Agenda item
Complaints annual report
This report provides members with information on how the council has dealt with complaints during 2011/12 and the impact of the revised 2 stage complaints procedure.
Minutes:
Phillip Mears, Corporate Complaints Manager informed the Committee that there were three separate complaints policies, a corporate policy which dealt with 90% of complaints and two social care policies for adult social care and children and families as governed by statute. It was clarified that the complaints covered in the reports were from residents, businesses and services users.
Phillip Mears explained that nine out of 10 complaints had been successfully resolved at the first stage of the complaints process with a complaints escalated to stages two and three reducing by 39% 26% respectively. It was reported that the Council had the best result in London in terms of the number of adverse Ombudsman decisions as a percentage of all decisions made. The Brent figure was 12% (nine complaints) having a finding of fault compared to the London average of 27% and a national average of 21%. There was an overall reduction of complaints received by 9% with a significant reduction in revenues and benefits and Brent housing partnership.
Phillip Mears reported that children and families received 181 complaints with 7% being escalated to stage two and adult social care receiving 115 complaints and only two escalating to stage two. The priorities for the next year included the implementation of the two stage process, one corporate complaints database and the addition of housing management complaints including the housing management ombudsman and tenant panels.
During queries from the members, it was clarified that service improvements were not necessarily always implemented following a complaint but managers were encouraged to capture lessons learnt as a result of negative feedback and where complaints were upheld, action was taken. It was highlighted that the response time for children and family and adult social care complaints was poor and it was noted that this had been recognised and an action plan had been developed in consultation with Director of Adult Social Care to build capacity and improve performance within the department. Additionally the new corporate database was being implemented that would help track outstanding responses and flag up overdue cases. Phillip Mears agreed to investigate why the on time response rate had dropped from 72% to 39% and report back to members.
It was queried what the compensation payments were for complaints settled at stage one. It was noted that individual case figures had not been provided within table four but Phillip Mears agreed to provide the information to members.
It was queried whether the list included complaints from Councillors. It was clarified that the list did not include complaints from Councillors and members expressed concern that potentially large number of resident complaints made through Councillors which were not included within the statics provided. It was noted that the new complaints database could potentially provide the information regarding Councillor complaints and Phillip Mears would take that back and investigate further.
It was noted that the amount of compensation regarding adult and social care complaints had increased despite the number of escalated complaints dropping. It was felt that this had occurred due to a few skewed cases however it was agreed that further information would be provided.
Members queried the similar priorities for adult social care and children and families and whether they should be service specific. It was clarified that the priorities were overarching for complaints in the department as a whole and three separate reports were required by law.
It was queried what impact the introduction of the two stage process was having and how the public were responding to not being able to take complaints to a third stage. Phillip Mears explained that in preparation for the implementation of the two stage procedure a series of workshops were carried out across the council to explore how the system would work. A corporate investigation standard was established which introduced the concept of investigation plans and made the service head responsible for the investigation and decision. The two stage process also encouraged staff to try and resolve complaints at the first point of contact. So far this year 10% of the 800 complaints received since April being resolved at first point of contact. Complainants would only be advised to approach the ombudsman if they were still dissatisfied after their complaint going through the two stages if the Corporate Complaints manager was satisfied t that the investigation had been carried out thoroughly and that no further action could be undertaken.
It was noted that the housing management complaints would come under the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman from April 2013... Complainants would be required to contact a member, MP or tenant panel for investigation prior to contact the ombudsman if they were still dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint investigation by the Council. It was thought that little resource would be available to members however, it was hoped that the evidence of how the complaint was handled would satisfy the member that the investigation was carried out thoroughly and that a member investigation would not be necessary.
Members queried how a more rounded view of public opinion could be explored. It was explained that residential surveys by Ipsos MORI were used however for beneficial feedback to be obtained, face to face feedback was best. It was noted that this was a costly exercise and would not be carried out unless considered a priority by members.
RESOLVED:-
that the report be noted
Supporting documents: