaints and outlined a number of examples in support.

• The Chair raised questions regarding the substantial number of complaints about Wates' performance in relation to housing repairs and inquired about contract monitoring, with a suggestion being made to invite the Housing Services Team and Wates to a future meeting for further discussion. In response, Martin Stollery (Principal Complaints Investigator) noted that Housing Services was best placed to address this issue but highlighted the expectation that contracts include clear requirements regarding complaints. It was suggested that the clauses of the contract should allow for recouping compensation from contractors such as Wates where complaints were upheld. It was indicated that this recommendation had been flagged to housing management for consideration.

• Members observed a notable increase in compensation payouts and requested further information on the reasons for the increase and measures taken to reduce payouts, particularly within the scope of resident services. In response, Martin Stollery (Principal Complaints Investigator) clarified that the increase in total compensation from 2022-23 to 2023-24 was approximately 7%. It was emphasised that the focus should not be on reducing compensation payouts but on dealing fairly with each individual case. The complaints service followed guidelines issued by the Ombudsman to remedy complaints appropriately with the emphasis on addressing the underlying issues. In continuing the response, Amira Nassr (Deputy Director Democratic and Corporate Governance) explained, as an example, that the Complaints team held regular meetings with housing management to identify trends and patterns in complaints which allowed the service to be made aware of areas with significant payouts and to implement necessary service improvements. Martin Stollery (Principal Complaints Investigator) further added that compensation payments for housing needs were increasing, and complaints were a standing item in Senior Management Team (SMT) meetings, ensuring ongoing dialogue regarding these issues.

• Members referenced paragraph 1.6 of the committee report, noting a 14% increase in stage 2 complaints, and requested additional context around this increase. In response, Martin Stollery (Principal Complaints Investigator) identified two key drivers: the housing crisis, leading to a year-on-year increase in housing needs stage 2 complaints and compensation payments, and the increased visibility of the Housing Ombudsman following the Rochdale case. The Housing Ombudsman had raised awareness among residents about their right to complain, enhancing the profile of housing management-related complaints. Amira Nassr (Deputy Director Democratic and Corporate Governance) further advised that when complaints were upheld, it did not necessarily imply that the Council had not initially upheld the complaint. The Ombudsman might also uphold the complaint, which could potentially skew the statistics.

• Details were sought around the mechanisms in place to ensure feedback from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) or Housing Ombudsman was acted upon and monitored to prevent recurrence of issues. In response, Martin Stollery (Principal Complaints Investigator) confirmed that all decisions from the Ombudsman were entered into the complaints database and circulated to relevant officers and Corporate Directors. Each recommendation was assigned a timescale, as expected by the Ombudsman, and a specific officer was designated to lead on completing the action. Evidence of completion was required to be uploaded to the database and sent to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance. Weekly reports were circulated to senior managers, highlighting any actions not completed within the specified timeframe, ensuring a rigorous process for compliance.

• Members questioned the extent to which complaints related to housing were due to misinformation or lack of correct information. In response, Martin Stollery (Principal Complaints Investigator) noted that there had been significant staff turnover in housing needs, leading to escalated complaints due to issues with communication relating to homeless applicants and had resulted in a lack of continuity and delays in casework. It was acknowledged that the situation was now improving with a more settled workforce. Poor communication and failure to follow up were identified as key issues, with specific legislative timescales for each stage of the homeless application not being met. These issues had been fed back to Housing Needs and incorporated into their improvement plans.

• The Chair sought details around whether there were any departments that were not responsive to the systems in place for in-year monitoring of complaints and the need for clearer improvement plans. In response, Amira Nassr (Deputy Director Democratic and Corporate Governance) advised of the engagement being undertaken with departments and noted, as an example, the implementation of a housing improvement plan. The responsiveness of senior managers and the importance of seeing the outcomes of these efforts was highlighted. The challenges posed by the housing crisis and temporary accommodation was acknowledged and no other areas of significant concern were identified. Members heard that specific interventions were in place to address cultural changes and improve responsiveness.

In seeking to bring consideration of the item to a close, the Chair thanked officers and members for their contributions towards scrutiny of Complaints Annual Report 2023/24. As a result of the outcome of the discussion, the following suggestions for improvement identified were AGREED:

Suggestions for Improvements

(1)  Explore arrangements with third-party providers that enable the council to recover costs incurred from compensation paid out as a result of complaints related to their services.

(2)  That representatives from Wates and senior officers from Residents and Housing Services attend the committee meeting on 16 July 2025 to address questions related to the Housing Management Complaints Annual Report 2023/2024

Please note that recommendations, suggestions for improvement and information requests  may be subject to finalisation or refinement following the meeting, with the agreement of the Chair.